1954-01-27

Hon. Milton F. Gregg (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to reply to the request made yesterday by the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mrs. Fairclough) for whatever figures are available on the number of workers who are working short time and the number who are on temporary layoff. I think the best thing I can do is to refer to the data available in the last monthly report of the labour force survey for December 12, 1953.
The estimated number of persons, outside of agriculture, who worked less than 35 hours-here we take 35 hours as a full week -during the week ending December 12, 1953, was 369,000 in round figures, being 206,000 male and 163,000 female. Of these workers, some 59,000, or 28,000 male and 31,000 female, worked from 1 to 14 hours during the survey week while 310,000, or 178,000 male and 132,000 female, worked from 15 to 34 hours during the survey week.
I should add that there is always a substantial number of people who work on a short-time basis through choice. It is estimated that there were at least 150,000 such people at the time of the last survey.
With regard to persons on temporary layoff, the best information available on these is the number claiming unemployment insurance due to temporary lay-offs. At the beginning of December the number of persons temporarily laid off who were claiming unemployment insurance benefits totalled 13,900.
In answer to the question asked by the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt), there was no over-all estimate made based on the labour force survey of the number of people working on a short-time basis in the textile industry.
(Translation):



PRIVILEGE


Mr. J. W. Dufresne (Quebec West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. Yesterday afternoon, after concluding my
speech in the house, I had to absent myself to go to my office. The hon. member for St. Mary (Mr. Dupuis), in an effort to counterbalance the statements I made, contended that the speech I had delivered in the house was a-


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but if he wants to correct a part of his speech that has been misinterpreted by another member during the debate, he cannot do so by rising on a question of privilege. He will have the opportunity of making his views known later on, more clearly if he so desires, during the debate on second reading of the bill. That should not be done by rising on a question of privilege at this stage of the proceedings.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Mr. Speaker, it is not at all a question of correcting something I said in the house yesterday. I only want to ask the house to request that the word "demagogue" used by the hon. member for St. Mary be withdrawn.


Mr. Poulioi:: When one speaks like a demagogue he is called a demagogue.


Mr. Speaker:: It is unfortunate that the hon. member was not in his seat when that statement was made; he could then have raised the question of privilege. However, I might say to the hon. member, for his own satisfaction, that even if he had risen on a point of order at that time, I would probably have told him that to my knowledge the word "demagogue" is not exactly the kind of expression that could be called unparliamentary in this house; it is often used by members on both sides of the house.


Jean-François Pouliot: In his case, it is not
exaggerated.
(Text):


Mr. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, I regret profoundly that I was not able to follow exactly what was stated in connection with the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Quebec West (Mr. Dufresne). If I understood you correctly you stated that the question of privilege should have been raised immediately and that the word "demagogue" in itself was not unparliamentary.

Privilege-Mr. Dufresne
May I direct your attention to the translation of the speech of the hon. member whose remarks are complained of and which appears on page 1470 of Hansard for yesterday. The hon. member went on to give the dictionary definition of the word "demagogue", in the sense in which he was applying it, as follows:
One who pretends to defend the people's interests to gain their favour.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I take it from the applause from the ranks of those supporting the government that they think anyone who seeks to defend the interests of the workmen in his riding is pretending to defend their interests. If that is their attitude then their constituents will be their judge. My point is on the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Quebec West (Mr. Dufresne), which I submit, sir, is perfectly well taken in that it is not open to any hon. member to impute to another hon. member motives which are themselves improper or would be improper for an hon. member to have in putting forward his views. As to the speech made by the hon. member, the words speak for themselves; but I think it is unquestionable that it conveys motives attributed by him, whatever may be in the minds of hon. members opposite, and therefore the expression as applied by him to the other hon. member is clearly out of order and should be withdrawn.


Mr. Speaker:: I did not hear the hon. member for St. Mary (Mr. Dupuis) when he made his remarks.


