1952-04-21

Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: I should like to make a short statement regarding the treatment of Canadians in China.
The house will wish to know that the United Kingdom charge d'affaires in Peking today presented a note to the Chinese viceminister of foreign affairs on behalf of and with the approval of the governments of Canada, Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States, regarding the treatment accorded their nationals in China.
The note referred to previous communications on this subject which had expressed grave concern for the widespread arrests and frequent detention incommunicado of foreign nationals, and also drew attention to the hardships suffered by persons who were prevented or delayed from leaving China. The note pointed out that new arrests had taken place and listed the names of fifty-five United Kingdom, Canadian, Australian and United States citizens who are now understood to be in jail. In addition, there is an undetermined number of persons who are understood to be undergoing one form or another of house arrest.
The United Kingdom charge d'affaires has asked the Chinese ministry of foreign affairs for information regarding the charges against those persons who have been arrested, the sentences, if any, which have been passed upon them, and their present whereabouts and welfare. He has also asked for facilities to enable him to communicate with them.
Of the fifty-five, seven Canadians are known to be imprisoned. They are Bishop Cuthbert O'Gara, Bishop Gustave Prevost, Sister Ste. Marie-Germaine, Sister Ste. Alphonse du Redempteur, Sister Raymonde Marie, Father Eugene Lauzon, Father Arsenius Mullin.
Reports received during the past eighteen months from individuals leaving China had indicated that Canadians had not in general been physically maltreated, although some had been subjected to imprisonment and to the humiliation and indignities of what we
would call mock "trials". We are therefore greatly shocked to learn of the death of Father Joseph Leon Arcand at the Franciscan mission hospital at Chefoo on February 8. He had been serving a six months' jail sentence and was brought in a deplorable condition to the hospital where he died shortly after his admission. This is the first case which has come to our attention in which there is reason to believe that the death of a Canadian missionary has been caused or hastened by serious neglect or maltreatment on the part of the Chinese communist authorities.
The fate of the five Sisters of the Immaculate Conception who were tried publicly in Canton on December 2, 1951, has of course been a continuing cause for anxiety. I know all Canadians were relieved to learn that the three sentenced to deportation had reached Hong Kong safely on February 28. However, when we received a first-hand account of their ordeal we were profoundly shocked by the deliberately callous treatment meted out to the sisters, apparently for the purpose of discrediting western humanitarian institutions in China. It seems to be the long-term policy of the Peking government to expel all western missionaries from China, or to make their lives so difficult that they will leave the country. In fact there has been a steady exodus from China of missionaries of all nationalities. According to our information, only 145 Canadians remain in China today, of whom about 100 are missionaries.
I know all hon. members share the concern of the government for the safety and well-being of Canadian missionaries in China and will be glad to be assured that everything within our means will continue to be done to assist them until they can get out.


Mr. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: I am sure that all members of this house share the concern felt by the government as to the plight of Canadians who have been serving in China. We welcome the information we have received which is of a reassuring nature, but learn with great regret of the death the Prime Minister has reported. Canadians will be shocked to learn of the circumstances under which this occurred, and will hope it may be possible, by joint action of the governments associated in the defence of our free way of life, to obtain assurances from the communist government that those now in prison will be
1424	HOUSE OF
National Defence-Irregularities released. I am sure no member of this house and no loyal Canadian believes for one moment that the charges preferred against these representatives of various religious bodies have any foundation whatever in fact.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Hon. Brooke Claxton (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, following the discovery and investigation of grave irregularities in the engineer detachment at Petawawa camp, charges have been laid in the civil court against five civilians and one service officer, and it is expected that further charges will be laid. Mr. J. W. Pickup, Q.C., of Toronto, has been appointed by the Department of Justice as special counsel in these cases.
In view of the rule that a member while speaking must not refer to any matter on which a judicial decision is pending, I shall not refer to that aspect; but hon. members will recognize that this matter has two aspects, one, criminal, with which the courts will deal, and the other, administrative. I am sure the house will permit me to report on the situation and what I am doing to rectify it.
The irregularities first came to the attention of the department several months ago and arose out of the disposal of scrap under contracts made by Crown Assets Disposal Corporation for the sale of thirty tons in 1950 and fifteen tons in 1951.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: On what date was it first ascertained that there was any trouble?


Brooke Claxton: In October, 1951. An investigation was started immediately, and it was found that under cover of these contracts about 380 additional tons were taken out. Had all the material illegally taken been scrap, it would have had a value of about $9,000, but it included some used shower stalls, stoves, wash sinks ami steel rails. The shower stalls, stoves ana shiks had been salvaged when replaced with new equipment or when old wartime buildings had been taken down. They had not yet been declared surplus pending a further survey to determine which of these items might be useful on a temporary basis. So far as ascertained, the only new material removed was some 600 lengths of soil pipe having a value of about $6 per length. Seizures have been mace or the


material that has been traced, and a considerable part of it should be recovered. It also included a used weighing scale and shovel boom, but these have been recovered.
The investigation has disclosed no foundation for the reports alleging irregularities and deficiencies in the construction of buildings in the twenty-two major construction projects under way at Petawawa. However, other irregularities were found arising out of the employment of engineer civilian and service personnel and equipment, and these are still being investigated by the R.C.M.P. and provost corps. These irregularities also included the sale to contractors of some timber and gravel in the camp area.
It is not possible yet to estimate accurately the loss to the public caused by these irregularities so far discovered, but from the reports so far made it would appear that the total loss to the public may be as much as $50,000. Reports so far indicate that no personnel are involved outside of the engineer detachment at Petawawa and the employees of the civilian contractors.
In addition to the investigation being continued by the R.C.M.P. and the provost corps, I have engaged Mr. George S. Currie, chartered accountant of Montreal, a former deputy minister of national defence, to make a full investigation of the situation, security and accounting procedure for engineer stores, equipment and services at Petawawa and elsewhere; his powers and terms of reference have no restrictions whatever. Everything possible will be done to get to the bottom of this situation and take such action and adopt such remedies as may be required.
In conclusion I would like to add that if in the course of its work the select committee on defence expenditure would like to look into the stockkeeping, accounting or auditing procedure, or any other matter relating to its work, on the spot and anywhere, all facilities will be provided.
THEFT OF STORES AND OTHER IRREGULARITIES-* MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT UNDER STANDING ORDER 31


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, since the subject has been introduced at this time, and since hon. members are anxious to know as much as they can about the circumstances which have been disclosed, I feel I should point out that it is not within the competence of the minister or of any other member of this house to vary the terms of reference of a committee which has been set up to discuss defence expenditure. Therefore I ask leave to move, seconded by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker), under

standing order 31, the adjournment of the house for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the necessity for an immediate inquiry into the administration, and especially the accounting methods, of the Department of National Defence, the laxity of which has been revealed by the wholesale looting of military property, and by continuing incidents such as:
(a)	the looting and disappearance of the Farnham military training centre down to and including the buildings, disclosed as early as December, 1949;
(b)	the theft of stores and paints reported by the member for Peterborough West (Mr. Fraser) to the Minister of National Defence and the Minister of Justice, and the failure on the part of such ministers to take effective action upon the information which they had received;
(c)	the theft by carload lots of hundreds of tons of supplies including such military equipment, according to press reports, as a baby tank;
(d)	the theft of property at various military establishments throughout Canada, with the revelation that officers had been ordering men under their command to assist in acts of theft and fraud;
(e)	fraudulent government inspection of military property;
(f)	the outbreak of incendiary fires in military storehouses, significantly timed in such a way that they could have hidden the extent of any looting and thefts which had taken place in these storehouses.


Mr. Speaker:: May I refer hon. members to standing order 31, under which this motion is made. It reads:
Leave to make a motion for the adjournment of the house (when made for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance) must be asked after the ordinary daily routine of business has been concluded and before notices of motions or orders of the day are entered upon.
The ordinary daily routine of business has not been concluded, and even if I considered the motion in order I could not accept it at this time. May I also mention that I have received a similar notice of motion from the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Her-ridge), who no doubt proposes to move it at a later stage. His motion is not as lengthy as this one, but it is along similar lines.
It occurs to me that this matter can be discussed in the near future. It is a very important matter, but the motion must relate to something which has occurred in the immediate past. The motion before the house refers to incidents which took place some time ago. The matter must be one of such
National Defence-Irregularities urgency that the regular proceedings of the house should be interrupted because there will not be an opportunity of discussing the subject in the near future.
If I recall correctly, on the last day the house sat it was decided that tomorrow we would proceed with the debate on the budget. No doubt that debate will continue for a number of days, and ample opportunity will be given at that time to discuss this question. The motion has not been made at the proper time and I will have to rule that the motion cannot be considered at this time in the day's proceedings. Even if it were in order I could not allow the motion to stand on the ground of urgency.


George Alexander Drew: At the moment I am not questioning the ruling, Mr. Speaker; but if it were merely a question of complying with the timing of the motion I could read it again. Do I understand that the ruling is that it could not be presented again after the introduction of bills?


Mr. Speaker:: I thought I should decide that question now. I quite understand the purport of what the leader of the opposition has been saying-that he could introduce 'the motion at a later stage. I thought I should point out now that even if that were done I could not allow the motion to stand. The matter is not of such urgency that the regular proceedings of the house should be disturbed because there will not be an opportunity in the near future to discuss it. As I have said, the debate on the budget will commence tomorrow, when there will be ample opportunity to discuss this question.


George Alexander Drew: In view of the fact that you have expressed your opinion, sir, in regard to the time at which the resolution was introduced, I might explain the purport and content of the resolution itself by saying that I introduced it at this time because the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) had introduced the subject. I wonder if, in view of the ruling, Your Honour is willing to hear any views as to the reason why this matter should be discussed at this time.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not think I could do that, but I think I should allow the leader of the opposition, if he feels so disposed, to ask further questions of the Minister of National Defence with regard to this matter. He could do so now, or when the orders of the day are called.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to table the

Criminal Code
budgets of the Canadian National Railways and the Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships, Limited, for the calendar year 1952.



CRIMINAL CODE


Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. 180, to amend the Criminal Code and the Combines Investigation Act (liability of directors).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Hazen Robert Argue: The purpose of this bill is to strengthen both the Criminal Code and the Combines Investigation Act in preventing monopolistic practices in trade and business by providing for a penalty to be imposed not only on the corporation but also on any director or officer who assents to or acquiesces in such trade practices. As the law now stands, only the corporation is liable for an offence committed under these two acts. This bill would in effect therefore make a director or officer of that corporation guilty of that offence personally and therefore liable, along with the corporation, to penalties as provided under the law.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the motion I have already asked leave to move,
I do not wish a ruling made which is related to the time of its introduction; therefore, I propose to ask leave now to move the same resolution. If it is Your Honour's wish or the wish of the house, I could read it, or the resolution could be taken as originally read. I wish to present it at this time in the same form so that the decision will be made directly on the resolution and not on any question as to the time of its introduction. Does Your Honour wish me to read the resolution again?


Some hon. Members:: Dispense.


George Alexander Drew: May I say, in presenting the resolution at this time, that the debate on the budget relates to the budget itself, and that the leave I have asked is that this house adjourn for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the continuing of the looting of public property. I submit that this is not

covered by the announcement made today, and there should be an opportunity in this house to discuss a situation which is of great concern to every Canadian at a time when half of the budget which will be under consideration is being placed under a department which has disclosed its inability over several years to protect the property which it already possesses.


Mr. Speaker:: Any motion for adjournment of the house for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance is made at this stage in the proceedings. The house has heard the motion. May I point out that it refers to a number of incidents, one of which dates back to 1949 and has already been considered in this house. I believe that some of the other matters referred to have also been considered in this house. The motion could not therefore be allowed to stand. It does not relate to matters which have taken place in the immediate past. They must be of recent occurrence. (See Beau-chesne, third edition, paragraph 176).
I might also point out that the house will be considering the budget tomorrow, and the debate on the budget will probably continue for some time. In the budget debate it is not the practice of members to confine their remarks to the details of the budget. In fact, as hon. members will recall, almost any subject which is not before the house is debated at that time. As the leader of the opposition has said, the matter is an extremely important one but it is not one of urgency according to the definition of the word "urgency" which we must give it under this rule.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Speaker:: Did I understand that the house was prepared to consider today the Prime Minister's motion with regard to redistribution?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Knowles:: Can the Prime Minister say now or tell us soon when the time taken today on government business will be made up so far as private members' motions are concerned?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: When the house was about to adjourn for the Easter recess I said that if we took the time today for public business I thought it would be fair to take, on a day that would otherwise be devoted to public business, an equal amount of time for the business of private members, but that it would have to be done in such a way as not to inconvenience or disturb the arrangements being made for public business.

I think all hon. members would regard it as fair if, within as short a time as possible, there was made up the time for private members' business that would be taken today on the motion for readjustment of the membership of the house; but I think we would have to give consideration to the other business before the house in order to fit it in in such a manner as to cause the least inconvenience.



GERM WARFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: I should like to direct a question, either to the Prime Minister or to the Minister of Justice, about the dastardly statement alleged to have been made by Dr. Endicott in regard to the use of germ warfare in Korea and Canada's participation in the production of the means for carrying on germ warfare. Has there been any investigation to determine whether or not these alleged statements were made? Is such an investigation now being made, and what is the intention of the government with regard to a matter as serious and as dangerous to world peace as were those alleged statements?


Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice):: I was in the west during the Easter recess, and returned to my office only this morning.
I have not yet received from the mounted police any report concerning this particular episode. I might add, however, that the activities of such men as Dr. Endicott are kept under surveillance. I have no doubt that this matter has been investigated and that the report concerning it will come forward in due course. When it does, I shall be glad) to make a statement.



QUESTION AS TO PRICE ASSISTANCE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. G. Blair (Lanark):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Will he make a statement on the assistance to be given to the cheese producing industry? Will the assistance given to them bring the price in line with that of the concentrated milk producers who are at present receiving $3.30 on local sales?


Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture):: I think it has been decided in the courts that questions having to do with the price of milk are under the jurisdiction of the provincial governments. The question of cheese and milk in general has, I think, 55704-91J
Inquiries of the Ministry been fairly well taken care of by the government of Ontario. As to cheese production and other related problems, they are dealt with accordingly.


Mr. White (Haslings-Peterborough):: I should like to ask the minister a supplementary question. Did I understand him to say that there will be no floor price with regard to cheese?


James Garfield Gardiner: I am not in a position to say whether there will or will not be. I understand that in Ontario there is an established price under provincial law. I do not know that anything we would do about it would override that law.



FLYING SAUCERS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. W. Noseworfhy (York South):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Will he make a statement to the house on the news report to the effect that jet planes were engaged last night in chasing flying saucers over southwestern Ontario?


Lionel Chevrier: I take it that my hon. friend's question is predicated upon the assumption that flying saucers exist. I am not in a position to say that they do. I know, however, that the planes over which I have jurisdiction in the Department of Transport were not chasing flying saucers in southwestern Ontario or in any other part of Canada.


Joseph William Noseworthy: Then may I direct the question to the Minister of National Defence.


Brooke Claxton: This report was drawn to my attention. I looked into it and find that it almost certainly refers to an ordinary service flight of an R.A.F. Canberra plane across Canada and the middle west of the United States at a speed of something of the order of 500 miles an hour.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. William Bryce (Selkirk):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. Have the employees of the income tax department at Toronto been granted a five-day week? If so, will the employees at the income tax office at Winnipeg and other regional offices be granted the same work week?
1428	HOUSE OF
Redistribution Committee Hon. J. J. McCann (Minister of National Revenue): I have not had any notice of the question which the hon. member has asked. In some of the offices throughout Canada the five-day week prevails. As to other offices, consideration is being given to the matter of the five-day week. The office in Winnipeg will be given that consideration.



SUPPORT PRICES FOR CATTLE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. Ross (Souris):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture with respect to a statement made by his parliamentary assistant on April 9 as to support prices for beef. Have the various provincial embargoes been cleared so that the support price is now operative, and does the support price now operate in the various markets throughout this nation?


James Garfield Gardiner: Like many other hon. members here, I returned to the city only this morning after the week end. There has not been a council meeting since I came back to Ottawa but I expect that tomorrow I shall be able to make a complete statement on that question. If the hon. member will permit me to do so, I will deal with the matter then.


James Arthur Ross: That is fine.



REDISTRIBUTION


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, April 9, consideration of the motion of Mr. St. Laurent for the appointment of a special committee on readjustment of the representation in the House of Commons.
Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, this motion was called just a few minutes before the house rose for the Easter recess, and I spoke briefly upon it. On looking over the report in Hansard of what I said at that time, I feel that there is not much that I could now add. It would not be proper for me to repeat anything I said then, and I do not think it would be particularly useful to elaborate on it. There is, however, one aspect of the matter about which I should like to take just a few moments of the time of the house, and that is with regard to the form of the resolution on the order paper.
Hon. members will recall that I tried to make it as clear as possible that I was not [Mr Bryce.]

presenting this motion as one on which I would ask those who usually support the government to support my views, but was doing so to provide an opportunity for hon. members to express their own convictions in the light of the responsibility they felt they had the country and to their own constituents with respect to fair representation in the House of Commons. I stated then-and I wish to repeat it-that I tried to draft a motion that would allow all the views that hon. members might entertain on that subject to find expression in this house, but that I was not prepared to put forward a motion that went beyond what I myself would feel it possible for me to support. Therefore I had not presented a motion which would restrict the diminution in representation of any one province to 10 per cent, because that was something which I personally could not support, in view of the fact that it would conserve to Saskatchewan a larger representation than Alberta would obtain, though Saskatchewan at the present time has, according to the last census, a smaller population than Alberta; and also because it would increase the floor of Newfoundland over that of the other maritime provinces; but a restriction in the diminution at any one readjustment of 15 per cent would not have at this time any such undesirable feature.
The motion was drawn for the purpose of restoring to the constitution a provision that was in it originally to temper to some extent the rigidity of the principle of representation by population when there had been rather a small change in the relative population of the provinces. It was felt, though that had been the intention of the one-twentieth provision in the original constitution; that the one-twentieth provision had operated only between two successive censuses, and the consequence had been that there had arisen a disproportion of more than one-twentieth over a period of more than that between two censuses, and that that disproportion was not taken into account. Therefore I tried, in drafting this motion, to make it clear that there would be no such possibility here, and that every time the restriction of 15 per cent applied it would be upon what the representation of the provinces would have been under the rules of section 51 as they stand.
Just to illustrate: under this new principle, if it were adopted, though Saskatchewan would otherwise see its representation reduced by 25 per cent, it would not be reduced by more than 15 per cent. But if there were no change in the situation at the next census, the 15 per cent would apply not to the membership of seventeen that would be saved to Saskatchewan at this time under this rule, but would apply to the membership

of 15 which it would have according to the strict application of the rules in section 51 of the British North America Act. That is the explanation for the language used in this draft resolution:
(a) to provide that the representation of any province in the House of Commons on the readjustment of the representation of the provinces therein on the completion of each decennial census including that for the year 1951 shall not be reduced by more than 15 per cent below the representation to which such province was entitled under rules 1 to 4, inclusive, in subsection (1) of section 51 of the British North America Act . . .
So that if the situation were to remain-


Stanley Howard Knowles: At the last preceding census.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: At the census that is being considered for the purpose of the readjustment. Under this language, if it is adopted, you would find out what the representation would be, and you would find out what the representation was under rules 1 to 4 of section 51. The last time that was 20 for Saskatchewan. You would apply the 15 per cent to 20, and that would mean that it could be a reduction of three, but not more than three. If there were no change in the trend, and the same situation repeated itself the next time, you would apply the 15 per cent to 15 and not to 17, because 17 would be the number not in accord with the rules, but something saved by the new principle.
Even that might not always overcome the intolerable situation of giving one province with a smaller population a larger representation than another province with a larger population. At the present time Saskatchewan has a larger population than Manitoba, but during the last ten years Manitoba's population increased by 5 [DOT] 8 per cent. If that situation were to continue up to the time of the next census it would mean that the population of Manitoba would be about 45,000 more than it is at the present time-it would be somewhere around 821,000. If there continued, which I think is unlikely, to be a diminution in the population of Saskatchewan -during this decade it was a diminution of 7 [DOT] 5 per cent; even if it were a diminution of only one-third of that, or 2-5 per cent, it would mean that the population of the province would not be equal to Manitoba's 821,000. Nevertheless, by applying the 15 per cent rule to both provinces without any qualification whatever, Manitoba could be reduced from 14 to 12, and Saskatchewan only from 15 to 13, because 15 per cent of their respective representations would bring about that limitation.
Well, in that event the suggestion for the committee to consider is whether it should not provide that Manitoba could not be reduced-if its population were equal to or
Redistribution Committee greater than that of Saskatchewan-below the representation of Saskatchewan.


John George Diefenbaker: Will the Prime Minister permit a question? Was there any representation from the legislature of Saskatchewan that the 10 per cent figure should apply? Has there been any consultation with any of the other provinces in regard to the resolution which was introduced in the legislature by Mr. Tucker, the leader of the opposition in Saskatchewan, and passed unanimously? Has there been any consultation with the other provinces as to the acceptance of the unanimous recommendation of the legislature of Saskatchewan?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: As to the first question, representations have been made to the federal government that there was this unanimous resolution passed by the legislature of Saskatchewan. As to the second question, there has been no consultation by the federal government with the other provinces. The hon. member realizes that that is the position this party has always taken-that representation of the people in the House of Commons is not a matter which concerns the governments of the provinces but is a matter which concerns the people of Canada and their representatives in parliament.
The reason for my finding it impossible to put forward the proposal that was made in the legislature of Saskatchewan was that that would result in giving Saskatchewan, with a smaller population, a larger representation than Alberta. The house, of course, is free to do that, if a majority wishes to do it; but I would not be able to support it, and since it is something I cannot support, I cannot put it in the proposal which appears under my name on the order paper.
Personally I do not think this trend is apt to continue; I think the population of Manitoba is apt to increase at a greater rate than 5-8 per cent, which was its increase during the last decade. I think the population of Saskatchewan is going to reverse the trend and that in future it will increase rather than diminish. But, as I say, if this is to be provided as a rule to apply to future readjustments, we should guard against what theoretically could happen, so that if there was the same trend in those two provinces, with the representation of both of them having to be diminished, that of Manitoba could not be diminished below that of Saskatchewan if its population was equal to that of Saskatchewan.
So that there would be two limitations. First there would be the 15 per cent limitation-it could not go beyond that; and, second, it could not go beyond the effect the 15 per cent limitation would have upon a province with the same or smaller population.

Redistribution Committee
It may very well be, as quite a large number of newspapers throughout the country have suggested, that there should be no interference whatsoever with the rules provided in the amendment made in 1946. I would be sorry if that were -the conclusion of a majority in the house, because I think that, whether it be justified or not, there would be resentment among -the people of Saskatchewan at the loss of 25 per cent of their membership in one readjustment. I think it is desirable, in this united nation, that all sections feel that their special situations receive consideration from -the body politic generally, and that we are disposed to take what can be regarded generally as a reasonable attitude in that connection.
This will bring about some small increase in the total representation in the house. First of all there would be an increase of one for the Northwest Territories. That, I think, is something that is apt to be permanent. Indeed, it is possible that the increase by one may, at the time of the next census, be found to be insufficient, because there is development going on in the Northwest Territories, to the advantage of those localities and the advantage of the economy of the nation as a whole.
It will provide Saskatchewan with two more members than it would otherwise be entitled to; but that small increase is not very serious. And, looking over the censuses since confederation, one would feel -that the adoption of a rule like this could not mean a variation of more than -two or three from the 262 now provided by the constitution. This time it would provide for two for Saskatchewan; but I would hope tha-t, next time, the population of Saskatchewan would entitle it to its full membership of 17- perhaps even more than -that. However it could not mean any substantial variation in the total membership of the house. I think it is something which would not be entirely satisfactory to our friends from Saskatchewan, but which will, I hope, make them feel that their fellow Canadians throughout -the whole country sympathize with the fa-ct that [DOT]there has been a diminution in the population, while there has been -a growth in the populations of all other Canadian provinces.
It is worthy of consideration, I think, to remember that -although there has been a-diminution in the number of people counted in Saskatchewan in the last census, there has been no diminution in the contribution of new wealth to the Canadian economy provided by -the people of that province. The diminution results from the fact -that a lesser number of people have been able to carry on agricultural pursuits, and to provide the same return from the soil that was provided before.
[Mr. St. Laurent.l
It is my hope that there will come for Saskatchewan, as there -has come for Alberta, and as there has come for Manitoba, some diversification in their economy which will *make Saskatchewan the home not only of an agricultural population

although that is absolutely essential to the well-being of the country-but the home also of some people whose pursuits will be industrial and commercial, and who will work alongside their fellow Canadians in Saskatchewan who are devoting their energy to the tilling of the soil.
This resolution, of course, does not give -binding directions to the committee to be set up. The house -may decide at this time that it will have no departure whatsoever from the rules at present in the constitution. Under those circumstances the committee would have nothing to do but to determine the limits of each constituency within each province.
If on the other hand the house feels that a certain variation in those rules might well be considered by the committee, then under the terms of the resolution it will allow the committee to give consideration to such modification. I inserted in their resolution the provision that the committee would have the right to call for persons and papers; because if it came to the conclusion that some alleviation should be made, it might want to consider whether it should be done only to meet an exceptional case, in one instance, or whether it should be a new principle which would apply to future redistributions and readjustments.
In that event the committee would want to know how that should be done. It may be the committee would find it expedient to recommend some permanent change in the rules affecting readjustment, and would want to know from the law officers of the crown and the law officers of the House of Commons what would be the correct procedure in order to bring this about. Then it would be for the house to determine whether or not it should be done.
I think there is nothing further I could add that would be of -any assistance in coming to a conclusion. I wish to repeat merely that this is the constitutional responsibility of each one of us, not only of members of the government as members of the House of Commons, but of every other member in the house, -and probably in the same degree as it involves the responsibilities of those who form the present government.
It is not something which can -be determined as an -act of executive government. It is something which must be dealt with by legislation which is the responsibility of -the house, and about which I wish to

make no plea other than to state what my own views are, and to ask each of my fellow members of parliament to make up his mind and to express his views in the light of his own conception of his responsibilities to Canada at large and to his own constituency in particular.


Mr. Black (Cumberland):: Before the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) takes his seat, I should like to ask whether any special consideration has been given to the province of Nova Scotia which has had a substantial increase in its population but a diminution in its membership.
Redistribution Committee


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I can assure the hon. member the figures were all gone over. I had intended to ask for the permission of the house to place on Hansard the results of the last census as tabulated by the chief electoral officer, showing the calculations that have been made for each province and the way in which they have been made.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The table is as follows:
Total members	 262
fa)	Less representation of Prince Edward Island	 -4
fb)	Less representation of electoral
district of Yukon-Mackenzie River	 - 1
Population of Canada	 14,009,429
fa)	Less population of Prince Edward
Island	 -98,429
fb)	Less population of Yukon		-9,096
(c) Less population of N.W.T		-16,004
-123,529
13,885,900
The quotient obtained by dividing 13,885,900 by 257 is: 54,031 and the representation of each province is determined by dividing the said quotient (54,031) into the population of each respective province. *
Provinces	Population	Quotient	Remainders	Number of Members	Present number of members (Representation Act 1947)Ontario	4,597,542	85	4,907	85	83Quebec	4,055,681	75	3,356	75	73Nova Scotia	642,584	11	*48,243	12	13New Brunswick	515,697	9	*29,418	10	10Manitoba	776,541	14	20,107	14	16Saskatchewan	831,728	15	21,263	15	20Alberta	939,501	17	20,974	17	17British Columbia	1,165,210	21	*30,559	22	18Newfoundland	361,416	6	*37,230	7	7253	257	2574	4	41	1	1
258		262	262
* In order to bring the total number of members to 262, the four provinces having the largest remainders are each entitled to an additional member.
1432	HOUSE OF
Redistribution Committee
Consideration was given to the case of each province. Nova Scotia gets the benefit of one additional member for something less than the ordinary quota. It has eleven times the quota, which is 54,031, plus a remainder of 48,243, and it gets an additional member for the remainder of 48,243.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, the subject matter of this motion is not only one of very great importance to every member of the house but one of the utmost importance to all Canadians. As the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) emphasized on different occasions during his remarks, the desire of the members of the house at this time should be to provide a system of representation which will meet with satisfaction in every part of Canada and leave the impression not only in every province but in every locality within every province that the system of representation gives as fair an expression of the thoughts and desires of the people of Canada generally as may be devised by the members of parliament at this time. I can only express my regret that, with full knowledge of the fact that this extremely important subject would be coming before the House of Commons for consideration, the government has not seen fit to place before us any new method of dealing with this problem which would give to the people of Canada, as well as to members of parliament who are now called upon to express their opinions, a feeling that we have a system which will stand the test and that it is one which over the years is going to avoid any unfairness or any suggestion that it produces any other result than the most effective representation of our people that can be introduced.
During this session we have heard a speech by the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power) which I am not at liberty to quote in detail under the rules of the house, but it was a speech which placed before us in clear and cogent terms the necessity for some continuing body to deal with this subject as a continuing process so that at such time as redistribution of the seats of the House of Commons becomes necessary under our constitution the plans for that redistribution will have been laid upon an impartial basis which will be likely to find general acceptance by every member of the house as well as by the people of Canada generally. It would appear that such method of dealing with this essential part of our democratic system is not to be placed before us at this time. Nevertheless the very fact that so many people are thinking about the need for a new 

system, and the very fact that so many Canadians are expressing the hope that there may be nothing savouring of gerrymandering at this or any other time, indicate that in our consideration of this subject, we should be seeking some method which will be satisfactory at least until such time as a new and more satisfactory system is introduced, and that whatever we do we should not deal piecemeal with the problem but should attempt to find a working arrangement that respects our constitution and is in keeping with the very special form of federal system established in this country in 1867.
May I emphasize both personally and on behalf of the members of the Conservative party in this house that we are anxious to see the problem dealt with as quickly as possible. We will support every reasonable measure to deal with the subject expeditiously and justly, not so much for the members of the House of Commons as for the people of Canada whose servants we are. Nevertheless we should not seek any shortcuts which may cause difficulties afterwards, and above all, when we are doing something that is related so directly to the processes of democracy, I submit we should show the utmost respect for that constitution which has settled for us the form of democracy under which we carry on our public affairs.
The resolution now before us calls for the setting up of a select committee and then introduces certain special considerations to be placed before that committee. Although the resolution itself by its wording does not exclude consultation with the provincial governments in dealing with this question, the words of the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) this afternoon left no doubt that his opinion is definitely against such consultation. This is not the first time he has explained his own opinion in regard to consultation of that type. At page 1936 of Hansard for Tuesday, May 28,	1946, the
Prime Minister, who was then minister of justice, in introducing a motion which had as its purpose changing the representation in this house, had this to say:
The provinces, that is to say the people of the provinces, are all represented in this parliament, and for the purposes of such matters as are confided to the jurisdiction of this parliament it is by those representatives here that the people of the provinces speak.
That statement was similar in meaning to the statement by the Prime Minister this afternoon. I do suggest, however, that the question was not settled finally in 1946, and that hon. members should very carefully consider what it is we have before us and whether in fact, with our particular federal system, the provinces as represented by their

own governments have not some interest in the subject at this time. In fact I find it difficult to follow the arguments of the Prime Minister through to their logical conclusion because in effect he is taking into account the representation made by the legislature of Saskatchewan, which representation expressed the unanimous opinion of the members of that body no matter to what party they belonged. Before us in this resolution we have in fact an attempt to meet in part the representation which has been made on behalf of the people of Saskatchewan through the legislature and government of that province. The Prime Minister has explained that he is not prepared to go as far as the resolution of the Saskatchewan legislature went, but he has included in the resolution now being introduced a request that the committee give consideration to the proposal that the number of seats in any province shall not be reduced by more than 15 per cent below the representation to which such province was previously entitled. He has explained why he is prepared to put forward the figure of 15 per cent instead of 10 per cent.
The Prime Minister said he was placing this resolution before the House of Commons with the request that hon. members express their opinions freely and without regarding themselves as bound by the fact that this has been presented by the leader of the government. That is a suggestion with which I am in agreement; in fact I would welcome a wider application of the same suggestion on many other occasions, and I hope this may be a precedent which will be followed in future. I also hope this indicates an increasing belief on the part of the Prime Minister in the effectiveness of committees to deal with matters that require attention, so that in future he will not only be ready to propose other committees but will also suggest on those occasions that whether or not hon. members ordinarily support the government they should regard themselves as completely free to express their opinions as to the way those committees should deal with the matters referred to them. I am not in any way taking issue with the Prime Minister's statement that he brings the resolution before us in this manner when I suggest that a very large number of members of this house have formed the habit of favouring his suggestions when they are placed before us; and for that reason I recognize that when he gives his opinion as to what he would regard as satisfactory, it will at least be given very earnest consideration by those hon. members who ordinarily support him without question.
The Prime Minister indicated, as I understood his words, that he would find it quite
Redistribution Committee satisfactory if the conclusion of the committee should be that the number pf seats should not be reduced by more than 15 per cent below the previous figure. That being so it would seem that the Prime Minister has accepted the principle put forward by the province of Saskatchewan, though he has not been prepared to go quite as far as the legislature of that province went in making this representation. After all, this resolution merely calls upon the committee to consider the proposal. I do suggest that if consideration is to be given to the views of the Saskatchewan legislature, which quite obviously prompted this proposal-and I do not think the right hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) would challenge that-


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: If the hon. gentleman will allow me, the proposal had been discussed and considered even before it came to us in the form of a resolution from the legislature of Saskatchewan. The members in this house representing constituencies in Saskatchewan were quite as much concerned about it as were the members of the legislature, and from the very day they arrived in Ottawa and were informed of the results of the census they suggested that every attempt be made to avoid what they considered would be an unfair action, that is to say a reduction of 25 per cent in their numbers in this house.


James Garfield Gardiner: If the hon. gentleman will permit me also, the remarks of the Prime Minister relieve me of any further responsibility for answering what has just been stated by the leader of the opposition.


George Alexander Drew: I was not in any doubt but that the right hon. Minister of Agriculture had been making very vigorous representations to the government. In fact I was quite sure that the delay in getting this resolution before us was occasioned by an attempt on the part of the government to meet his representations. I do not know whether or not they have, but at least I am quite sure he was making very vigorous representations. It may well be that the consideration of this subject had been before the government for some time, in view of the interest which the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) has in it. I know that there are other members in this house extremely interested in this subject. The hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) has already discussed the matter on different occasions. These members have expressed their opinions, but what I am pointing out is that reference has already been made this afternoon to representations made by the Saskatchewan legislature. I believe that the committee should not be tied on this matter but that

Redistribution Committee they should be free to consider the representations of the government of Saskatchewan. If they are to consider those representations the figure should be 10 per cent and not 15 per cent, because that was the figure stated in the resolution adopted by the Saskatchewan legislature.
Most certainly if I were supporting this resolution in its general form, I would wish the figure of 10 per cent to be substituted for the figure of 15 per cent. But there are other considerations. The very fact that the Saskatchewan legislature has passed a resolution, and that the effect of that resolution has been presented to this government, the fact that the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Black) has this afternoon raised' a question about Nova Scotia and that questions have already been raised about Manitoba, suggests that this is not a matter which affects any one province. It is a subject that affects every province and the people in those provinces.
The Prime Minister says the people of those provinces are represented by members in this house. He went further and said that this had always been the position of his party. I must take issue with that, Mr. Speaker, because 1 am under the impression that until 1946 the position of his party was the very opposite. I think we are confronted here with a question as to whether there is or is not a provincial interest affected. If there is a provincial interest affected, should the provinces be consulted? I should like to quote the words of an earlier leader of the Liberal party in Canada, Sir Wilfrid Laurier. In 1907, as reported at page 2198 of volume II of Hansard for that year, he had this to say:
The question we have to deal with at the present moment is this. In parliament here we can do as we please; we are in the majority; but are the members of this house prepared to say that if any province finds itself aggrieved by the terms of confederation, which have been accepted by all the provinces, they will ask the British parliament to alter the constitution in the way desired by that particular province? Such a course might be followed by very serious consequences. Confederation is a compact, made originally by four provinces, but adhered to by all the nine provinces who have entered it, and I submit to the judgment of this house and to the best consideration of its members, that this compact should not be lightly altered. It should be altered only for adequate cause, and after the provinces themselves have had an opportunity to pass judgment on the same.
In those words, Mr. Speaker, Sir Wilfrid Laurier was reiterating what he had said on many earlier occasions, namely that the British North America Act is a compact, originally agreed to by the four provinces which started Canada on its course but subsequently adhered to by all the nine provinces which joined to make one great nation. Now

that there are ten provinces and that the whole of the area which might be incorporated within Canadian boundaries under the original concept of the fathers of confederation has in fact adhered to that compact, I submit that our obligation to respect its provisions and to respect the spirit of that compact is greater today than ever before.
Nor was that view expressed on behalf of the Liberal party alone. In 1914 Sir Robert Borden was speaking on a motion for leave to introduce the Representation Act of 1914. A subject similar to that which we have before us today was under consideration on February 10, 1914, when he had this to say, as reported at page 612 of Hansard for that date:
The terms which were then fixed between the four original provinces undoubtedly constituted a compact between those provinces, and up to the present time they have, of course, been carried out according to the true intent and meaning of the statute.
Sir Robert Borden then dealt with further developments by way of adding new provinces. He had this to say, as reported on page 614 of the same volume of Hansard:
Speaking for myself, I do not see how it would be possible for this parliament to attempt any alteration in the representation of the provinces without the consent of the provinces themselves. It was in that connection that the question was taken up before the interprovincial conference held last autumn in the city of Ottawa, and the result of the proceedings of that conference amounted to this, that the conference declined to take any action on the subject, saying that the matter was one for the consideration of parliament. It is absolutely, in one sense, for the consideration of this parliament, although this parliament has no power to amend the British North America Act. On the other hand, if I apprehend the situation correctly, so far as the four original provinces are concerned, it was also a question for these four original provinces to say whether or not any change could or should be made in the compact under which the first provinces entered into the confederation. The province of Quebec having been fixed as the pivotal province for representation retains the exact number of sixty-five members in this house under all conditions.
Then at a later date in 1924, the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen had this to say as reported at page 520 of Hansard for that year:
The British North America Act and the limitations which are imposed upon our powers, if there are such limitations, are made of our own free will. There is no inferiority in that. It is the result of a treaty as my hon. friend from Lotbiniere (Mr. Vien) said. It is a treaty between various colonies which entered into an agreement. They fixed what the powers of the central parliament should be, and they also fixed what the powers of the various provinces which succeeded the colonies of that time would be, and this was ratified and accepted by the Imperial parliament of the time. Everything we have or have not is because we wanted it so. Now this treaty cannot be changed, it has been the contention of many constitutional authorities, and I think it is only fair that no change should be

accepted, without the consent of all those who were parties to it. It is a sacred treaty just as is any ether treaty; it is no "scrap of paper."
Then in 1925 the house was dealing with an address asking for power for the Canadian parliament to amend the British North America Act, with the limitation that it could not make amendments affecting rights guaranteed to minorities. At page 300 of Hansard of February 18, 1925, Mr. Ladner interrupted Mr. Lapointe with a question:


Mr.   Ladner@: If the minister will permit me, will
that not apply in the case of each proposed amendment? Does the minister consider it advisable to lay down general clauses which will enable the provinces and the dominion to amend the constitution, or would it not always be a question of amending the act only after consultation with the provinces?
That question was answered by Mr. Lapointe as follows:


Mr. Lapointe:: 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. I heard an hon. member say the other day, speaking, I believe, of the suggested law concerning the eight-hour day, and evidently being impatient of the obstacle put in the way of that enactment in the difficulty of knowing the respective fields of jurisdiction on the part of the dominion and the provinces-I heard him say, "Well, where there is a will there is a way." I was surprised at that statement. That was the spirit which inspired the invaders of Belgium in 1914, and the world was precipitated in a sea of blood. 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 only way to get them is the constitutional way, to ask the consent of the various parties to confederation. Mr. Speaker, after sixty years of confederation I think we may safely say that notwithstanding the great obstacles which were in their way the Fathers of Confederation who gathered in 1865 did a great work; I think we may boldly say after sixty years that their work has been a very satisfactory one. It was not perfect; there is no perfection in human devices, but certainly they did the best they could.
As I have said, I would not like to leave the impression that my own view is that no changes should be made at any time, or that no changes are possible. I agree that we are living in 1925, and not in 1865. The problems of Canada must be settled in the light of the present situation.
Redistribution Committee
Mr. Speaker, may I say that we are living in 1952, not in 1865. But again I suggest that every argument put forward by a great member of the Liberal party in this house at that time bears consideration by the members of this house today.
On the very next day following the one to which I have already referred, on February 19, 1925, Mr. T. A. Crerar, who was then the leader of the Progressive party, spoke on this subject. I wish to quote from what he said on that day as reported at page 317 of Hansard for that year:
I quite agree with the argument advanced by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) yesterday that the confederation pact was in the nature of a treaty. It was the result of different provinces getting together and agreeing upon a solution that would lead them out of their difficulties. But while that was one of the reasons behind the confederation understanding or agreement in 1867, there was also another aspiration behind it, and it was voiced, perhaps most strongly, by the great architect of confederation, Sir John A. Macdonald, for in large measure he was the architect of confederation, even if he could not claim credit for originating the idea.
Then again on the same day, Right Hon. Afthur Meighen spoke as follows, as reported at page 335 of Hansard of 1925:
The resolution itself calls upon this house to petition the British parliament to give us power to amend the British North America Act by a majority vote. I have not heard any hon. member, save the mover, support the resolution in those naked terms. The speech of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) is decisive in the negative. He raised only one objection-no other is needed. He laboured it, perhaps, too long, but he presented it most forcibly and well. No one in this parliament of Canada could dream, for a moment, of asking the British House of Commons and House of Lords to tear up the securities to which we and others are parties on the mere demand of this house itself. Undoubtedly, the pact of confederation is a contract and there are rights involved therein not represented by the parliament of Canada. We could not put ourselves in the position of asking that rights so secured should be disturbed on our motion alone. The speech of the Minister of Justice determines, I think, without power of dispute, that there should never be suggestion of amendment affecting other parties to the contract save after conference and consent of those other parties.
I have read those quotations at this length for two reasons, Mr. Speaker. The first was to answer the suggestion that it has always 'been the policy of the Liberal party that the provinces are represented effectively through the members here in relation to matters of this nature, and the second was to lay the foundation for an amendment I shall introduce, and which has as its purpose the redeclaration of what I believe to be the proper principle in dealing with a question of this kind.
To my quotations from Sir Wilfrid Laurier, Mr. Lapointe and Mr. Crerar, I know that the answer may be given that in 1946 the then minister of justice, who is now the Prime

Redistribution Committee Minister, (Mr. St. Laurent) introduced another method; and that following his assertion that the provinces are all represented in this parliament, he then went on to make an argument in support of a resolution which had as its ultimate result a change in the basis upon which the provinces of Canada would be represented, without consulting the provinces themselves. I do not accept that resolution as binding or as final. I think this house followed a wrong course in 1946. I think that the house would have been well advised to adopt the amendment introduced at that time by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) when he sought to have the provinces consulted before the final decision was made. I believe that at that time the amendment which he introduced to the motion presented to the house by the present Prime Minister, who was then minister of justice, was not only consistent with the traditional position of the Conservative party but was also consistent with the traditional position of the Liberal party from confederation up till that time.
Either there are questions affecting the interests of the provinces or there are ftot. Certainly, the legislature of Saskatchewan think that there are questions affecting their interests. It is certain from what we have already heard in this house that there are those in Manitoba who think their interests are affected. It is certain from what we have heard in this house that there are those who think that the interests of Nova Scotia are affected. It is certain from what we have heard from other hon. members in this house that the interests of all provinces are affected. And there is another reason why I think that consideration should be given to the position of the provinces in this matter.
The representation of the four original provinces was based upon the Quebec resolutions. The province of Quebec was used as the arithmetic basis upon which computations would be made, and, for the purpose of determining the representation of all provinces, the province of Quebec was to have 65 members. In 1946 that number was increased. I am not questioning at this time the desirability of the increase of the number of seats in Quebec or in any other province; but I do challenge the wisdom of making a change at this time without consulting the provinces, and I challenge still more strongly the wisdom today of making any other changes at this time without consulting the provinces, because it is apparent that further changes in the number of seats affecting the larger provinces are going to have serious consequences for the provinces with smaller populations because of the immense growth of

population in the provinces of Ontario, Quebec, British Columbia and Alberta.
Nothing would be unnecessarily delayed by calling the provinces into consultation at this time and having their representations right here in Ottawa. It is possible that the provincial governments would be quite satisfied to place their views before a select committee set up by this house. Nevertheless, whatever system is adopted should be a system which would be satisfactory to them.
We will support a separate resolution setting up a select committee, and would hope that that would be introduced without any unnecessary conditions attached to it. Then it would be possible for a committee to proceed with the basic work and have representations made to it, either directly from the provinces or from a conference jointly representative of the dominion government and the provincial governments. One of the reasons why it would seem wise to follow such a course at this time is that the Minister of Agriculture, who has already indicated his interest in this proposal, thought that finality had been reached in 1946 at the time when the hon. member for Lake Centre was pointing out the desirability of consulting the provinces. The Minister of Agriculture was quite satisfied not to follow that course, and he felt that finality had been reached. I quote from what he said on this subject at page 2475 of Hansard of June 13, 1946:
This resolution provides for an amendment to the constitution which retains the membership of the House of Commons at exactly the same figure when we have forty million people as it provides for at the present time when we have less than twelve million people. In other words, the membership of the house would not under this resolution ever increase beyond 255. It would remain at that throughout all time until someone undertook to amend the constitution further in order to provide for something else. But we in this parliament cannot take into consideration all the things which people may do fifty years hence, or all things they may do even twenty years hence. We can only act in the light of the information and the knowledge we have and do the thing which we think advisable. Under this resolution what we are proposing as advisable is to have the House of Commons composed of 255 members, and we are providing the means under which it will not increase beyond that figure but will remain at it.
I should point out that the increase to 262 resulted from the addition of Newfoundland as the tenth province of Canada; but that in no way changes the effect of the words of the Minister of Agriculture in this house on June 13, 1946. May I remind hon. members that no matter what the Prime Minister thought then, no matter what the Prime Minister thinks today, the Minister of Agriculture had this to say:
It would remain at that throughout all time until someone undertook to amend the constitution further in order to provide for something else.

Unless the Minister of Agriculture has some new opinion in regard to this matter, it is clear that he would support the position we take, that this is a subject upon which the provinces should be consulted, and most certainly that there must be an amendment to the British North America Act. If there is to be an amendment to the British North America Act to change the number of seats in this house, then I do submit that, no matter what was done in 1946, we should go back to the principles accepted by the Liberal party for many long years, as stated by Sir Wilfrid Laurier, and later by Mr. Lapointe and by other Liberals as well, and recognize that the agreement between the provinces-call it a compact, call it a treaty, call it a covenant, call it an agreement, call it what you will- did represent the basis upon which the provinces of that day agreed to form one nation, and the basis upon which all the other provinces which have joined this nation since that time have entered confederation.
I can only repeat what I said before. If we were to deal with a resolution which introduced the figure of 15 per cent as the limit of reduction of the number of seats of any province, we would be partially recognizing the request that has been made: whether it came first from members from Saskatchewan, or not, or whether it came first formally from the government of Saskatchewan, wherever it came from, it goes partly along the road toward recognition of their recommendation but does not go the whole way. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that if the committee is to give consideration to matters of this kind, this house should not tie the hands of the committee by dealing with the figure of 15 per cent. It should be quite ready to consider the resolution presented by the legislature of Saskatchewan, and have before it that resolution in its original form, asking that 10 per cent be the figure which would be the maximum reduction in the number of seats in that province.
What the committee will do will then be obviously for it to decide, as it will be for this house ultimately to decide what it shall do, following the report of the committee itself. I do urge that in a matter of this kind it be recognized that while today Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick may be concerned about the effect of the law as it now stands, it might be any other province at some other time-yes, it might be Quebec or Ontario or British Columbia at some time in the future. I do not think we should deal with this on the basis of casual expediency, seeking partly to meet requests for justice which have been made by one province or another, and then
Redistribution Committee limiting the measures to which concession is made to the request put forward by any provincial government.
I think this is the time to bring all the provincial governments together, recognizing that those provincial governments-or certainly some of them-were not satisfied with the course followed in 1946, and with that knowledge seek a basis for redistribution which would be satisfactory not only to members of the House of Commons but to the people of Canada generally, as well as to the provincial legislatures representing the people in the provinces within the provincial sphere, as do members of the House of Commons representing the people of the whole of Canada within dominion jurisdiction.
Before I move the amendment I am about to propose, may I anticipate any suggestion that this will delay matters. If the amendment I offer is adopted by the house, then a motion to set up a select committee can be put forward, the committee can be set up and can be dealing with the routine procedure and the basic material connected with this subject, while independently a conference can be held which would seek the opinions of the ten provinces and some basis which would accept the sanctity of the British North America Act .as the great agreement which laid the foundation for Canadian unity.
Therefore I move in amendment, seconded by the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Balcer):
That all the words after "that" be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
"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 tile 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:: I am wondering whether the amendment is in order. Does not this amendment negative the motion before the house, and set forth another proposal?


George Alexander Drew: May I speak to that question?

Redistribution Committee


Mr. Speaker:: There is another point, but I shall not mention it for the time being.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I submit that this does not in any way negative the motion. That was the thought to which I was directing my repeated reference to the fact that there need be no delay in proceeding with this whole question.
The setting up of a select committee can be proceeded with, either under this or under a similar motion, once this principle is decided upon. If this amendment were adopted-and, after all, the matter before Your Honour is the possibility of its adoption-it would assert that the provinces should be consulted by means of a dominion-provincial conference. The house, by whatever procedure might be considered desirable, could go forward with all the details relating to the essential statistical information called for by the committee itself at any time.
I would point out however that unless a motion of this kind can be made in this way and at this time-and this is the only time I see when it can be made, so that the subject matter can be dealt with expeditiously-* then we have no way of asserting in relation to this subject that consultation with the provinces should be an essential consideration in relation to changes which will affect the interests of every province, changes which we believe relate to the very foundation of this federal system of ours.
I have already referred to the fact that at the time the motion was introduced in 1946 by the Prime Minister, who was at that time minister of justice, an amendment was introduced by the hon. member for Lake Centre calling for consultation with the provinces. That amendment was voted down, but was not ruled out of order.
I submit the whole effect of the amendment now before the house is to give consideration to the desirability of consulting the provinces before anything is done which would affect the structure of the British North America Act. And may I add to what I have already said that, while changes were made in 1946 by another procedure, I submit we are not bound by that procedure. I submit further that on many earlier occasions another procedure was regarded as desirable, and that the principle accepted in the house until 1946, by both the Liberal and Conservative parties, was that the provincial governments should be consulted in regard to any matter of this kind.
I am suggesting it is of the utmost importance that such consultation should take

place. This amendment provides an opportunity to express that opinion, without negativing the resolution itself, and thus leaving it open to proceed with the principles contained in the resolution.
The reason I have dealt with the subject in this way, and have not left part of the resolution to stand and then added this to it, is that there might be some question at a subsequent time about part of the subject matter having been dealt with by the house, and thus subsequent consideration of these other matters that had been introduced would be prevented.


Mr. Mclvor:: I should like to ask a question. Does it affect provincial constituencies or is it for the dominion only?


George Alexander Drew: It affects the constituencies from which members are sent to this House of Commons. Those members are members of this house. They are not subject to the direction or control of any provincial legislature or of any other body outside of this house. Nevertheless I am re-emphasizing my own belief that the basis upon which the provinces would be represented in the house was an essential consideration at the time the provinces came together to form one nation, that today we should respect that sacred treaty which made this country one nation, and that no matter what may have been done on any single occasion in the past we should get back to the principles which were so clearly stated by Sir Wilfrid Laurier, Sir Robert Borden, Right Hon. Arthur Meighen, and Mr. Lapointe, as well as Mr. Crerar, who later became a member of the Liberal party.


Mr. Sinnoit:: That is not an answer to the question.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The leader of the opposition was speaking to the point of order but he was arguing for the merits of the proposal that there be consultation with the provincial government before anything is done with respect to representation.


George Alexander Drew: I would remind the Prime Minister I was answering a question by the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Mclvor).


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: It was an argument in support of the principle that this house should not deal with the matter of representation of the people of the provinces without the consent of the provincial governments. The leader of the opposition cited a statement I made in 1946. Then he cited statements made by Sir Wilfrid Laurier, Right Hon. Arthur Meighen, Hon. Mr. Crerar, Right Hon. Mr. Lapointe and others, but they had to do with the proposals that there be taken from the

provinces and transferred to the federal parliament jurisdiction which, by the British North America Act, was given to the provinces. I am sure the leader of the opposition did not want to do me any injustice. In what he cited there was the statement that with respect to the matters which were within the jurisdiction of this parliament the people of the provinces were represented by the members whom they elected to this parliament and not by the members they elected to their provincial legislatures. That was the extent to which I went.
With respect to the point of order concerning the amendment, it is clearly an expanded negative of the motion. It proposes that all the words in the motion after the word "that" be wiped out. The motion is a motion to set up a special committee. All the words providing for the setting up of the special committee are going to be wiped out if the amendment is accepted, and there will be a general statement with a lot of whereases that the opinion of the provincial governments be obtained at a dominion-provincial conference. It is always very much the same thing. In putting that proposal forward hon. gentlemen opposite have never said whether or not there should be unanimous consent of the provinces before any change could be made. They have always shied away from that. They say there should be consultation with the provinces, but "what will you do if one of them says no?" "Oh well, we will wait and see if one does say no before we answer that question."


Stanley Howard Knowles: On a point of order, I agree with what the Prime Minister is saying, but can we have it clear whether this discussion is on the point of order or on the substance of the amendment?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. We cannot have two points of order before the house at the same time.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: My submission pertains to the point of order. Acceptance of the amendment would constitute an assertion to this effect:
. . . 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.
If that is passed, that is all there is to it. There is no other decision. The hon. member says that there could be another motion to set up a select committee although I do not know what Your Honour would decide in that event. There would have been a vote striking
Redistribution Committee out the words that provide for the setting up of the committee, and I do not know whether Your Honour would consider that another motion could be made to restore what a vote of the house had struck out or to do the same thing in another form. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the amendment is an expanded negative of the proposal that we proceed to have the house consider readjustment of the representation of its membership as required by the constitution, and that it do not consider doing that until there has been a dominion-provincial conference.
The hon. member referred to the fact that there was a vote on the amendment submitted by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker). I have not the record here but my recollection is that the hon. member for Lake Centre proposed to insert before the words of the original resolution, which was one for an address to His Majesty to lay a certain proposed bill before the parliament at Westminster, words to the effect that there be a dominion-provincial conference to consider the matter, and that upon a satisfactory understanding having been reached an address be then submitted to His Majesty. There it was really a modification of the procedure that had been proposed, not to the effect that there should be no address at all but that prior to its presentation there should be a consultation of the dominion and provincial governments. Even then, as I remember it, the hon. member would not say that his views were that there could not be any change whatsoever if one province refused to agree to that change. There was to be a consultation to see how the provinces felt about it.
But if it is a contract, treaty, compact or anything of that kind that cannot be changed without consent, it requires the consent of all, and if the proper parties are the provincial governments responsible to members elected to the provincial legislatures then you have to have the consent of each and every one of them before anything can be done. As I recollect it, that has never been stated by the opposition as the proper principle. On the point of order, I suggest to Your Honour that the amendment cannot be considered as one pertaining to the motion now before you. It is something entirely new and would constitute a denial by the house of the proposal contained in the original motion.


George Alexander Drew: Since the Prime Minister has raised the question as to what we would consider necessary to achieve results, perhaps he would simplify it for all of us by indicating what measure of agreement he

Redistribution Committee expects from the provinces if there are to be any results from the dominion-provincial conferences now under way.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I do not think it would be possible nor that it would be in conformity with the constitution to attempt to take from any provincial legislature without its consent any right given to that legislature by the constitution; and I think it is quite unnecessary to consult provincial governments with respect to the exercise of the jurisdiction given by the constitution to the federal parliament by the representatives of all the provinces elected to this house.


George Alexander Drew: Before you give a ruling, Mr. Speaker, may I refer you to page 993 of Hansard for the session of 1918. At that time a very long motion was before the house, setting out a number of details; and an amendment was moved similar in form to the one now before the house, simply providing that all the words after "that be struck out and something else substituted therefor. That amendment is at page 956 of the same Hansard.
I mention this because on that occasion the amendment would have disposed of the whole resolution originally presented to the house, and would have substituted a representation which related to the same subject but which of course did not carry forward the original resolution. The subject matter was entirely different from that now before us, but I am placing that resolution and amendment before you because the procedure was the same. That amendment wiped out the whole motion after the word "that" and substituted another proposition. That was permitted and was voted upon. I submit the situation is exactly the same today.


Mr. Speaker:: V/ould the leader of the opposition tell me whether any point of order was raised at that time?


George Alexander Drew: If the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) might be allowed to proceed, I will look that up.


Mr, Diefenbaker:: Some reference was made by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) to what happened in 1946. On May 28 of that year the right hon. gentleman, for the then prime minister, moved:
That, whereas by the British North America Act, 1867, it is provided that in respect of representation in the House of Commons the province of Quebec shall have the fixed number of sixty-five members; and whereas the said act provides that there shall be assigned to each of the other provinces such a

number of members as will bear the same proportion to the number of its population as the number of sixty-five bears to the number of the population of Quebec-*
Then after dealing with the various portions of the British North America Act it goes on:
And whereas it is considered that a more equitable apportionment of members to the various provinces could be effected if readjustment were made on the basis of the population of all the provinces taken as a whole.
A humble address be presented to His Majesty the King in the following words:
Then are set out in detail the operative words requesting the imperial parliament to amend the British North America Act in accordance with the request of this parliament. At page 2235 of Hansard for June 6, 1946, I moved that the motion be amended by deleting the words "An humble address be presented to His Majesty the King in the following words" and substituting therefor: And whereas it is desirable that the government should consult with the several provinces in respect of the said matter.
Nov/ therefore be it resolved that the government be required to consult at once the several provinces and upon satisfactory conclusion of such consultations be authorized to present an humble address to His Majesty in the following terms.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Yes; that is as I remembered it.


John George Diefenbaker: I was just placing it on record because the Prime Minister made reference to it. The amendment I moved at that time was couched in those terms.


George Alexander Drew: In answer to the question you raised, Mr. Speaker, I do not believe the procedure was challenged. I believe it was accepted as a procedure which had been followed on earlier occasions.


Mr. Speaker:: I have listened attentively
to what has been said by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) and the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) as to the regularity of the amendment. I followed the remarks of the leader of the opposition in which he stated that if this amendment carried, then a committee could be set up; but I think he and the house would agree with me that if the amendment carried the proposal now before the house to set up a committee would be defeated. The amendment does not add to the motion now before the house but destroys it, and sets forth a different proposal. I can see that if our rules provided for what the leader of the opposition has suggested the amendment might be in order, but I am unable to find any such procedure. In view of that fact I am forced to rule the amendment out of order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, now that the amendment has been disposed of, I rise to speak to the motion of the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent). As I see it that motion and the debate which has developed thus far raise three main questions. First is the question as to what is the best and most desirable way to tackle the problem of redistribution. In the second place we have before us the precise terms of the Prime Minister's motion, which we must consider and on which we must express our views. In the third place we have the constitutional question which I submit is in fact raised by the motion and has also been raised in the course of the debate by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew). My remarks may involve some crossing of the lines between those three questions, but at any rate they are the three points to which I wish to address myself at this time.
In the first place I want to express once again as strongly as I can the view of this group that redistribution should not be the business of parliament nor of a parliamentary committee. We share to the full the views which have been expressed on a number of occasions by the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power) to the effect that redistribution should be handled by an independent commission.
The last time redistribution came before this house was in 1947. Parenthetically, I might point out that it was in 1946 that a resolution seeking an amendment to the British North America Act was passed so as to change the basis of redistribution, but it was in 1947 that the redistribution bill itself came before us. On the second reading of that bill in 1947 I moved an amendment to the effect that the bill be not then read a second time but that the house express as its opinion the view that the whole question of redistribution should be dealt with by an independent commission. One of the first members to speak after I moved that amendment was the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power). He pointed out that this idea of an independent commission was an old one so far as he was concerned, and that he had in fact prepared a bill in that direction some years before when he had been a member of the government. He referred to that bill again in a speech he made in the house during the course of this session.
In other words, in 1947 the member for Quebec South indicated his support of the principle of the proposal contained in my amendment to the second reading of the redistribution bill, but he pointed out that it was too late then, when redistribution was on our doorstep, to consider any other method
Redistribution Committee o.f dealing with it. I was therefore disappointed that the member for Quebec South, having said that when redistribution is on our doorstep is no time to deal with the problem but that it should be dealt with in between, waited from 1947 until redistribution was on our doorstep again before he raised the matter in this house, either by a speech or by the bill he has placed on the order paper. I agree with him that this problem should be dealt with by an independent commission, but I feel that this business of forever saying there is some other time to deal with it is irresponsible. There is no time like the present for parliament to take a stand on this important question. Thus it is that with respect to that part of the Prime Minister's motion, Mr. Speaker, which takes it for granted that it is proper to refer this matter to a committee of this house, I am in disagreement.
The other day when the member for Quebec South was speaking, he had occasion to quote from Professor Norman Ward of the university of Saskatchewan, who has written quite a number of articles and works on parliamentary democracy and in particular has recently written a number of articles on the redistribution question. One of those articles appeared in the Winnipeg Free Press of February 9, 1952 and was entitled "Too big for parliament." I should like to quote a few sentences from that article.
The problem of redistribution has become too vast and complicated to be handled satisfactorily by a committee of the House of Commons, which, like all house committees, has no staff trained in research techniques or anything else. 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 problems connected with sharing seats fairly among the provinces and sharing seats fairly among the people within each province. Population density, homogeneity and topographical features and area, are all factors which ought to be considered seriously. But under the normal circumstances in which redistribution takes place in the House of Commons, with all parties jockeying for position, all factors become entangled in what Hon. C. G. (Chubby) Power, M.P, who ought to know, has called an "unseemly, undignified, and utterly confusing scramble for personal and political advantage."
I agree with what the member for Quebec South has said, and I agree with the views expressed by Professor Norman Ward in his advice to us that this problem should be dealt with not by a committee of those who are interested in the boundaries of seats for which they are potential members in future parliaments but rather by an independent commission.
I would point out that most democratic countries have moved on to the idea of an independent commission, and in particular I

Redistribution Committee draw attention to the practice that has been in vogue at Westminster since about 1916 or 1917. It was at that time that a conference of members of all parties in the British House of Commons was convened to go into this whole matter. They recommended the appointment of an independent commission to deal with the problem. This conference recognized that there should be an element of parliamentary representation, but the recommendation confined that element to the Speaker of the British House of Commons. Although the reports of the boundary commission of the United Kingdom are subject to perfunctory approval of the British house, nevertheless any changes that have been made in the boundaries in the United Kingdom since that time have been made by that independent commission. I feel that we, as members of this House of Commons, owe it to this country to take steps as speedily as we can in the direction of setting up an independent commission to deal with this matter.
I should like to point out that in the quotation I read from Professor Norman Ward, he referred not only to the impossibility of members of parliament dealing objectively with the problem of sharing seats within a province, but he said it was equally difficult for members of parliament to be objective in sharing seats fairly among the provinces. Both of these problems, Mr. Speaker, are before us at this time. The Prime Minister's motion pinpoints the problem of sharing seats in this parliament among the provinces. If the motion passes and the committee is set up, in addition to dealing with the problem of sharing seats fairly amongst the provinces, that committee will have to deal with the problem of sharing seats fairly within each province. The latter problem is one that every redistribution committee has had to deal with, and the results are too well known to all members.
However, the main issue before us in the Prime Minister's motion is the question of whether or not members of parliament are competent to make a decision as to what is a fair way of apportioning seats amongst the different provinces of this country. I feel that we should have an independent commission, not only for the problem we have had every ten years of drawing the boundaries properly within the provinces, but we should also have an independent commission to grapple with the fundamentals of the question that has arisen because of the serious loss of seats in certain parts of this country. The question of the sanctity of the "Rep by Pop" formula is raised. Adherents of the democratic process across the years have believed in this formula. In the main there is no question but that it is a principle
tMr. Knowles.]
from which we should depart with the greatest of caution. Yet there are times when, by oversimplifying a principle, a wrong can be done. That seems to have been recognized by the Canadian parliament because we have departed from the "Rep by Pop" principle in a number of ways. We have departed from it in apportioning the seats amongst the provinces. From 1867 down until 1946 there was in the British North America Act what was known as the one-twentieth rule which very definitely varied the "Rep by Pop" principle. Since 1915 there has been in the constitution of this country the rule that no province can have fewer seats than the number of senators assigned to that province. That rule definitely upsets the "Rep by Pop" idea. On several occasions when new provinces were admitted into confederation, they were allotted members in excess of the number to which their actual population would have entitled them. That is the basis upon which Yukon-Mackenzie River was given a seat; while in terms of area all of us feel that there should be more than one member up there, nevertheless in terms of population we have upset the "Rep by Pop" rule for that large area.
Those who have advocated these various deviations from the "Rep by Pop" rule have had good arguments for them, and have always said that we should use plain, ordinary, common sense. I quite agree that there has been some common sense in some of these departures from the "Rep by Pop" rule. But, Mr. Speaker, let us honestly face up to what has been done. Let us face the fact that we have found fault with that rule from time to time and that we have found it necessary to develop certain overtones or deviations in order to deal with actual problems. That is what is happening now. In 1943 and in 1946 the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), who was minister of justice on both occasions, spoke 'favourably of the "Rep by Pop" rule. I have the quotations here on the desk in front of me. Particularly in 1946, when it was decided to do away with the one-twentieth rule, the Prime Minister, speaking for the government, said it was felt at that time that we should get our representation more nearly on the basis of the population of the country.
We lay down these rules but we change them every ten or twenty years. Now, within less than a decade since the last change was made, presumably for all time, the Prime Minister is confronted with this problem created by the loss of five seats in Saskatchewan, two in Manitoba and one in Nova Scotia. He realizes that the strict application of that rule produces an unfairness or a

wrong, and so he feels-as does the government with him-that perchance consideration should be given to some variation in the rule of "Rep by Pop" in order to avoid creating an anomaly or perpetuating a wrong. If we have reached the point where we recognize, through the experience of this country from 1867 on, that "Rep by Pop" oversimplified and applied strictly does not meet the bill, is it not time that we referred this whole matter to an independent commission for a study of the basic factors involved in the representation in the House of Commons?
At this point I want to say that it is my intention to support the Prime Minister's motion. There is a change which I think should be made and which I believe would make it better, but either in its present form or with the change which I shall suggest, it is still an expedient to deal with the problem rather than the setting up of a commission to deal with the problem in terms of fundamentals.
The Prime Minister today referred to the loss of population in Saskatchewan, and yet said that that was not any indication that there was a decline in the contribution of the people of Saskatchewan to the life and the economy of this country. I agree with him. But does that not suggest that maybe we have got to take into consideration other factors besides that of population? Is that not so, particularly in a far-flung country like this, in a country like Canada where we have some areas that are thickly populated and others that are sparsely populated but are still making a great contribution to the life of this country? The situation in our land is unique and, as I say, it seems to me there are other factors than that of population that should be taken into consideration. But I think that consideration should be given not by way of a snap judgment on a resolution which is at best an expedient but rather that that consideration should be given by a really independent body studying the whole problem.
Anyone who has read works such as those of Professor Ward will realize that there is room for real study of -this problem. That study might produce a set of rules which would be satisfactory and which would make us all feel happier in that they would be fundamental and basic rather than just expedients. I want to say again, Mr. Speaker, -that I feel strongly that we should have an independent commission not only for the job that is proposed in the bill that is on the order paper in the name of the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power), namely the drawing of the boundaries of the constituencies within our provinces, but we
Redistribution Committee should also have it to deal with this basic and fundamental question of what should be the factors taken into consideration in deciding the representation from the various areas in this country.
A few minutes ago I was giving examples of the way in which we violate the principle of "Rep by Pop". In particular, I was doing it with respect to the division of the seats among the provinces. I might also add that within the provinces we do not worry a great deal about the principle of "Rep by Pop". There is one member in this House of Commons who represents a constituency which, according to the last census, had a population of 9,999 persons, less than 10,000, There is another member who sits two or three seats away from me who represents a constituency in which there are nearly
160.000	persons. That is a proportion of 16 to one. That is the variation in the size of constituencies in terms of population represented by members in this house. I should point out that those two constituencies are in different provinces but even in one province like Ontario, the population goes all the way from less than 20,000 to nearly 160,000.


James Arthur Ross: At present from 17,000 to nearly 160,000.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross) should not interrupt at this point or I will mention how many he represents.


James Arthur Ross: I will tell you myself.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member for Souris represents only about one-third of the number represented by those of us from the constituencies in the city of Winnipeg. In view of all that, and particularly in view of the situation to which I have referred in Ontario, where members represent constituencies with populations which run from less than
20.000	to nearly 160,000, this is no place for anyone to stand up and prate about "Rep by Pop". That situation is defended here-
20.000	in one constituency and 160,000 in another; really no one defends that extreme case, but there are members in the house who will defend variations from 40,000 to 60,000, we will say, on the ground that it is easier for a member to give service to a compact constituency like mine, for example, than it is for a member who represents a far-flung constituency that may cover half of a province. There is one constituency in my province of Manitoba that covers, in terms of area, nearly two-thirds of the province, I believe. I would be the first to admit that the member for that constituency has a much more difficult time in serving it than I have in serving a constituency that is only

Redistribution Committee a mile wide and two or three miles long. There is room for some variation in cases such as I have just mentioned, but not for the extremes I referred to earlier.
However, if we accept that principle within a province I suggest that the day has come when we are going to have to accept that principle as among the various areas in this country. Here in central Canada-shall I say from Three Rivers down to Windsor-you have an area where the population is heavily concentrated. If you look at the map of those constituencies you will find that they are all fairly small. I do not think there is a doubt in the world that members in that whole area could give service as members of parliament to a larger number of people per member than is possible, shall we say, in the whole area from the great lakes to the Rocky mountains.
I do not think it is our right as members, affected as we are, to make decisions of that kind. I think, however, that there are basic principles that have got to be gone into, and that the type of body to go into them is an independent commission with some good judges on it or some good students of this matter, such as a man like Professor Norman Ward whom we have been quoting, and others, including geographers and statisticians-people who could really look at this problem objectively. I hope that it will not be long before that approach will be made.
If the hope of getting such an independent commission to deal with this problem at this time is dim, in view of the fact that the Prime Minister has put this motion on the order paper, that means that we have to express our views on this particular way of dealing with the problem. I think I made it clear that I regard it as an expedient; certainly, a poor second to the type of proposal that I have been making. But if the independent commission is not forthcoming, what about this expedient? Well, at least it does attempt to face up to the fact that "Rep by Pop" as among the provinces, while it sounds good, does create anomalies and cases of unfairness. That is particularly true, and very obvious, when the result of the strict application of section 51 of the British North America Act results in a province like Saskatchewan losing 25 per cent of its membership at one fell blow, five seats, and the province of Manitoba losing two seats at the same time, even though we in the province of Manitoba have had an actual increase in our population in the last ten years of over 5 per cent. Well, if that is the basis-


And Mr. Deputy Speaker having taken the chair:


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am very happy to be interrupted by that applause for you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to have the honour at this time of extending publicly to you my congratulations on your recent election to the high office which you now hold.
I was about to say that the proposal that is now before us is worth consideration as a second best, in that it faces up to the problem and tries to solve it, if you accept the basis that this is parliament's job. But if we are going to deal with the problem in this way, I feel very strongly that the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) should have given more consideration to the 10 per cent floor which was suggested by the resolution that was passed unanimously by the legislature of Saskatchewan.	.
I do not take the view of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) that because the legislature of Saskatchewan passed the resolution that means that it has to be presented as it is to the committee, for this is clearly a federal matter; but I still think the government should have given more favourable consideration to the terms of that resolution. I listened carefully, both on Wednesday, April 9, and again this afternoon, to the two arguments which the Prime Minister advanced against the 10 per cent floor rather than the floor of 15 per cent, and in my view both of his arguments can be answered quite easily.
First, his argument was that the 10 per cent floor would result in Saskatchewan having 18 members, and Alberta 17, despite the fact that Alberta's population is a little larger than that of Saskatchewan. Well, Mr. Speaker, that argument would have been valid on the basis of the Prime Minister's resolution in the form in which he first placed it on the order paper. But he withdrew the motion in the form in which he first placed it on the order paper, and submitted a substitute motion, which has this extra proviso to the effect that the operation of this floor must never result in a province with a smaller population having more members than some other province with a larger population. But that proviso is there now, and if he changed the figure of 15 per cent to 10 per cent in the new form of his motion-and that is what we have now, and not the original form-if he changed it in the new form the result would be that Saskatchewan would have 18 members instead of 17 or 15, and the application of the proviso would give to Alberta the same number of 18 members as would be given to Saskatchewan.

The same 10 per cent floor which I am now advocating would of course result in Manitoba losing only one member instead of two. I realize I am from Manitoba and it may be said I am speaking on behalf of my own province, but I think hon. members will have to admit the justice of this argument. I submit that for a province to gain population to the extent of 5-8 per cent and then be asked ito take a loss of two members is not fair, and that a proposal such as the one I am making that we have a 10 per cent floor so that we would lose only one seat with our 5 * 8 per cent increase in population is one to which further consideration should be given. I have been tempted to move an amendment to that effect, but you know we have the experience now and then in this house of having amendments or motions which are made from the opposition side defeated. Even when they are passed unanimously sometimes the government rejects them, but we will get to that in another debate. Therefore rather than move it in the form of an amendment, at this time at any rate, I put this 10 per cent proposal forward as a suggestion and I ask the Prime Minister to consider it seriously.
I say to him again that his first argument against the 10 per cent floor was an argument that he thought up and was valid in relation to the original form of the motion, but it is not valid in relation to the present form, because the result would be as I have indicated, of Saskatchewan retaining its 18 seats. It would result as well in Alberta having 18, and Manitoba would end up with 15 which, as I say, is a loss of one seat. Surely, that is loss enough for us to take when we have had an actual increase in population to the extent of 5 [DOT] 8 per cent in the last ten years.
The other argument that the Prime Minister used against the 10 per cent floor was that it would provide in effect a floor for Newfoundland of its present 7 seats. It is obvious that that is what it would do. If you had the 10 per cent floor a province with 7 seats could not lose one member, and so 7 would be the floor. The Prime Minister said that that would give it a floor higher than the other maritime provinces. I think he meant that it would be a floor higher than the floor of the other maritime provinces. But that does not apply except in the case of Prince Edward Island. New Brunswick already has a floor of 10; Nova Scotia also has a floor of 10. Prince Edward Island has a floor of 4, but that is two above the number of members it would be entitled to mathematically. I do not think it would be unfair for Newfoundland, as a result of the 10 per cent formula, to have a floor of 7. Wha* is so sacred about those senatorial floors? I would say that we
Redistribution Committee should not disturb them in the sense of reducing them, but there is no law against providing a higher floor above the present floor, which is what even the present 15 per cent clause could do with respect to some of the provinces eventually.
But let me get back to the senatorial floors and to the situation in the maritime provinces. If you were to take the present population of Prince Edward Island as a basis for its senatorial floor, or for its floor of 4 in the number of members of parliament it must have, on that basis New Brunswick's population is such that it should have a floor of 20, Nova Scotia a floor of 26, and Newfoundland a floor of 14. On the other hand, if you were to leave out Prince Edward Island because of its very small population and take New Brunswick on the basis of its present population and say that its present population entitles it to a floor of 10, on that basis Nova Scotia would be entitled to a floor of 12 and Newfoundland to a floor of 7. So, Mr. Speaker, on no count can you make it out that it is unfair for Newfoundland to have a floor of 7 rather than its present floor of 6, particularly when Nova Scotia and New Brunswick already have their floors of 10. I might also point out that a 10 per cent floor under the reduction to be effected as a result of any census would also provide a floor of 9 for the western provinces. I cannot envision a day when the mathematics of the situation would reduce us down to that figure. At the present time the senatorial floor is not much use to us out there. It gives us a floor of 6 in each western province. If we had a 10 per cent floor that at least would give us a floor of 9 rather than the present floor of 6.
And so, on all counts, I do not see any argument at all against the resolution submitted by the legislature of Saskatchewan. I strongly urge the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) to reconsider that part of his motion. He might consent even to someone on his side amending his motion, not necessarily changing the 15 per cent to 10 per cent, but putting both figures in, and thus giving the committee the right to consider both propositions, as alternatives. Surely that is little enough to ask.
As I say, I am not, at this stage, moving an amendment. Rather I make this suggestion to the Prime Minister, because if we are going to follow this method, this use of an expedient, that of having a floor in terms of percentage, then I think we are fully justified in asking that it be 10 per cent rather than 15. And I plead for that, not only

Redistribution Committee for my own province, which it would certainly affect, but for the province of Saskatchewan and other areas that might be affected now or at any time in the future.
I turn now to the constitutional aspect of the question, touched upon by inference by the Prime Minister and touched upon very directly by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew). I would point out first that since confederation there have been four amendments to the British North America Act which dealt directly with the problem of representation or redistribution. Those four amendments are the amendments of 1886, 1915, 1943, and 1946.
The amendment of 1886, which is dealt with at page 99 of Dr. Ollivier's book, in which he deals with the British North America Act and Selected Statutes, was an amendment giving the parliament of Canada the right to provide for representation in the House of Commons-and the Senate, too, if they wished-from territories not included within the provinces. That certainly affected representation in the House of Commons and also affected the ratio as between any one province and the rest of the country.
The amendment of 1915, which is dealt with at page 111 of this same volume, is the amendment which dealt with the senatorial floor. It now operates in the case of Prince Edward Island, and certainly did have and still has a bearing upon the representation in the House of Commons, and the ratio of seats among the various provinces.
The amendment of 1943, which is dealt with at page 118 of this same volume, was one which most of us will recall as having postponed the redistribution which was to be made following the census of 1941. The result of that amendment was that the election of 1945 was fought on a redistribution worked out on the basis of the census of 1931. In effect it was contrary to the original provision of the constitution. So there again was a constitutional change having a bearing upon representation in the House of Commons.
The last of the four to which I have referred is the amendment of 1946, to which reference is made at page 119 of this same volume. It is the amendment that provided a membership of 255-that was before Newfoundland came in-and made provision for the basis upon which we are now operating.
There are other amendments to the constitution which might be said to have a bearing on representation. I refer to the statutes which brought in the various provinces- Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, and so on, and, more recently, in 1949, the amendment bringing in Newfoundland. In each case we added members to the House of Commons
IMr. Knowles.]
and upset the ratio or the relationship which previously existed between any one province and the rest of the country.
I would point out however that in all these cases the changes in the constitution were made on motions of this parliament and this parliament alone. I wish to speak particularly with respect to the four that directly affected redistribution, namely the amendments to the British North America Act made in the years 1886, 1915, 1943 and 1946.
As I said before, in not one of these cases was there any consultation with the provinces. The changes were made here, by this parliament, on the basis of section 51 of the British North America Act which says, quite clearly-and this is the wording as provided by the Statute Law Revision Act of 1893:
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.
In other words this was not something that was to be discussed with the provinces. This was a matter to be dealt with by the parliament of Canada. I would point out that parliament has taken it to be its right, under section 51, not only to change the boundaries within the provinces by the method we have followed, but also to change the rules governing the apportionment of seats among the provinces. That has been done with respect to each of the four amendments to which I have referred, as well as with respect to amendments admitting the various new provinces.
What was the record with respect to the attitude taken by parliament and, if you will, taken by the various parties in the house, on each of those four occasions? Perhaps that would be a good question for me to answer when we resume at eight o'clock.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, when the house rose at six o'clock I had just referred to the fact that there have been four amendments to the British North America Act dealing directly with the problem of redistribution. I pointed out that those were in 1886, 1915, 1943 and 1946. I ended my remarks at six o'clock by asking the question as to what had been the attitude of the house toward those changes on each of those occasions. May I say that on not one of these occasions were the provinces consulted. The action of sending a resolution to Westminster was taken by the parliament of Canada under

the terms of section 51 of the British North America Act. On the first two occasions, 1886 and 1915, Conservative governments were in power. The first one was during the regime of Sir John A. Macdonald. The second one was during the days when Sir Robert Borden was prime minister. The third and fourth occasions were when a Liberal government was in power, Mr. Mackenzie King being the prime minister at both times.
It is true, as was pointed out this afternoon by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew), that in 1946 the Progressive Conservative party in this house opposed seeking an amendment to the constitution with respect to redistribution without first consulting the provinces. Nevertheless by an overwhelming vote of the house it was decided to amend the constitution in that way in the belief in the minds of the majority that this parliament had the right to do so under the terms of section 51 of the British North America Act. That leaves one other case, namely, that of 1943, when the British North America Act was amended in order to postpone the redistribution consequent upon the census of 1941. The result of that amendment was that the election of 1945 was fought on the basis of the census of 1931, clearly contrary to the spirit and the provisions of the original constitution. When the 1943 amendment came to a vote in the house on July 5 of that year it carried by a vote of 115 to 9. The group of nine consisted of a few then independent or semi-independent members from the province of Quebec, but all the Progressive Conservatives who were then in the house voted for the resolution to amend the constitution at that time in respect of redistribution.
Let me read a few of the names that are listed amongst those voting for the motion. Since they are listed here by their names I think it is in order for me to read them that way. The following names appear: Black, Cardiff, Casselman, Diefenbaker, Graydon, Green, Ross, Tustin, and many others. In other words, I am simply pointing out that on that occasion there was no question so far as the official stand of the Progressive Conservative party was concerned. They supported this change in the constitution having to do with redistribution.
In other words, Mr. Speaker, section 51 of the British North America Act is clear. Redistribution is a matter that comes within the responsibility of the federal parliament. The precedents, all four of them, are equally clear, namely, that the changes made in the constitution dealing with redistribution have been made by the parliament of Canada without consulting the provinces. I feel that is the course that it is still the right and the duty of this parliament to pursue.
Redistribution Committee
There is one other matter I should like to deal with briefly. The question has been raised both by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and by the Leader of the Opposition as to how we would go about a move of this kind assuming that it does involve a change in the constitution. To my way of thinking there is no doubt but that a change such as is suggested in the Prime Minister's motion does involve changing the constitution, whether that change is made indirectly or directly. After all, section 51 of the British North America Act now stipulates the basis upon which the membership of the House of Commons is to be determined. If the committee set up by virtue of this motion recommends some other basis then that is either repugnant to the constitution or involves changing the constitution. We now have the right to do that in this parliament, and we have had that right since the fall of 1949. As hon. members will recall, in the first session of this parliament-which met in the fall of 1949-we passed a motion which resulted in an amendment being made at Westminster whereby sub-section 1 of section 91 of the British North America Act now gives to the parliament of Canada the right to amend our own constitution with respect to matters that are clearly federal except for a few items specifically listed as entrenched clauses. Therefore we now can do what was done in 1886, 1915, 1943 and 1946. We can amend the constitution with respect to redistribution but, unlike what had to be done in those years, we do not now have to go to Westminster. We can do it ourselves right here in the parliament of Canada.
If I may say so, I think the method to be followed has been indicated to the house in another bill on the order paper in my name having to do with the quorum of the House of Commons. A study of that bill will make it clear that we do not have the right in this parliament to amend a statute of another country, namely, the British North America Act itself, but after all the constitution of Canada does not consist only of the British North America Act. It consists of a number of statutes, some of them British, some of them Canadian, some of them pre-1867, some since 1867. After all, Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights of 1688 and many other statutes are in effect part of the constitution of Canada. Dr. Ollivier tells me what we now have the right to do by virtue of the new subsection 1 of section 91 of the British North America Act is to pass Canadian legislation which, when added to that body of statutes comprising our constitution, does in that way amend the constitution of this country.
1443	HOUSE OF
Redistribution Committee Therefore it seems to me we can deal with this matter in either one of two ways. We can do it in an indirect way which I think is second best. We can pass a bill changing the representation of the house in which we include a preamble saying that notwithstanding the provisions of section 51 of the British North America Act, and by virtue of the power contained in section 91 (1) of the British North America Act, we enact as follows. Then we can spell out the proposed redistribution as planned by the committee. However, I feel that the better way to deal with the matter would be for us first of all to pass legislation amending section 51 of the British North America Act in the same way that my Bill No. 179 seeks to amend section 37 of the British North America Act with respect to the quorum of the House of Commons. Having amended section 51 of the British North America Act in that way to provide, as is our right, a new basis for adjusting the representation in the House of Commons, we could then bring in a redistribution bill based upon the provisions of the amendment to the constitution which we had properly enacted in the way I have suggested. If a change is to be made I hope such a course will be followed.
I thank the house, Mr. Speaker, for the attention and perhaps the extra few minutes that have been given me. I repeat that I earnestly hope consideration will be given the idea of setting up an independent commission to review the whole problem, both the question of drawing the boundaries within a province and that of apportioning the seats among provinces and areas. If that cannot be done at this time by virtue of the decision of the government, we will support the motion of the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent); but once again we would make our plea to him in the strongest possible terms to reconsider the figure set out in that motion. We feel that if a floor is going to be established it would be far more justifiable, far more in keeping with fair play to all concerned, to set the floor at 10 per cent instead of 15 per cent. The proposed floor of 15 per cent would seem to have the effect of assisting only one province. A 10 per cent floor would assist at least one other province now, if not two, and other provinces in the future, and I feel that a 10 per cent floor would appeal to all as a fairer way of dealing with this problem, pending a settlement of it on a more fundamental basis, which I hope will come soon.


Mr. Robert Fair (Battle River):: I listened with great interest to the remarks of the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) on April 9, and again to all that was said this afternoon


in connection with this question of redistribution. I was a member of the last committee to deal with this matter, and I hope we may have as easy a time in 1952 as we had then. As far as Alberta was concerned we had a very pleasant time. The hon. member for Athabaska (Mr. Dechene) and I got together in his office for a very few minutes, and we were the first committee to bring in a unanimous report with respect to our province, a report which I may say was accepted by the main committee and later by the house.
We in this group will support in principle the resolution that has been brought in by the Prime Minister. I am not sure that as it stands it is in the best possible form; but because we are making the laws here I feel that we can change it if a majority of the house finds it necessary and advisable to do so. For that reason we do not intend to tie ourselves down now to the exact terms of the resolution.
Three proposals have been suggested. One is the constitutional method under which Saskatchewan stands to lose five seats, Manitoba two and Nova Scotia one. I do not feel that this is quite fair to those provinces. Saskatchewan has suffered in the past and is suffering today, not because of bad weather but from floods, foot-and-mouth disease and the agricultural policies laid down by this government. It would not be right to take five seats from them now, as would be the case under the constitutional method.
The proposal by the Prime Minister that no province should lose more than 15 per cent of its seats seems an improvement on the constitutional method. But a still better method has been suggested; that is that no province should lose more than 10 per cent of its seats. Since the province in which I live would not lose any representation under any of these methods I feel that I am perhaps freer to speak on this matter than some others may be. As things stand I believe we might very well consider the 10 per cent reduction rather than the other two methods. It may be possible that some of the other provinces, the maritimes or perhaps some provinces even closer to Ottawa, are ready to take advantage of such a provision; in fact one of the eastern provinces has already taken advantage of similar legislation passed under the British North America Act. While I have no desire whatever to take away that right, I do not believe there would be any discrimination against any other part of the dominion by having this 10 per cent floor put into effect at this time.
I believe it is fully understood and recognized by the people of Canada that the west, as a part of Canada, suffers as a result of its representation here, or rather I should say

its lack of representation. We have in the west a small population in comparison with the wealth produced, but to my knowledge that has never been taken into consideration. When you want men to go overseas you go west and get the very best men to be had. When you want the best bread in the world at the lowest price in the world you go west, and you certainly get that too. When you want to collect enormous sums in income tax, especially from the farmers, you go west and get it from them. So I think we should have some little compensation to make up for some of those things.
I feel that if this matter is sent to the committee without some of the limitations imposed at the present time; if the committee will face its work in a co-operative spirit; if it will take the advice given three or four weeks ago by the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power) and cut out the skulduggery, a very satisfactory job can be done. I hope to be a member of that committee. I hope to do my work in a very fair manner, and I hope to have the co-operation of all the other members in the committee.
We in this group appreciate the privilege given by the Prime Minister to his followers to vote freely on this question. That is not ordinarily the case, and I hope hon. members will take full advantage of it. Somebody suggests that it may be hard to overcome habit, but members are sent here to represent their constituents and to work for their constituencies first and their parties second. That, of course, is not the rule here with the party in power, and in that the official opposition might be included. I believe that laws are made by men and women for the benefit of the community as a whole. While we in this house are supreme, I feel that we have a responsibility to all Canadians to do a fair job in connection with the redistribution of seats in the House of Commons.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: I would like to congratulate the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) on the splendid speeches he has been reading lately. It has been said that the more you read about a person the more you get to like him, so there is great hope for the hon. gentleman.
As far as this amendment is concerned, to me it is quite clear. I do not think the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) should be expected to ask the provinces to come and help him settle his redistribution difficulties, any more than the province of Manitoba or any other province should ask the dominion to help with its redistribution bill. I think that point is quite clear.
Redistribution Committee


James Arthur Ross: I should like to take a very few minutes in this debate following what was said by the previous speaker. I am one of those who, having read history, believe the provinces should be consulted when we make changes of this kind. There has been confusion in some minds as to whether or not the provinces should be consulted about this matter of federal representation. In his statement the other day the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) laid down the principle that the allocation of seats was by provinces according to their population. Coming from Manitoba I am naturally very interested, not only in Manitoba but in all the prairie provinces. While it has been claimed that we have representation by population, that has never been altogether true. Several amendments have been made deviating to some extent from that principle.
We go back to the census of 1911 when an amendment was passed assuring certain provinces that their representation should not fall below their senatorial representation. You have Prince Edward Island with four members representing less than 100,000 people. I am not trying to quarrel with that, but I am pointing out the disparity that will exist in the prairie provinces under this proposal. I must say that I followed the arguments of the Prime Minister very closely. I was rather impressed with his argument that no one province whose population was smaller than another province should be granted members on a basis that would give more members than the larger provinces. However, as I looked into that argument, I thought there could be a lot of flaws. Even with the proposed 15 per cent formula it would mean giving Saskatchewan 17 seats and Manitoba 14 seats. This would leave a difference of some 6,430 of population per riding in those two provinces alone. I am not objecting to saving as many seats as possible for Saskatchewan, but I am pointing out the disparity that will exist between these two adjoining provinces under this 15 per cent formula. I think that would be unfair.
As was pointed out by another member from the west, it does seem unfair that when we have a gain in population of 5-8 per cent or almost 47,000 people, we should have to lose these two seats. I would think, therefore, in view of the Prime Minister's very fair statement, he might yet reconsider and introduce an amendment to his resolution whereby the 10 per cent would be applicable rather than the 15 per cent. Certainly, this would benefit Manitoba. It might

Redistribution Committee benefit Nova Scotia, and I think it would be fairer in the future, although none of us can predict exactly what will happen in future years. It was pointed out this afternoon that when you get down to the subcommittees for the provinces you find very great disparities in the population of the various ridings. Someone said that in one riding in Quebec there were 9,999 people according to the last census.


Mr. Gauthier (Portneuf):: Which riding was that?


James Arthur Ross: I believe it was Iles-de-la-Madeleine. According to the last census one riding in Ontario has slightly over 17,000, as compared with one of the Yorks which is just under 160,000. These illustrations point out the tremendous difference you find once the general committee is broken up into provincial subcommittees. I know it is quite a chore.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) made reference to the very small riding I have the honour to represent. I happen to have had the privilege of being a member of the last redistribution committee, so I know some of the controversies and difficulties that are experienced. My own proposition was for a considerably larger riding than the boundaries of Souris enclose today, but there were other people who were quite concerned about other ridings who did not want to give up parts of their ridings, despite the size of those ridings. There are all of these conflicts with which you have to deal, and I realize how serious that is. I just want to take this opportunity to make a plea, especially for the prairie provinces, for some reconsideration of this formula so that the 10 per cent formula could be made applicable rather than the 15 per cent.
As was pointed out, under this proposal no harm would come to anyone and if would assist more provinces than does the 15 per cent formula. I trust that the members of the committee will deal with their duties as fairly as possible when the committee is set up. I am making this appeal at this time because we are desirous of saving as many seats for the prairie provinces as we can. While we axe supposed to have representation by population it has been recognized, not only in this country but in many other countries, that where you have a concentration of population such as in urban centres, a representative can represent a larger number of people than he should be called upon to represent in a rural area in which there is great difficulty in travelling.
[Mr. Ross (Souris) .1

In view of the fact we are now to have two members from the Yukon and Northwest Territories, I believe we have set up a good example. I am not opposing that idea. I feel it is only right that there should be two members, despite the very small population which I think is about 25,000. I believe it is right because of the geographical conditions. The same idea should be carried out for the western provinces.
The contribution that these areas make to the welfare of the whole nation should also be taken into consideration. I was happy to hear the Prime Minister say that in Saskatchewan and the other prairie provinces fewer people are producing just as much today and making as great a contribution to the welfare of this nation as had been done in the past by a greater number of people. I think that point should be borne in mind. I wish to make a last appeal to the Prime Minister to give some direction to the committee allowing them to use the 10 per cent formula rather than the 15 per cent, because it would be more beneficial to a greater number of areas than the 15 per cent would be.


Mr. R. R. Knight (Saskatoon):: After the brilliant exposition by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), I feel somewhat diffident in speaking about this matter, but I come from that province which will probably be affected more than any other province and I suspect my people may expect me to say a word or two. At the outset may I say that this whole idea is so tangled up that I should like to make it clear that I, too, support the 10 per cent as opposed to the 15 per cent formula. In saying that, I need not say that I am opposed to the bill which we have seen, and which I think has had first reading in this house.
Under the British North America Act, and under the strict rules of representation by population, each province would be given the number of members to which its population entitled it. This appears to be fair, and it would be fair if it were adhered to, but we know it is not adhered to. The British North America Act sets forth the basis for calculating the representations according to the population of the province, but in practice representation by population is not being carried out. I have the statistics for three or four electoral districts in Canada and the number represented by an individual member varies all the way from 10,000 to 100,000. This afternoon I looked up some of those districts, and I found this. According to the 1941 census the electoral district of Welland has 93,836 of population and Glengarry, on the other hand, has 18,732. Then

going down to Quebec, we have Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm with 63,462 of population and Iles-de-la-Madeleine with 8,940. These discrepancies surely should be ironed out.
Then there is a difference in the matter of the representation of the provinces themselves. Representation by population was abandoned when the first members of parliament were admitted to this house from certain provinces, notably British Columbia, Manitoba and Prince Edward Island. Thus, these are precedents for the abandonment of the idea of strict representation by population as such. In particular, Prince Edward Island is favourably and particularly protected by the abandonment of that principle which is and indeed should not be the sole determinant.
Then we come to the size of the territories over which a single member has care and to the interests of whose people he must attend. While I have with me no statistics in regard to this matter, I would say that in the west the large constituency is the rule and not the exception whereas in the east we have the exactly opposite position. I think someone has mentioned the comparative wealth-producing ability of those particular areas. We find this thinly populated area of the west and we know the reason for that loss in population. We know, for instance, that in Saskatchewan it is one of the greatest problems, if not the greatest. It is a problem which has been caused by the mechanization of the agricultural industry, as a result of which one man or a man and a boy can take off more wheat in these days than could a crew of 26 or 36 men some years ago. That does not mean, however, that the amount of wealth which those areas are producing is less than that which was produced by the larger number of workers.
. If one looks at the map, particularly, of, shall we say, that bend in the St. Lawrence river and including the city of Montreal, and counts the number of members in that area as compared with the number in that vast territory in the west, I think he will appreciate what I mean. If we are now to reduce the number of seats occupied by western members, we shall aggravate rather than help that condition which I have just described; for obviously such alteration would aggravate that situation in the west, and would make large areas into still larger areas to be represented by individual members. I often think that if some of the members representing city districts in Montreal, around Toronto or in some of those other thickly-populated areas, had to look after districts such as Maple Creek in Saskatchewan or Skeena in British Columbia 55704-92J
Redistribution Committee or some of these other places, they would realize what a tremendous task confronts a member of parliament for such places.
As I said, certain provinces have had their interests protected by artificial means. When I say "by artificial means", I mean by principles other than that of representation by population. Saskatchewan and Manitoba have never had that protection nor have they it at the present time. The one-twentieth clause or the 5 per cent clause-the clause which says that there should be no diminution of seats unless there was more than a 5 per cent diminution in the population-was, I think, designed, as a matter of fact, to help the maritime provinces; but the province which benefited-and I do not know to what extent the maritimes benefited-was the province of Ontario.
Adherence to the principle of representation by population would have lessened Ontario's seats by these figures: from 82 to 81 after 1921 and to 78 after 1931. Instead of that happening, that province held 82 seats from 1914 to 1947. That protection is not at: present available to Saskatchewan. Then we have New Brunswick whose representation cannot drop below 10 members of parliament and Prince Edward Island whose representation cannot drop below the number of 4. I am not saying anything against it, but of course it is over-represented at the moment in that it has four members whereas its population would justify the possession of only two. One protection is that a province cannot have a lesser number of members of parliament than of senators. But that provision certainly furnishes no immediate protection for either Saskatchewan-or Manitoba-which, on a consideration of population alone would lose -and it has been mooted; it was mooted in the bill-at one blow one-iquarter of its total representation. I do not think there is anyone in this house who thinks such a thing should happen. I am pleased to see that the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) does not think it should happen either. But we are afraid that when that bill is submitted to the committee, the committee might report favourably upon it.
I agree with those who do not believe that the work of redistribution should be done piecemeal. I agree with what many of my hon. friends have said when they have indicated that it should be a matter of national consideration by those who have nothing to gain or nothing to lose by the particular transaction; in other words, that it should be a work for scientists, technicians, statisticians, geographers and perhaps particularly for men who know something about political science.

Redistribution Committee It is my opinion-and I say this without malice toward anyone-that I do not think that members of parliament are particularly qualified to do that particular job; and in saying 'that I am leaving quite out of consideration the idea of any prejudice which they might have. But since we are deprived of the benefit for the moment-because there seems to be no immediate prospect of having a committee of that kind, but I hope that it will be set up in time for the next redistribution-in the meantime we have to follow expediency and do the best we can. Coming from Saskatchewan I am naturally interested in seeing that Saskatchewan should hold, as far as possible, the representation which it now has. Saskatchewan has already suffered in the matter, as indeed has Manitoba. Owing to the timing of the election in 1921, an election was held there before redistribution could be brought about. So it was the redistribution which was based on the 1911 census that was carried on up until the election of 1925. Since the election was held before the redistribution of 1921, those two provinces of the prairie west were deprived of 7 seats for at least four years. I am not saying of course that it could be prevented. I am merely showing that we have had some hardships in the past in this regard, and perhaps should have some consideration, at the present time. The fact which I have just stated surely does away at least with the argument that we must have redistribution immediately in order to do justice to the provinces of British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec, which have found their papulations increasing. In view of all this, and in view of the fact that for the first twenty-five years of this century those prairie provinces were systematically under-represented, owing to the rate of immigration into them-I am talking now about the government of 1921 which knew that the prairie provinces were under-represented; I shall not quote the passage I have in mind, but it is clearly shown in the remarks of Mr. Meighen, the prime minister of that day, which can be found at pages 38 and 39 of Hansard of the year 1921-I, like other members who represent not only Saskatchewan but all of that prairie west, hope that at least there may be an option as between the 10 per cent and the 15 per cent which the committee can study and report on.
I like the idea too that it is not only Saskatchewan that will be favoured by any such decision. As I understand it, the province of Alberta would gain one by such a decision, and also the province of Manitoba. As I understand it, the whole prairie section would receive some benefit.


Mr. Harkness:: Will the hon. member permit a question? How would Alberta gain one under this formula?


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: The 10 per cent, as explained by the Prime Minister, would add one to the representation of Alberta.


Mr. L. A. Mutch (Winnipeg South):: Mr. Speaker, when the Prime Minister introduced this motion he pointed out that it dealt with a matter which concerned the individual members of the house, and one which they could deal with in accordance with their own conscience. The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Caldwell) to the contrary, I can assure you, sir, and through you the house, that the few words that I have to say would have been uttered in about the same language whether or not that declaration had been made. It is written: "Blessed are the meek; for they shall inherit the earth." I think that we in Manitoba have, over a period of years, taken that text a little too literally, and we are finding it out from time to time. This is another example of the truth that it is poor consolation to have title if you cannot get possession.
I am not to be trapped by my own words into opposing a compromise which will secure for western Canada two members which it would otherwise lose, and gain an additional member for the western area through the territories; but at the same time I am not to be understood to believe that the suggested recommendation to the committee goes far enough to satisfy me, or indeed, in my view, to do justice to a part of this country which has made its contribution, and which now in this compromise is left outside.
I think I have been have here long enough to suggest that so far as I am concerned the compromise suggested by this motion-acceptable as it is in part-is subject to criticism on the ground that it departs from what we had accepted as fixed procedure without general application. It is something commendable in itself, but it does not go far enough. In other words, to me it has something of the unbalance of a half measure. As a matter of fact the proposition reminds me a little bit of Jack Horner's pie. Everybody who stands to gain as a result of the present redistribution will find his plum in the pie. There is even one for the territories, and again I say that I concur in that.
British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec are being asked to make no sacrifice. Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick and Newfoundland are entrenched in their present position. Alberta has no interest at the moment except should it develop as a result of the committee being permitted to recommend the 10 per cent regulation rather than

the 15 per cent one. Saskatchewan will stand to gain at least something from this compromise.
If I wanted to be critical of the arguments which have been used in support of this compromise, I think I would base the criticism of the arguments on the fact that whenever this situation arises in redistribution, whether it be within a province itself or whether it be in the dominion as a whole, we are faced with the suggestion that we are bound by some shadowy thing which is called representation by population. Anyone who has been here as long as I have-not many have been here longer-and anyone who has made a study of the history of this country will realize that representation by population never was anything but a political slogan, and has no reality either at the present time or in that plan which is projected for the future.
I do not think that in any method of redistribution it is possible to be absolute in the application of principle, any more than it is possible to be absolute very often in the application of any other principle in our daily endeavours here. There are factors in this suggestion which seriously violate the principle which is basic to the concept of representation by population; factors which make it possible to have a disparity of two or three members, depending upon which of these expediencies is used, in two provinces with less than 60,000 of a difference in population.
Consequently I rose to point out that in so far as I am concerned, having decided to compromise with the present regulations with respect to redistribution, I do not think it is good enough to make a compromise which asks no sacrifice from those who benefit by the redistribution system, and which makes no concession to at least two of the provinces which are asked to make a sacrifice. Therefore I urge that in consideration of this resolution I hope it will be possible for the committee which is to be appointed when the resolution carries-as I suppose it will-to consider not merely the 15 per cent loss proposal but to take into consideration the possibility that if we abandon the present system some consideration may be given to a 10 per cent protection for a province which has made its contribution, as my own province has throughout the years. I hope that we shall not be faced again as we were in 1921, and ten years later, with the fact of under-representation. I have no solution to offer by way of an amendment to the motion; but I do urge that the committee be empowered, in wider terms than they are now given, to consider a 10 per cent loss limit, in order that this compromise, which apparently
Redistribution Committee we have decided is to be effected, shall apply to all of those who would otherwise suffer, in comparison with the other provinces.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, I had not the slightest intention of taking part in the debate. However, a remark of the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Knight) has caused me to say only a word or two.
The hon. member said that under this 10 per cent formula Alberta would gain a seat. So far as I can see, Alberta cannot gain a seat under the 10 per cent, the 15 per cent or any other percentage formula. We have 17 seats now, and on the regular basis of redistribution we shall continue to have 17 seats. So, as we were never going to lose any seats, there is no possibility of our gaining one through any percentage application that may be made.
The hon. member for Winnipeg South (Mr. Mutch), who has just taken his seat, confused me somewhat by his argument. He started out by saying something to the effect that representation by population never did exist, and that therefore it was foolish to talk about it as a principle. Well, I happen to have had a couple of ancestors who suffered considerable hardship fighting for that as a principle. Therefore, for that, as well as for many other reasons, I have a considerable amount of respect for the principle of representation by population.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: I did not say the principle was bad; I said it was never applied.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I think that principle should be maintained so far as it is reasonable and practical to maintain it. However where the hon. member for Winnipeg South confused me was when, just after making that statement, he said it should be followed in some respects-I have forgotten in just what respects.
If we are going to tinker with the constitution every time the matter of redistribution comes up-and this seems to be the modern trend, because we did it before in 1946 or 1947 and we are doing it again at this time, only a few years later-then I think our tinkering should be done with as much fairness as possible.
I do not think there is any question about it, that tinkering with this matter can only be fair if, when you desert the strict principle of representation by population, which was done in respect of Prince Edward Island in 1911, you produce a formula which will not put any province with a larger population in a position where it has fewer representatives than has a province with a smaller population. Reference was made to that situation this afternoon by the Prime Minister.

Redistribution Committee
I think that certainly should be a basic principle in any change in the constitution which is made. I have a considerable amount of sympathy with the position taken by members from Saskatchewan, that they should not lose 25 per cent of their representation at one stroke. I have considerable sympathy with their contention that they should not lose more than 10 per cent of their membership in the house at one time. But if this 10 per cent rule is put into effect, or a 15 per cent rule-and, as I say, I think Saskatchewan has some argument in favour of the 10 per cent rule-I think at the same time there should be put into effect a rule whereby this would not operate so that a province with a larger population would have smaller representation than a province with a lesser population.
Just exactly how that could be done, I am not sure. Looking at it roughly, however, I should think all that would be needed would be a provision to that effect, so that we would have a situation wherein, if a province lost 10 per cent of its population and therefore 10 per cent of its representation, and were thus reduced to 20 seats, another province with a larger population but which, under the ordinary rules, would have only 19 seats, should also have 20 seats- or 21, as the case may be.
Inevitably this would increase total representation. We must keep in mind however that the present proposal will cause a certain increase in the representation. My personal view is that it was possibly a mistake to change the base, as was done at the time of the last redistribution. We had had a base in operation since confederation in 1867. There had been some inequalities, unquestionably, chiefly through the operation of the 5 per cent or one-twentieth rule. However, by and large it had worked out reasonably well. Rather than adopt what I would describe as a slick formula in order to satisfy two provinces at the time-in 1946- I believe we would have been much better off if we had retained the old formula and, if necessary, increased the base.
If the base for the province of Quebec had been increased to 75 rather than 65 and then, apart from the maritime concession which had already been made, more or less strict representation by population had been carried out, I do not think anyone would have complained. We would have had something based upon our 'tradition, since confederation, and something which probably would still be working satisfactorily today.
The only other point I should like to make is that when the distribution of constituencies within the provinces takes place I would hope that on this occasion a more striot regard
fMr, Harkness.l

would be had to representation by population than there was at the time of the last redistribution, so that we would not have a situation such as that described by several hon. members today wherein on the one hand there are constituencies with only eight or nine thousand people and on the other constituencies with as many as 160,000.
It seems to me that so long as we have a situation of that kind we are only giving lip service to the principle of representation by papulation. From the practical point of view, we are setting it at nought and placing some people in a situation where their votes are eight or nine or ten or fifteen times as good as the votes of people in other constituencies. That situation is not good enough. Surely the worst we should have would be a situation whereby the vote of a man in one constituency would be only half as good as that of a man in another. In other words my suggestion is that we should reach a position where discrepancies between constituencies should not in 'any case be greater than two to one.


Mr. J. A. MacLean (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, it was not my intention to speak in this debate. However, since I come from a province protected by a special clause ini the British North America Act perhaps I may be forgiven if I make a few observations at this time.
It seems to me that when the question of representation is being discussed hon. members seem to feel that parliamentary representation consists only of representation by population. I am afraid I must disagree with the hon. member for Calgary East (Mr. Harkness) to a certain extent, because it is my view that, in addition to representation of individuals, there is the matter of representation of areas and political units. There is also the matter of representation of natural resources.
These are principles recognized in practically every parliamentary assembly in the world. Indeed, there is a certain nodding admission of this fact as it applies to representation in this House of Commons, although it would appear that in Canada we do not seem to have any regularly systematized method of dealing with the problem.
First there is the matter of representation of isolated areas. It is recognized that if an area is isolated and cut off, even though its population may be small, it would be impossible for one man to represent it properly if it is almost impossible for him to travel from one part of his constituency to another. Therefore in such cases it is thought advisable to give these isolated areas a representative of their own. In Canada the Magdalen islands are a perfect example of that very thing.

Then there is the question of the proper representation of specialized areas where there may be a minority of a particular racial extraction or even a particular religious belief, or other fairly small groups having some special interest. Their point of view can be exterminated and brought to nought by combining them with another group holding contrary opinions. Therefore in actual fact they are not represented. In many countries that condition is recognized and these minorities are given their own representation in parliament even though they are not numerous enough to make up a unit of representation.
Another most important thing to be con-, sidered is the representation of large, sparsely populated areas which, although they have small populations, are of great importance. The suggestion that the constituency of Yukon-Mackenzie River should be given two members instead of one is a practical example of the carrying out of that principle although there again there is no recognized system whereby such a principle will be followed from time to time so that on all occasions after every census the same results will be gained from a fixed formula.
There also falls in that category a principle recognized in most countries, namely, that rural areas are entitled to more representatives on a population basis than urban areas. It is interesting to realize that in this country that principle has been recognized in the past. During the redistribution of 1892, when the government of that day proposed that the representation of Montreal should be increased from three to five, Sir Wilfrid Laurier took great exception to that suggestion although even the increased representation would leave Montreal with much larger units of population per constituency than was the case in the rest of Canada. On that occasion Sir Wilfrid Laurier said:
I am not prepared to admit for my part that Montreal is at all entitled to increased representation. It is admitted generally, it is admitted specifically in this bill, that there is to be a difference between the representation of urban populations... and rural populations. That object is obvious. Urban populations are represented generally to a greater degree than are rural populations, because urban populations generally furnish to rural populations many of their members . . . Montreal is represented in this house by no less than thirteen of its citizens.
That is a principle that should be recognized. New Zealand and Australia have a systematic way of recognizing it. In those countries the population of rural areas is increased by a certain percentage to arrive at the unit of representation for such areas. In New Zealand the population of a rural area is increased by 20 per cent to give a fictitious higher population than it actually has before dividing the unit of representation into the
Redistribution Committee population of the rural area to arrive at the number of its representatives. It is also generally recognized that it is much easier for a member of parliament or of any other legislative body to represent a small compact area than it is for him to represent a large sparsely populated region. Therefore in the thinly populated agricultural areas, where most people are land owners and have a real and fundamental stake in that part of the country, the unit of representation should be smaller.
Before New Zealand and Australia adopted the principle of having a smaller unit of representation for rural areas a great deal of debate was provoked in the parliaments of those countries. It was even suggested by one member of the New Zealand parliament that perhaps they should arrive at a principle of representing sheep in parliament rather than men because then they could have a fixed unit of representation which would be more suitable in its application than the representation of human beings. Someone suggested that perhaps men should represent sheep but there was no suggestion on that occasion that sheep should represent men in their parliament.
I think that the most important principle we must recognize in dealing with representation is that of the representation of political units. Almost every country in the world including Canada, although sometimes we do not want to admit it, recognizes that principle. In the British House of Commons the unit of representation for both Scotland and Wales is smaller than the unit of representation for England. They have a greater number of members than they would on a straight representation by population basis because it is felt they have certain local interests which might be discriminated against by the overwhelming weight of representation in the British House of Commons from England.
In the United States the representation of the states in congress is protected. Each state elects two senators and also sends a number of members to the house of representatives, that number depending on their population. But if the population of the state is smaller than the unit of representation it still sends at least one member. The population of New York state is many times greater than the population of Nevada. Yet they each send two elected senators to congress. As a matter of fact the population of Nevada is practically the same as that of Prince Edward Island. If the question were decided on a straight representation by population basis Nevada would be entitled to a fraction of one representative. In other words, it would be a small fraction of one constituency. In actual fact Nevada sends a member to the

Redistribution Committee house of representatives and two members to the Senate although its population is roughly the same as that of Prince Edward Island. Therefore it has a much greater relative voice in the congress of the United States than Prince Edward Island has in the parliament of Canada.
In Canada on many occasions we have recognized that principle in a sort of way, and the very system of representing provinces in parliament is proof of that point. After all, if the size of Canadian constituencies was arrived at purely on -a population basis there would be no justification for making the boundaries of constituencies coincide with provincial boundaries. If you had a fraction of a constituency left over in one province there would be no reason why you could not tack it on to a constituency in the next province, but we recognize that we should not have constituencies partly in one province and partly in another. There are provincial interests to be represented in this parliament.
Then, too, on occasion special concessions have been given to certain political areas. British Columbia and Manitoba were given representation in this parliament much greater than that to which they were entitled by reason of population when they joined confederation. As a matter of fact British Columbia was given six members in the house when on a population basis it was entitled to something less than one. Moreover there was a clause in the agreement under which they joined confederation which made it impossible for the representation of British Columbia in this house to ever fall below six.
On the other hand when Prince Edward Island joined confederation it was given only one more member than its population required. It was given six instead of five, and it was not very long before that extra member was taken away. Many of the people in the province in which I live were under the impression that on joining confederation their representation was protected, and that it would never fall below the number at which it stood when Prince Edward Island came into confederation.
The same was true of Manitoba. It was given a representation of four though on the basis of population it was entitled to only one or at the most two. It was protected in its representation for a period of time, but British Columbia's protection is permanent. Therefore I see no reason why any thought should be given, if anyone has done so, to unnecessarily cutting the representation of any province in this house. I think we are quite justified in making special exceptions in certain cases to assure that particular

political areas will be properly represented here, and that their area interests also will be protected.
That is all I have to say at this moment, Mr. Speaker, except that I would support most heartily not only the proposal to add another member for Yukon-Mackenzie, but also the suggestion that the representation from any province should never be reduced by more than 10 per cent at any one time.
Motion (Mr. St. Laurent) agreed to.



APPOINTMENT OF COMMITTEE

Louis Stephen St-Laurent: If it were the pleasure of the house to revert to motions, the whips of the various groups have prepared a list of members to make up this committee, and if it were the pleasure of the house to have this done at once I would move that these gentlemen constitute the special committee.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Then I move:
That the following members comprise the special committee on redistribution: Messrs. Argue, Balcer, Blair, Boucher, Brooks, Decore, Denis, Dewar, Diefenbaker, Fair, Fleming, Fulton, Gauthier (Sudbury), Gauthier (Portneuf), Harkness, Harris (Grey-Bruce), Kirk (Antigonish-Guysborough), Knowles, Laing, MacDougall, MacNaught, McCub-bin, Mcllraith, McWilliam, Murphy, Murray (Cariboo), Nowlan, Picard, Robinson, Ross (Souris), Shaw, Viau, Welbourn, Whiteside, Whitman, Winkler, Wright.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mr. H. W. Winkler (Lisgar) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 37, for the relief of Margaret Elizabeth Strange Colton.


Mr. Speaker:: I notice a number of divorce bills on the order paper. Is the house prepared to deal with these bills in one motion?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I would point out that of the 77 divorce bills posted for second reading, the evidence in connection with 60 has been placed in our hands, leaving 17 in connection with which the evidence though it may have been delivered to this house in typewritten form has not been printed or distributed. I believe the hon. member for Lisgar is prepared to let those 17 stand, and if so I would have no objection to second reading being given the other bills.


Howard Waldemar Winkler: Before I ask to have those bills stand I would like to draw the attention of members of this house to this pile of evidence concerning the 17 bills in question

that have been considered by the divorce committee in the other place and sent to this house. I would earnestly ask those who object to waiting for the distribution of the printed evidence to consult this typewritten evidence in the meantime. It is available on application to the Clerk of the House, who will give hon. members access to it or, if they so desire, custody of it. I am anxious to see these bills get before our committee on miscellaneous private bills rather than have the affair drag on for a considerable time, as it well may since the printing appears to be slow. These 17 are scattered through the list but I believe if hon. members would co-operate and consult this evidence which has not yet been distributed, we would get along very much faster. However, if I have unanimous consent I would ask that the 17 bills to which reference has been made be allowed to stand.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.



SECOND READINGS-SENATE BILLS

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 38, for the relief of Irene Britton Lynn.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 10, for the relief of Shirley Doreen Rowe.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 42, for the relief of Pauline Augusta McCaskill Foulis.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 43, for the relief of Hilda Avrith Grossman.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 44, for the relief of Sarah Grossman Grotsky.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 48, for the relief of Eva Ena Guenard Brassard.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 53, for the relief of Helen Myrtle Woods Poullos.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 55, for the relief of Peter Nicol Crowe.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 56, for the relief of Fred Jenne Fyles.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 66, for the relief of Olga Pretula McGonnigal.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 71, for the relief of Vivian Clement Mole.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 73, for the relief of Frederick Ernest Marlow.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 77, for the relief of Audrey Jessie Elizabeth Kinnear Park.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 80, for the relief of Jean Frew Hawkins.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 81, for the relief of Lucy Elliott Dolan.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 85, for the relief of George Louis Draper.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 87, for the relief of Ruth Evelyn Seivewright Day.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 89, for the relief of George Edward Gumbley.-Mr. Winkler.
Private Bills-Divorce Bill No. 98, for the relief of Eileen Roberta Lynn Walker.-Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 99, for the relief of Claire Greenberg Ghilcig.-Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 101, for the relief of Eva Lubin Greenfield.-Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 106, for the relief of Marie Dora Adrienne Menard Chartrand.-Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 107, for the relief of Bridget Chias-son Musseau.-Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 110, for the relief of Joseph Lionel Bibeau.-Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 112. for the relief of Mary Finkel-stein Fogel.-Mr. Weir.
Bill No. 116, for the relief of Jean (Janek) Mazur.-Mr. Weir.
Bill No. 125, for the relief of Madeleine Therrien Ferron.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 126, for the relief of Catherine Victoria Howie Burnett Worthington.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 127, for the relief of Hazel Rawlings Passnick.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 128, for the relief of Douglas Paul Wilbur.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 129, for the relief of Arnold Ernest Kirby.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 130, for the relief of Annie Shaw Young Goudie Corcoran.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 136, for the relief of Mabel (Karianoron) Stacey Delorimier.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 141, for the relief of Gordon Eugene White.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 142, for the relief of Silas Maxwell Barrow.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 145, for the relief of Nathalie Olga Marianne Pervouchine Petrik.-Mr. Weir.
Bill No. 146, for the relief of Lily Stall Wax.-Mr. Weir.
Bill No. 147, for the relief of Charles William Silver.-Mr. Weir.
Bill No. 149, for the relief of Jochwet Freiberg Rosenstein.-Mr. Weir.
Bill No. 150, for the relief of Mabel Elizabeth Jones McKay.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 152, for the relief of Olive Winifred Thistle Gour.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 157, for the relief of Kenneth Oliver Frawley.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 158, for the relief of Carol Almina Perry Alleyn.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 159, for the relief of Gertrude Mintz Dankoff.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 160, for the relief of Edna Pearl Tait Ames.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 161, for the relief of William Payne.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 163, for the relief of Dorothy Lillian Robinson Kay.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 164, for the relief of Emily Eileen Withall Rediker.-Mr. Winkler.
[Stage Direction]
Questions
Bill No. 165, tor the relief of Joseph Charles Gerard Jean Leduc.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 166, for the relief of Hilda Miriam Magee Taylor.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 167, for the relief of Laurent Lan-glois.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 168, for the relief of Dorothy Lucille Girard Ward.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 169, for the relief of Alfred Machabee.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 170, for the relief of Fanny Ian-covici Weissenberg.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 171, for the relief of Marilyn Apple Bogoroch.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 31, for the relief of Edna Gibson Smith Schiller.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 175, for the relief Helen Semegen Boodanoff.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 176, for the relief of Mary Ann Munro Kelly.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 178, for the relief of Joan Alexander Jacobs Epstein.-Mr. Winkler.


INCOME TAX


Mr. Knowles:: 1.	Has the government been advised of a decision of the Exchequer Court of Canada to the effect that the expenses of lawyers attending conventions of the bar association are to be allowed as deductions for income tax purposes?
2.	If so, what was the date of such decision, and by whom was it given?
3.	Has the government taken any steps to amend the Income Tax Act in respect of the matter noted above?
4.	Has the government received any requests from trade unions that a similar deductibility be allowed in connection with the expenses of trade union delegates attending trade union conventions?
5.	Has the government taken any steps to amend the Income Tax Act to put trade unionists and other similar groups into whatever position obtains for lawyers with respect to the deductibility of convention expenses for income tax purposes?
6.	If not, is consideration being given by the government to such an amendment?


Mr. Sinclair:: 1.	No. It is aware, however, of a decision of the income tax appeal board on this subject. In the case of H. F. Parkinson v. Minister of National Revenue, an appeal was allowed against a previous disallowance by the minister of a claim for deduction from the appellant's personal income of expenses incurred and paid personally by him in attending a convention of the Canadian Bar Association. The minister disallowed the deduction as the appellant had personally paid the expenses and sought to deduct them from his income in reporting his personal income rather than as an expense against the partnership. It was held that there was no reason to differentiate between the procedure of deduction adopted by the appellant and that of deduction in the accounts of the partnership.

2.	August 30, 1951. Mr. W. S. Fisher, Q.C., member of the board1.
3.	No.
4.	Yes.
5.	No. Lawyers on salary are in exactly the same position as trade unionists and others working for salary or wages with respect to the deductibility of expenses for income tax purposes.
6.	It is not the practice to disclose government policy in giving answers to questions in the house.



PHYSICAL FITNESS ACT


Mr. Thatcher:: 1.	How many employees are there across Canada employed under the National Physical Fitness Act?
2.	What are the duties of each?
3.	What specific work are these employees presently engaged at?


Mr. McCusker:: 1.	The 1952-53 estimates (see page 346) provide for eleven employees whose duties relate to the administration of the National Physical Fitness Act. Of these eleven positions three were actually vacant during the month of April, 1952.
The eight provinces with whom agreements are in effect under the National Physical Fitness Act, employ their own staff in carrying out the physical fitness program within their respective provinces.
2 and 3. The duties of the eleven employees referred to in (1) above are listed in the 1952-53 estimates as follows:
1 national director (vacant); 1 administrative officer grade 3 (assistant director);
1 technical officer grade 3;	1 reference
assistant (vacant); 1 principal clerk; 1 stenographer grade 3; 1 stenographer grade 2A (vacant); 1 stenographer grade 1; 1 clerk grade 2A; 2 typists grade 2A.
The assistant director is responsible for the general operation of the division of physical fitness and serves in addition as executive secretary of the national council on physical fitness. The technical officer grade 3 is a specialist in the field of recreational drama who serves in a consultant capacity to the provinces in this specialized recreational field. The other staff members of the division carry the usual office clerical and stenographic duties.



ANIMAL CONTAGIOUS DISEASES


Mr. Argue:: 1.	How many of the fifty-two head of cattle shipped out of the Burns plant during December have been examined by veterinarians for symptoms of foot-and-mouth disease?
2.	What were the results of each test?

3.	How many of the fifty-two head were shipped to points (a) within the quarantine area; (b) within the buffer area; (c) outside the buffer area?
4.	How many of the fifty-two head have been destroyed?


Mr. McCubbin:: 1.	52.
2.	9 consigned for immediate slaughter, 3 sold into contact or infected herds destroyed with the herds, 40 kept under constant observation and found healthy.
3.	(a) 32; (b) 20; (c) nil.
4.	See answer to No. 2.



OTACO LIMITED


Mr. Stewart (Winnipeg North):: 1.	Has there been any renegotiation of defence contracts or sub-contracts by or on behalf of the government of Canada with Otaco Limited, on (a) contracts or sub-contracts let prior to January 1. 1946; (b) contracts or sub-contracts let subsequent to January 1, 1946?
2.	If so, what is the total value of contracts or sub-contracts, subject to renegotiation in each period?
3.	What is the total amount of refunds, if any, assessed against Otaco Limited in connection with renegotiations in each period?
4.	What is the total amount of indebtedness, if any, still outstanding against this company, arising out of these renegotiations?


Mr. Dickey:: 1.	(a) Yes; (b) No.
2.	(a) $8,204,191.82 for the period 1941-45 inclusive; (b) Nil.
3.	(a) $1,216,851.10; (b) Nil.
4.	$105,780.78.



OLD AGE SECURITY AND OLD AGE ASSISTANCE ACTS

Mr. Laing:: 1.	In the month of February, 1952, how many British Columbia residents were registered under (a) the Old Age Security Act; (b) the Old Age Assistance Act?
2.	What was the total sum paid under the Old Age Security Act for February, 1952?
3.	What was the federal contribution towards the sum paid under the Old Age Assistance Act for the same month?


Mr. McCusker:: 1.	(a) 71,356; (b) 3,899.
2.	British Columbia - $2,853,960.
3.	British Columbia -	$92,654.01. This
amount includes payment for the month of January as well as February in certain cases.



TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY  NEWFOUNDLAND

Mr. Higgins:: 1.	What is the presently completed mileage of the trans-Canada highway in Newfoundland?
2.	What was the cost per mile?
Questions
3.	How many more miles have to be completed?
4.	What is the total estimated cost of the highway in Newfoundland?
5.	What is the estimated date of its completion?
6.	Is the completed highway in Newfoundland to be of the same standard as that of the other provinces?
7.	If not, what will be the difference in the standard?


Mr. Winters:: 1.	No mileage has been fully completed.
2.	See answer to No. 1. Records of cost of completed construction are therefore not available.
3.	See answer to No. 1.
4.	$36,600,000.00.
5.	Terms of the Trans-Canada Highway Act apply for the period ending December 9, 1956.
6.	The government of Newfoundland signed the same agreement as the other seven signing provincial governments. The agreement provides for variations in specifications to meet local conditions but in general the same standards apply for all provinces.
7.	See answer to No. 6 above.



FUNDY NATIONAL PARK


Mr. Brooks:: 1.	How many park benches have been made for Fundy national park, New Brunswick?
2.	By whom were they made, and what was the price paid?


Mr. Winters:: 1.	Twenty-five half log stake back rustic benches.
2.	Built by park labour-cost $4.50 each.



BAIT DEPOTS IN NEWFOUNDLAND

Mr. Browne (St. John's West):: 1.	How many bait depots have been established by the federal government in Newfoundland during the past fiscal year?
2.	Where are they located, and what was the cost of erection?
3.	How many bait depots are now in Newfoundland under the control of the federal government, and where are they located?


Mr. MacNaught:: 1. 1.
2.	Port aux Choix. To be completed in 1952. Cost to March 31, 1952, $23,287.84.
3.	21-Port aux Basques, Rose Blanche, Rencontre West, Hermitage, Rencontre East, Grand Bank, Lamaline, Oderin, Merasheen, Long Harbour, St. Mary's, Ferryland, Bona-vista, Greenspond, Joe Batt's Arm, Change Islands, Twillingate, Nipper's harbour, Conche, Quirpon, Port aux Choix.

Questions



GRANTS TO UNIVERSITIES

[Stage Direction]
NOVA SCOTIA	Mr. McCubbm:
Mr. Balcom:: 1.	Have federal grants been given to the universities of Nova Scotia, as recommended by the Massey commission?
2.	If so, to what universities, and what amount to each?


Mr. Sinclair:: 1.	Yes.
2.	St. Francis Xavier university,
Antigonish	 $ 70,000.37
College Sainte-Anne,
Church Point	 $	5,075.75
Dalhousie university, Halifax ... $117,866.62 University of King's College,
Halifax	 $ 10,247.87
Maritime School of Social Work,
Halifax	 $ 2,602.13
Mount Saint Vincent college,
Halifax	 $ 17,668.75
Nova Scotia technical college,
Halifax	 $ 23,676.12
Pine Hill Divinity Hall,
Halifax	 $ 3,051.88
Sacred Heart convent, Halifax .. $	1,188.63
St. Mary's college, Halifax	 $ 16,351.63
Nova Scotia agricultural college,
Truro	 $ 3,341.00
Acadia university, Wolfville .... $ 42,148.00 Holy Heart seminary, Halifax .. $ 8,031.25



NATIONAL FILM BOARD


Mr. Macnaughlon:: 1.	Does the national film board distribute films other than those produced by itself?
2.	If so, does it distribute films produced by (a) private agencies; (b) provincial governments; (c) governments of other countries; (d) agencies of international co-operation, such as the United Nations and the European co-operation administration?
3.	How many such films has the board in distribution at present?


Mr. Winters:: 1.	Yes.
2.	(a) Yes; (b) Yes; (c) Yes; (d) Yes.
3.	Number of Subjects Number of Prints
(a)	86	796(b)	39	293(c)	108	1,414(d)	46	957



MARSHLAND REHABILITATION-PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND

Mr. MacLean (Queens):: 1.	What projects are being carried on in Prince Edward Island under the Maritime Marshland Rehabilitation Act?
2.	How much has been spent on each project to date?

1.	Johnston river project-completed.
2.	$19,294.



TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY

Mr. Johnston:: 1.	What will be the total number of miles of the trans-Canada highway for Ontario when it is completed?
2.	How much of this has been reconditioned and meets all federal standards for the trans-Canada highway?
3.	How much of this is new construction and meets all federal standards for the trans-Canada highway?
4.	How much of this is new construction and meets all federal standards except the hard-surfacing?
5.	How much of this remains yet to be constructed?
6.	How long will it take to complete the Ontario section of the trans-Canada highway at the present rate of construction?


Mr. Winters:: 1.	1,214 miles, subject to future revisions in alignment.
2.	No mileage has been wholly completed.
3.	See answer to No. 2 above.
4.	See answer to No. 2 above.
5.	See answer to No. 1 above.
6.	Terms of the Trans-Canada Highway Act apply for the period ending December 9, 1956.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


NEWFOUNDLAND


Mr. Browne (St. John's West):: 1.	What amount of (a) income tax; (b) corporation tax, has been collected in Newfoundland for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1952?
2.	What taxes have been collected in (a) liquor; (b) tobacco, in Newfoundland for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1952?



EXPORT OF SALT CODFISH FROM NEWFOUNDLAND

Mr. Browne (St. John's West):: 1.	What have been the quantities of salt codfish exported from ports in Newfoundland month by month since September 1, 1951?
2.	To what markets have they been exported, and what have been the average prices received for shipments to the various countries?


Mr. Mcllraith:: Return tabled.



MOTION FOR PAPERS


Mr. Quelch:: For a copy of the final reports by P.F.R.A. officials to the federal government on the Red Deer river project.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, I am not absolutely certain that there is what is generally called a final report, but whatever reports there are will be brought down.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. A. Phileas Cote (Malapedia-Matane) moved:: That, in the opinion of this house, the government should give consideration to the advisability of taking the necessary steps so that this country be called the Kingdom of Canada.
He said: This resolution will not receive unanimous consent, and I was not prepared to argue it tonight because I never thought it would be reached. I shall try to convince my hon. friends on the other side of the fence that, according to tradition, they should be the first to say "Aye, aye." The introduction of this motion is a mere gesture by a minority in this country. The descendant of a great Frenchman once said that those who would be the first and last to fight to defend the British crown would be French Canadians from Quebec. Since our beloved Queen and the British government saw fit, at the time of the proclamation of Her Majesty's accession to the throne, to use the word "realm" in that proclamation, I thought this motion would be in order. Our proclamation was one day ahead of that of the British government, and obviously that is the reason our proclamation did not contain the same terms.
If one looks at a dictionary one finds that the word "realm" can be translated into French by the word "souverainete". When you translate "souverainete" into English it is "kingdom". One can see that I have, therefore, not invented anything. I do not intend to impose any invention upon my colleagues. I thought, as a member of a minority group represented in this house, that it would be a nice gesture if we in this country, having the same Queen as Great Britain but on the understanding that she is the Queen of Canada, were to step into line with the desire expressed in the proclamation. I thought also that I would please my hon. friends on the other side of the gate, because I thought they knew enough of history to realize that one of their greatest leaders, Sir John Macdonald, also desired this country be called the kingdom of Canada. One has to remember, and this is no secret, that when confederation was being discussed at Quebec and Charlottetown Sir John Macdonald thought this country should be called the kingdom of Canada. For many reasons beyond his control, it was not. I thought the Tories would grab this occasion to give to their former leader, the greatest leader they ever had not counting the one who is with us today, something that he wanted. They could line up with us and please Sir John.
21, 1952	1461
Canada-Suggested Change of Name


Douglas Scott Harkness: Did Sir John's ghost appear to you to instil this idea into you?


Alcide Côté: Did you call Sir John a ghost? We have a St. Jean, but it is St. Jean Baptiste.
Now, some members will say, "Why bring that up at this particular time when we have so many problems with which to deal which are of such great importance and magnitude? I will tell you, sir, why I brought this matter up, in addition to the reasons I have already mentioned. Looking at what is taking place in many more important assemblies, looking at all the big problems that have been dealt with with regard to conditions throughout the world, it seems to me, at least, that in many a country today if they consider trade plans, imports and exports, armaments, defence or anything which is tangible, there are some people who have thought maybe it would not be so bad a thing after all if we would pay some attention to something in some other direction; and that something in another direction is education of the masses of the people. I refer to education not only in terms of having people able to read or to write but national education or national comprehension in so>
far as national education is concerned with regard to this particular matter.
May I suggest, sir, that in the minds of the immigrants that come into this country there is a great deal of confusion, to say the least, with regard to our status. They do not know whether we are still a summer kitchen to Great Britain or to another country. Some of these people are so confused that they believe we are only a transit swing board, and therefore they wait either on the railway platform or on the pier to go to the United States. How about the next generation of these people? Even if they stay here, are they going to be in a position to teach their children that this is a country by itself; that even if we are, in the matter of trade, the third country in the world, we are adult and not merely a branch of another country, either of the United States or of Great Britain. It is no secret to anybody that since 1931, after the discussion of 1927 with regard to the Statute of Westminster, we established ourselves not only *as the third largest country in the world with regard to trade but also as a sovereign country. What is the reason, fundamentally speaking, emotionally as well as mentally, that is preventing us from establishing ourselves in the eyes of the world as being what we are? Are we ashamed of ourselves? We should do this even if only to satisfy the wish of the government of Great Britain to which we gave

Canada-Suggested Change of Name so much trouble during the last war by the confusion that was created throughout the world-with the air force, for instance, going to the four winds of the world and creating that confusion-so that people did not know that there was such a country as Canada.
I have a hunch it is a secret to our government that when the proclamation was issued it was not made by the government of Great Britain without an afterthought that would indicate to Canada that it was about time that we ourselves should do something in that direction. There may be another reason why Great Britain would like us to do that. In our international relations nowadays we have to define not only to the people within Canada- whether the old loyalists or the young loyalists-but to the outside people either in NATO or elsewhere-and I would even go a step further and say within the iron curtain-that we stand on our own feet, and everybody ought to know it.
I still remember vividly the experience of one of my friends in the press gallery who was at the time representing a London newspaper and who went to central Europe. At the meeting there he was asked what was our national anthem and what was our flag. He said that we had none. This gentleman, coming from England, was the most embarrassed man in the world. That means to say that we are creating more embarrassment to the British than maybe to ourselves. I therefore say that I would quash the idea that it is a sort of thing to satisfy our selfishness but is in keeping with the desire, as I understand1 it, of our beloved Queen and of the British government. As far as our government is concerned, I hope the membership of this house will express to our government the desire that something be done in that direction. As I said before, it is obvious that we need something of the sort in order to establish a Canadian identity, a unique front towards a unique end and also to promote Canada not only through shipments, trade and commerce, and so forth, but also to promote Canada as a nation which can be easily identified. Many people throughout the world are nowadays bewildered to see that the third nation of the world has not yet found an opportunity to establish itself without any confusion amongst the nations of the world. This occasion has been given to us by the highest authority, by our Queen and the British government, not by the member for Matapedia-Matane. I hope the house will indicate, by passing this resolution, that our government should take these steps.
Immigrants come into this country from several countries on the continent that do not know us at all. We have only to go to the


United Nations to find that out. I think the best identification we can give to the nations of the world is to establish what we are once and for all, which will eliminate a great deal of resentment even among our good friends to the south.
In my opinion there is one thing that should be borne in mind. Up to the present time we have never been able to get accepted in the Pan-American union. Why? Because the Americans think that it would mean the destruction of the Monroe doctrine. They thought that we were an annex of Great Britain. Therefore they said that Great Britain should not have a foot in that door. If that change could be brought about I believe we would be welcomed at the PanAmerican union, and that is most important.
How is it that we are accepted in NATO but we are not accepted by the nations of our own continent? Who can understand that in Europe? Who can understand it in Asia? I am sure that we shall soon be invited to form on the Pacific what we have formed on the Atlantic. If we do that these people will say:	How is it that you are welcomed
outside your own house but you cannot find a seat in the living room thereof?
There is another thing, and with this I will conclude. It is necessary for us to create a nation here as they have done in the United States. Let us call it a potpourri, a melting pot, or whatever you wish. When you meet a young boy in the United States, or an immigrant who has been there for only six months, he never says to you that he is a Czechoslovakian or a Pole; he says: I am an American. Well, let us see to it that everybody in this country calls himself a Canadian. The only way in which we can create such a spirit and a national consciousness is first of all to establish a definition of our own character, of what we are. The second thing is to try by all ways and means, as they have done in the United States and elsewhere, to create a spiritual aim for Canadians all. I remember that in 1946 I warned this parliament that if we did not have the courage to face the problem of having a Canadian flag, Quebec would soon have one. Look at what is happening in Quebec. Are we going to balkanize Canada, or are we going to unite this country and make it bigger and better, because we have more resources and more advantages than even the United States have today? Therefore I say we ought to do something toward creating that Canadian spirit. We have to take the ways and means, and this is one step in the right direction.


Mr. Fraser:: In the wrong direction.


Mr. Cole (Malapedia-Malane):: This is our greatest opportunity.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall I put the question? Those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Those opposed to the motion will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it. I declare the motion lost.
Motion (Mr. Cote, Matapedia-Matane) negatived.



EDUCATION


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, March 20, consideration of the motion of Mr. Knight:
That, in the opinion of this house, the government should take into consideration means of expanding and equalizing educational opportunity across Canada, by the granting of financial assistance to the various provinces for that purpose.
Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Mr. Speaker, I am particularly fortunate in being able to close this debate-I understand that under the rules of the house that is my privilege. I shall not delay the house very long, since I am anxious that the matter come to a vote.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I must inform the house that if the hon. member speaks now he will close the debate.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: That, Mr. Speaker, is exactly what I am doing. I have already spoken at some length on this measure, and on various occasions. One of the ambitions which I have constantly had was to bring the matter to a vote in this house. We were fortunate in being able to do that on one occasion, and I am glad that we are fortunate again in being able to do the same thing.
I shall not take more than a minute longer, except to explain the object of this motion and to give a statement on one or two points. First, it is my idea that every child in Canada should have, in education, equality of opportunity with every other child. I am told of course that that is purely a provincial matter, and that education is purely a provincial matter. Some of my Saskatchewan friends often say to me: Why do you not get your own provincial government to give some assistance to education? Sir, I welcome assistance from our own provincial government. I have pressed the question of assistance upon them continually. I am glad that in the last day or two they have announced
Education
that they are going to give a million and a half dollars, or thereabouts, extra this year for education from some tax revenue that they have abolished for next year. In the meantime the proceeds are going to go to education. I am happy that that assistance is given to education by the province; but to me this is a national thing. This is wider in its scope than purely a provincial matter.
I am anxious that the children in every province shall have an equal opportunity of education with the children in every other province. Let me emphasize once more that we who believe in this motion have no idea whatever of imposing on any province in Canada any interference whatever with either the curriculum or the administration of education within any province. One can say that education is a provincial matter; but I should like to point out that the products of education in the various provinces are the concern of this nation. I have said before that when they go outside this country, or travel here or there within the country, they are not considered as provincial-although some speeches one hears in the house lead one to believe that that is so.
As I said before, they are considered as Canadians, whether they are bom and educated in Quebec, British Columbia, Saskatchewan or Ontario. That is all I wish to say in the matter tonight.



DIVORCE JURISDICTION ACT


Stanley Howard Knowles: the second reading of Bill No. 4, to provide for the jurisdiction of the Exchequer Court of Canada in matters of divorce.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak once again in support of this bill which would give to the Exchequer Court of Canada jurisdiction in matters of divorce with respect to persons residing in provinces where there are no divorce courts. I am sure that hon. members are familiar with the terms of the bill. Nevertheless there are a few things I should like to say about it even at the risk of repeating what I have said on former occasions. In the first place, the bill does not alter any laws with respect to divorce so far as the basis for divorce in this country is concerned. In the second place, I would point out that the bill does not make available to persons in the two provinces where there are no provincial divorce courts any facility that is not now available to them.
There is at the present time available to persons residing in provinces where there are no provincial divorce courts the right to come to the city of Ottawa and obtain a divorce from the parliament of Canada. This bill, because it has in it a special clause which provides that the jurisdiction of the exchequer court in matters of divorce would have to be exercised only at the city of Ottawa, would still make it necessary for those persons to come to this same city of Ottawa. The only difference that would follow from the passing of this bill would be that those persons residing in provinces where there are no provincial

divorce courts on coming to Ottawa to seek a divorce would, instead of appearing before a divorce committee of the Senate of Canada, go to the Exchequer Court of Canada.
As hon. members are aware, my reason for introducing the bill is to provide relief for parliament from the task of processing hundreds of these divorce cases every year. There is no doubt about the attitude of members of parliament to divorce bills. We do not like dealing with them. No one feels that it is a part of the job for which he was elected. As a matter of fact, on recent occasions in this very session when votes have been called on certain divorce bills we have had the lowest attendance in the House of Commons for a vote for a good many sessions. I suggest that is indicative of the feeling on the part of a great many members that this business of divorce is not the business of members of parliament. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, all that my bill proposes is that the handling of divorces be transferred from this building and from the jurisdiction of parliament to another building in the same city of Ottawa and to the jurisdiction of a court upon which we can confer the right to deal with these divorces.
I knew before I ever came to parliament, and no one could be a member of parliament for a number of years and not recognize even more fully, how strong is the feeling in the two provinces where there are no divorce courts against the establishing of divorce courts in those provinces. I have said on two or three occasions that I think it might be argued for my bill that one of the things it would do would be to put an end to any agitation for the establishing of divorce courts in those provinces. I have read editorial comments in support of my campaign to get divorce out of parliament which have gone so far as to suggest that the matter of divorce in those two provinces should be looked after by those provinces. Well, we know that is an utterly impractical suggestion, and I should think the people in those provinces who are so overwhelmingly against such divorce courts would welcome a bill like this which would put an end to any agitation of that kind. In other words I feel that this is not only a bill to relieve parliament from the handling of divorce; it is a bill to protect the two provinces concerned from any suggestion that they should have provincial divorce courts.
I am also aware, Mr. Speaker, of the loyalty of the Quebec members in particular to the Quebec civil code, section 185 of which reads as follows:
Marriage can only be dissolved by the natural death of one of the parties; while both live, it is indissoluble.

That is part of the Quebec civil code which is part of the law of the province of Quebec, and I fully recognize it. I also recognize that the right of the province of Quebec to have maintained in force in that province the Quebec civil code is protected by section 129 of the British North America Act, and I certainly have no desire in any way to run counter to the susceptibilities or the feelings of Quebec members, or any other members, with respect to section 185 of the Quebec civil code or section 129 of the British North America Act.
I suggest that my proposal solves this problem without running counter to that section of the Quebec civil code or that section of the British North America Act. It does not set up a divorce court in the province of Quebec. If it can be said to set up a divorce court for Quebec and Newfoundland, at least it sets it up here in the city of Ottawa, where there is already a divorce court for the people of those two provinces.
I know that another argument put forward is to the effect that as matters now stand divorce has not been recognized as a right as far as the people of those two provinces are concerned. It is argued that each bill that goes through parliament is a separate law standing on its own feet; and those who oppose my bill say that in their view it is wrong in that it would establish legally in the exchequer court a right to divorce for persons in those two provinces which they do not now enjoy.
I suggest with all respect, but I suggest it for honest and serious consideration, that this is splitting hairs. There is a court now. We call it the Senate divorce committee; we call it the whole machinery of parliament, if you will, but it is there as a right of which hundreds of citizens from those two provinces are availing themselves each year. Lest anyone still try to argue that this right has not been codified and formalized I would ask hon. members to take a glance at the rules, orders and forms of proceedings of the Senate of Canada. This is a little red book corresponding to the green book we have in this house. I suppose it is red to match their carpet as green matches ours. This is not Beauchesne but it corresponds to Beauchesne, for the other place. I find that this book contains some 83 pages of their standing orders, of which 27 pages are devoted to divorce. So divorce is not just something that happens over at the other place. It is not just something that is dragged in under the provisions of standing orders relating to private bills. No; there is a separate section in the Senate manual dealing with divorce. Of 152 standing orders in the other place, 20 relate solely and exclusively
Divorce Jurisdiction
to divorce. The 27 pages devoted to divorce are made up of the 20 standing orders to which I have referred together with 11J pages of forms which are spelled out in this book I hold in my hand.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that that is evidence that already we have here in the city of Ottawa a recognized court for divorce for persons from the two provinces in which there are no provincial divorce courts; and I press my point that to transfer the handling of these matters from this building, this parliamentary machinery, to another building, and to the exchequer court, does not alter by one iota the present position, or introduce any facility not now available, or establish any right not already recognized, regularized, codified and spelled out in the law of this land. Since that is the situation I feel that hon. members should give pretty serious consideration to the terms of my bill.
I have said before and I repeat tonight that I am not wedded to this bill. I hope I may be pardoned for a bit of punning if I say I would even be prepared to be divorced from it if someone could show me a better way of dealing with this matter. I well recall many years ago when the present Prime Minister-at the time he was minister of justice-entered into a debate about this divorce business in which hon. members were complaining about the procedure of handling divorce bills in parliament. At that time he said to those who were complaining, "Well, if you are going to complain about the present practice, produce some other method." It was in response to that challenge that I gave some thought to the matter and came up with this suggestion for transferring the matter to the exchequer court. If anyone has a better suggestion I will welcome it most heartily. As a matter of fact if anyone has a suggestion not quite as good as mine but which would receive greater support, I would even welcome that. In other words I think my view is the view of hon. members generally, that if there is any way we can get rid of the handling of divorces as we now handle them in parliament, it would be a good move. Just as the present Prime Minister threw out a challenge when he was minister of justice to think up a better way, and as I tried to meet that challenge, now I throw out the same challenge to those opposed to this bill. I suggest that they find a better way or provide some other method, even if it is not as good, which will enable us to get rid of this business from parliament, and from this House of Commons in particular.
As I have already said, there is no doubt about the views of most hon. members on this question. Nobody really wants to keep divorce here. As for the views of the country generally, hon. members are aware of the

Divorce Jurisdiction
considerable amount of editorial comment there has been on this question, almost wholly favourable to the idea that some way other than the present method should be found. I hope we will not just continue year after year, going through the farce of passing these divorce bills in batches and droves, but that we will find a solution to the problem.
Once in a while I notice in the daily paper from my home city a little note that such and such a court granted six divorces or eight divorces. It is news that in one day a court has managed to deal with and grant five, six, eight or ten divorces. Look at what we do. We can pass fifty or a hundred. Members here have seen us pass two hundred or three hundred at one stage, and that is not even news. In this place it is only news when divorces are held up.
Again I say, Mr. Speaker, that the reluctance of members to deal with the matter, the reluctance of members even to vote on a bill when those who are opposed to divorce might actually have defeated some of the bills, makes it clear that members do not like what is going on. I suggest it is time we solved the problem by having the matter referred to some other body. Until members produce some other suggestion, therefore, I press the point that serious consideration should be given to this bill. I have already said tonight, as I have said on other occasions but perhaps as I sit down I should repeat it, that I am sure no member in this house will accuse me, in presenting this bill, of trying to ride rough-shod over the feelings or susceptibilities of persons in the provinces of Quebec or Newfoundland, or indeed over the susceptibilities of persons in any part of Canada with respect to divorce.
I have made it clear that in this bill I am not trying to change the basis for divorce. I have made it clear that I do not want to impose upon the soil of Quebec or Newfoundland any divorce court. I have made it clear that no new facility would be made available to these people. I have made it clear that we do not seek to regularize something that is not now regularized. I submit that after one has faced up to all the facts of the situation it is clear that something should be done about this matter, and until a better way is provided I suggest that serious consideration should be given to my bill. I hope that members will allow it to go to a vote and give it second reading so that it can go to a committee and be studied thoroughly.


Pierre Gauthier: Every time there is a move to grant more facilities to persons seeking divorces or a bill presented to establish another court for the provinces 
of Quebec and Newfoundland, I have been on my feet to speak against these measures. I am going to do that tonight, and I ask the house to be very patient because I must tell the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) that I will do my utmost, first to stop the bill from coming to a vote tonight and, second, to try to defeat the bill. Then, I hope we shall not hear any more about this matter in the future.
The hon. member is very able, a good speaker and very persistent in his opinions. I must tell him, however, that we in Quebec, and I could include Newfoundland, might be as persistent as he is in our refusal to accept a divorce court, even it it does not sit on the soil of those two provinces. It is very easy to speak about the establishment of a court that would not be on the soil of those provinces, but the results will be the same. In granting to the people of these two provinces the right to divorce in the exchequer court, the hon. member is really establishing a new divorce court for these two provinces. Whether or not he wants it, whether or not he likes it, that is what he is doing.
In establishing a new divorce court the hon. member is granting more facilities for divorce to the people of these two provinces. To support my contention that he is granting more facilities by establishing another court, I shall quote what happened in various years in Canada when there were proposals to establish divorce courts in the various provinces. In 1875, Mr. de Cosmos, the member for Victoria riding, proposed the creation of divorce courts for the provinces. I was not in the house at that time, but some other political men were here and they opposed the establishment of those courts. When Mr. de Cosmos proposed the establishment of these courts Alexander Mackenzie said:
It is proposed to establish a court which a great number of persons are opposed to and, although I have personally no objection to the establishment of such courts, at the same time I do not desire to afford additional facilities for obtaining divorces and I hope that the resolution will be withdrawn.
Sir John Macdonald said:
I would be sorry to see any tribunal established which might be the means of inviting other dissatisfied couples to apply for divorce.
Those quotations can be found in the debates of 1875 at page 859. In 1888 Jones of Halifax put a motion asking if it would better serve the interests of the country at large if we were to establish divorce courts. At page 1414 of the debates for that year Sir John Macdonald said:
I think it would be a great misfortune for Canada to have that established.

At page 1416 Sir William Mulock said:
I think the facility with which divorces are granted in England and in other countries does go a long way to interfere with the sacredness of the marriage tie.
Mr. Northrup, in 1914 and 1916, was speaking on the jurisdiction of parliament over divorce cases when Sir Wilfrid Laurier said:
For my part, I rather agree with the statement made by my hon. friend, the Minister of Justice, that up to this time, the law does not know divorce and we had better stand by that position.
I have quoted these various Canadian men to show the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that by permitting the people from these two provinces to go before the exchequer court rather than the Senate-which is an altogether different thing-he is imposing upon them a divorce court which will be called the exchequer court. These provinces have repeatedly opposed the establishment of such a court. It is quite a different thing for those in the province of Quebec or Newfoundland who want a divorce to go to the Senate. This is a special dispensation granted to the people of those two provinces who want a divorce. If you allow these people to go before the exchequer court, you have increased the facilities for granting divorces. That is what we do not want in those two provinces. I hope my hon. friend and all those who want more facilities for divorce will understand once and for all that we do not want them.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Then you had better abolish the Senate.


Pierre Gauthier: No; it is not a
question of abolishing the Senate at all. I have here figures contained in a declaration from England for the time before divorce courts were established in England. The first bill to create a court of divorce in matrimonial cases in England was passed in 1857. I am giving these statistics to prove that the establishment of divorce courts gives more facilities for obtaining divorces. During two centuries prior to 1857, only 317 divorces by act of parliament had been obtained in England. Thirty years after the' bill was passed to establish divorce courts in England -not two centuries but just thirty years- 6,381 decrees absolute for dissolutions of marriages were allowed. This is to prove that the establishment of divorce courts gives more facilities for the obtaining of divorces. In his "History of our own Times", Justin McCarthy wrote as follows:
The divorce act, judging by the public use made of it, certainly must be held to have justified itself in a merely practical sense. It seems to have been thoroughly appreciated by a grateful public. It was not easy,-
Divorce Jurisdiction
And those words are to be noted.
-after a while, to get judicial power enough to keep the supply of divorces ... up to the ever increasing demand.
That is strengthening my contention, sir, that the establishment of divorce courts gives more facility for divorces.
Gladstone said-and this can be found in Lathbury's "Letters on Church and Religion of W. E. Gladstone", volume 2, page 362-as follows:
Unquestionably, since that time (1857), the standard of conjugal morality has perceptibly declined among the highest classes of this country, and scandals in respect to it have become more frequent. The decline, as a fact, I know to be recognized by persons of social experience and insight who, in no way, share my abstract opinion on divorce.
Here is another quotation, Mr. Speaker, from a man who was in favour of the establishment of divorce courts in England. I refer to Sir Cresswell Cress well, the first judge of the new divorce court and formerly a pronounced advocate of the statute of 1857 which created it. I quote Sir Cresswell Cresswell:
I have been taught a lesson of experience. I have come to the conclusion that it is better for society to treat the marriage as indissoluble, considering it merely as a social question.
Theodore Roosevelt had this to say in the United States. Divorce courts were established in the United States and I will quote figures to prove that the more facilities there are, the more divorces there are. Theodore Roosevelt said:
Divorce is a bane for any nation, a curse on society, and a menace to home.
This is to prove from England, sir, that more courts mean more divorces, as they mean more facilities to obtain divorces. I have here the figures given to me by the bureau of statistics of the Canadian government. They are statistics for the various provinces of Canada and may be compared with the statistics for the United States. In 1941, in Prince Edward Island there was one divorce. Since the court was established in 1945 there have been 104 divorces. In 1941 the number of divorces in Nova Scotia was 68; in New Brunswick, 87; in Quebec, 48; in Ontario, 949; in Manitoba, 242; in Saskatchewan, 146; in Alberta, 311; and in British Columbia, 609. In that same year in the United States there were 293,000 divorces.
We will take the figures of 1946 in order to see the increase in the number of divorces permitted in Canada in those different provinces which I have mentioned. In 1946 the number of divorces in Prince Edward Island was 4; in Nova Scotia there were 68 in 1941 and 260 in 1946. In New Brunswick in 1941 there were 87 and in 1946 there were 382. In Quebec in 1941 there were 48 and in 1946 there were 290. We have no divorce courts

Divorce Jurisdiction
in Quebec. In Ontario in 1941, there were 949 and in 1946 there were 2,639. In Manitoba in 1941 there were 242 and in 1946 there were 636. In Saskatchewan in 1941 there were 146 and in 1946 there were 505. In Alberta there were 311 in 1941 and 962 in 1946; in British Columbia there were 609 in 1941 and 2,005 in 1946. In the whole of Canada in 1941 there were 2,461 divorces and in 1946, 7,683. More facilities and everywhere more divorces! In the United States in 1946, instead of 293,000 divorces as in 1941, there were 610,000. In 1950, in the whole of Canada there were 5,208 divorces and in the United States there were 385,000. Suppose for the moment the people of Quebec and of Newfoundland, through their members in the House of Commons, would accept the bill of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). This goes to show that unquestionably it would give more facilities for the people of those provinces to get more divorces. Unquestionably that is so. So we would have the same picture in these two provinces that they have in other countries where there are more facilities for divorce. I think, sir, that it has been shown, and repeatedly shown for a fact, for ten or twenty years, that we from Quebec do not want divorce courts. I do not see why the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre always comes back with that bill to impose on us the exchequer court as a disguised divorce court, because it would be a disguised divorce court. We do not want it, and Newfoundland does not want it either. It should be kept in mind by my hon. friend, and those who support this bill, that we do not want it.
The hon. member asked a moment ago: Well, can you give us a better way of disposing of the divorces that come before the Senate? I know that he has been building up a case for the last few weeks to show the people of Quebec, and probably the people of Newfoundland, that it would be much better to have the exchequer court deal with the divorce cases that come before the Senate. I do not say that he does it maliciously, but I understand very well. I do not believe I am mistaken when I say that he has shown much persistence in building up his case-it is very well done-to show the people in those two provinces that we should do away with the committee on divorce in the Senate, and bring the divorces to the exchequer court. I am positive that the great majority of the people in those two provinces will not fall for that. They do not like the ordinary divorce courts on the soil of their provinces, to use that term, any more than they would like a divorce court called the exchequer court
[Mr. Gauthier (Portneuf) .1
to deal with the divorces that are passed by the committee of the Senate at the present time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Do they like the Senate as a divorce court?


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: They do not like divorce.


Pierre Gauthier: No, they do not like it either.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Have you any other suggestion?


Pierre Gauthier: No; we do not
like divorce; we are against it; we do not believe in it.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Do you vote against it?


Pierre Gauthier: I have always stood up on my two feet and voted against any move to give more facilities for divorce. I have made my stand very clear since I have been in this house, and I have been here for seventeen years. I have always made my stand very clear on that. We do not believe in it because we say, and our Catholic faith says it, that to disrupt marriage is killing the union, is to a certain extent killing the children and killing the nation. That is what we believe.
I know that divorces are requested in the name of liberty and freedom because, as some people say, nobody will tell us what is evil and what is good. It has been said in this house and in various committees of the house-I was there to hear it-we cannot know what is evil and what is good. And when we say that divorce is evil they say: Who is going to tell us what is evil? Well, if disrupting the family, dividing the father and mother, separating them from their children is not evil, I do not know what evil is. No one is obliged to have a friend or a neighbour come and tell him that that is evil when speaking of divorce, disruption of the family, the killing of the nation and the separating of the children from their father and their mother. If that is not evil, well, words do not mean anything to me.
I am going to quote one of the Conservative members, a very able man, the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker). He was speaking in Montreal. I think I should quote this because it comes within the scope of my speech. He spoke on Monday, March 17, 1952. The article in the Gazette says in big type: "Real religious renaissance Diefenbaker cure for reds." That is a very good title because the communists of Russia have had experience of divorce, and they had to throw

it away. They had to go back on their philosophy, but only to a certain extent of course because they are atheists. But they had to come back and try to do something to prevent millions of children from wandering about the streets of Russia without a father and a mother to take care of them. The state had to do something for them. The burden became too heavy for the state, and they had to go back on their laws. They had to throw away some of their laws so as to render divorce more difficult in the future. It has been abundantly proven. The hon. member for Lake Centre called for a real religious renaissance. I think he should have added that this real religious renaissance should mean that we would think that it is a spiritual malady existing on our continent and on other continents of the globe. It is a spiritual malady to give more facilities and to admit the dissolubility of marriage on earth. I think he should be complimented on that because certainly he gave a lead so far as spiritual leadership is concerned in this country and in all countries of the world.
I remember that in 1950 the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) spoke on this question and gave a very clear picture of what we of Quebec understood in respect to this matter. I believe the same bill was presented by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. I should like to read that quotation of the Prime Minister, but before doing so I am going to give a few figures. I gave figures a few moments ago on divorce in the United States. From December 31, 1906, to December 31, 1916, there were 975,728 divorces in the United States. There were that many divorces in that ten-year period in the United States. From December 31, 1876, to December 31, 1916, there were 2,250,069 divorces in the United States. I have taken these figures from the "Voice of America". The "Voice of America" adds this, that the total number of persons separated in fifty years-and the word "separated" is absolutely accurate-was 4,500,138. The total number of minor children made orphans in fifty years-and, through divorces, they are really made orphans-was 1,689,662. Then the "Voice of America" makes this reference-and I ask hon. members to note the expression used- that the total number of persons bereft and dishonoured in fifty years was 6,189,800.
Those are strong words. I agree with them. Because I believe that if in this country we are going to follow the example of other countries in the matter of divorce, then in Canada we will have the condition that we see in other countries-a condition of national disaster.
Divorce Jurisdiction
We should be more careful. I see my hon. friend smiling. He has his opinions; I have mine. It is a national disaster to allow divorce, and to give more facilities for divorce.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would my hon. friend permit an interjection?


Mr. Gauthier (Porineuf):: I do not quote the hon. member. I am giving an opinion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Perhaps he would permit a word, because he made reference to my smiling. He is right, but I would not want his observation to be misinterpreted. I would not want my smiling to be taken as disagreeing with his suggestion that to multiply divorces in the proportions he suggested would be a national disaster. I agree that it would. My reason for smiling was that, while I respect my hon. friend's right to disagree, I do not agree that my bill moves in that direction, for it does not provide any new facility.


André Gauthier: Yes it does; it gives more facility.


Stanley Howard Knowles: How?


André Gauthier: I shall quote the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) on that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My suggestion might make it even more difficult.


André Gauthier: No. This is what the Prime Minister said on June 20, 1950:
I do not intend to take very long, and I am not rising to talk this bill out, but to bring before the house certain facts . . . There is no doubt that under the British North America Act parliament has jurisdiction with respect to divorce. That is one of the express provisions of the act. There is also no doubt that before confederation there were in force in the province of Quebec laws which by virtue of the British North America Act continue in force until they are amended or repealed by the jurisdiction having authority to deal with them.
If we have authority to deal with them as suggested here, and if we give permission to those two provinces to go before the exchequer court, we are amending the law, whether we like it or not. Yes we are.


Stanley Howard Knowles: No, not at all.


André Gauthier: The Prime Minister continued:
That is to be found in the explicit terms of section 129 of the British North America Act. Among the laws which were in force in the province of Quebec, and which have not been dealt with by the legislature of Quebec or by this parliament up to the present time, and which continue to be in force, is section 185 of the Quebec civil code. That is in force in the province of Quebec, and it is not in force anywhere else, and any legislation to deal with it is legislation for the province of Quebec and for the province of Quebec alone.

Divorce Jurisdiction
If the hon. member insists upon parliament accepting his bill, then he is asking parliament to overlook section 185 of the Quebec civil code. It would no longer be applicable in that province, because the hon. member would be saying to the people of Quebec, "You now have a divorce court known as the exchequer court. You are now allowed to go there, and with greater facilities available." It has been proven, and I say I have proven tonight conclusively from the quotations I have read, statements by political men in England, the United States and Canada, that in establishing divorce courts greater facility is given.
If that is done in the provinces of Quebec and Newfoundland, then more facility is offered to those provinces. Section 185 of the Quebec civil code would no longer be applicable. The hon. member would be saying to the people of Quebec, "This law of yours is no longer applicable. You are now allowed to go before the exchequer court, and to obtain divorces as often as you wish." That is what my friend's bill is doing.
We do not want that. The Prime Minister had this to say:
That section of the code is very clear, and I think the shortest way to bring its content before hon. members is to read it. It is as follows:
"Marriage can only be dissolved by the natural death of one of the parties; while both live, it is indissoluble."
We believe that in Quebec.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And the Senate overrides that section 300 times a year.


Pierre Gauthier: The question of whether the Senate is or is not a divorce court was established long ago. It is a special provision that has been acceptedbut not by and for the Catholics, because we are against it. We are against it. Then the Prime Minister continued:
Such is the Quebec law at the present time, and until that law is amended or repealed, the matter is not one of who will have jurisdiction to hear a divorce case; the matter to be dealt with consists of a fundamental declaration of the law and that is why the hon. members who introduced this bill took the precaution to declare that the exchequer court would have jurisdiction and would have the right to dissolve a marriage. That however would be legislating for the province of Quebec.
I suggest the authority of a statement by the Prime Minister is much better than anything I could say. He is speaking; I am only quoting him. I believe he is right, because he knows what he is talking about. Again quoting the Prime Minister:
That however would be legislating for the province of Quebec. It would be within the power of this parliament, but still it would be legislating on a matter which is extremely distasteful to the large majority of the people of that province.
He is telling my hon. friend, through my mouth, that it is distasteful to our province.


An hon. Member:: Eleven o'clock.


Pierre Gauthier: Why not withdraw the bill? Why not withdraw it, once and for all, and do away with it?
On motion of Mr. Gauthier (Portneuf) the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Alphonse Fournier: Tomorrow we will resume debate on the budget.


Mr. Fleming:: What about Wednesday?


Alphonse Fournier: The budget.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, April 22, 1952