Mr. Dupuis:: I will repeat them again, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I now read in Hansard the words that are attributed to him. I said a moment ago in French that this expression "demagogue" has been one which has been used frequently on both sides of the house to my knowledge. I therefore hesitated to declare that it was unparliamentary. The expression in this case is not isolated. It is accompanied by a definition of the word "demagogue" which the hon. member for St. Mary said he found in the Larousse dictionary and which reads:
One who pretends to defend the people's interests to gain their favour.
Does the hon. member think that because he used a definition of Larousse, the words could properly be used? I certainly want to make it clear that I am not ruling Larousse dictionary quotations out of order. I am reminded of a Shakespearean citation which was made on one occasion in the course of the debate and when I called an hon. member to order, not because he was quoting Shakespeare, but because he was out


of order before he began to quote, I was reported in certain quarters as having declared that quotations by Shakespeare were out of order in this house. I want to make it quite clear this time that I am not saying it is out of order to quote definitions which appear in the Larousse dictionary. One must consider the context in which the expression was used by the hon. member for St. Mary when he said, as reported at page 1470 in yesterday's Hansard:
I have not heard for quite a while in this house so demagogic a speech as that just made by the hon. member for Quebec West (Mr. Dufresne).
He then went on:
I knew the meaning of the word demagogue, but to make sure I looked up its meaning in the Larousse dictionary. You will see that the word applies very well to the member for Quebec West. According to the dictionary a demagogue is: "One who pretends to defend the people's interests to gain their favour."
When he says: "You will see that the word applies very well to the member for Quebec West", I think he is extending the definition of the word in the dictionary and applying it to the hon. member. Therefore, I think the hon. member should correct the statement he has made. The hon. member will not, I know, insist upon arguing the point- and certainly the matter could not have been taken up until this time-but I will have to ask the member to modify his expression.
(Translation):


Hector Dupuis: Mr. Speaker, I do not object to withdrawing that word if it offends my hon. friend from Quebec West (Mr. Dufresne), but I would like to draw the attention of this house to the definition we find in the Larousse dictionary.
(Text):


Mr. Drew:: Mr. Speaker,-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have to listen to the explanation of the hon. member. As he knows he is not supposed to make a speech. It is his duty when he is asked to do so by the chair to withdraw and this is what I am asking him to do. If he wants to give a preliminary explanation to his withdrawal I will listen to it provided it is concise.
(Translation):


Hector Dupuis: Mr. Speaker, I regret that so fitting an expression has to be withdrawn, but I withdraw it.
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Order. That is not the
manner in which this expression should be withdrawn. I know the hon. member will not insist upon arguing the point and I will ask him to simply withdraw the expression without any comments.

(Translation):


Hector Dupuis: To be agreeable to you, Mr. Speaker, I withdraw it.
(Text):



QUESTIONS


FOREIGN PATENT ROYALTIES


Mr. Murphy (Lambton West):: 1.	What amount of money did Canada receive in withholding tax on royalties paid on foreign patents, during each of the years 1950 to 1953 inclusive?
2.	What is the rate of this withholding tax?
3.	What is the tax rate the United States and the United Kingdom governments charge Canadian residents and/or corporations who draw patent royalties from their countries?


Mr. McCann:: 
Mr. Dickey:: board feet
1.	Calendar year 1952	 147,036,000
^January 1 to October 31
1953	 124,588,000
2.	Calendar	year	1952	 61,191,000
*January 1 to October 31
1953	 61,355,000
3.	Calendar	year	1952	 12,818,000
*January 1 to October 31
1953	   13,557,000
*Later figures not yet available.



SEED WHEAT EXPORTS

Mr. Bryson:: How many bushels of seed wheat were exported from Canada, for each of the years 1945 to 1953, inclusive?


John Horace Dickey: Seed wheat is not recorded separately in Canadian external trade statistics.



FEDERAL CONTRIBUTIONS TO NEWFOUNDLAND

Mr. Ashbourne:: How much has the federal government contributed in the province of Newfoundland since 1949 towards:	(a) crippled children; (b) professional
training; (c) hospital construction; (d) venereal disease control; (e) mental health; (f) tuberculosis control; (g) general public health; (h) cancer control?


Mr. Robertson:: (to
Jan. 15
1949-50	1950-51	1951-52	1952-53	1954)Crippled children 	
4,820	5,849	5,320	1,696	1,980Professional training 	
11,334	13,983	23,903	13,687	16,362Hospital construction 	
202,097	272,921	148,083	228,344	225,813Venereal disease control 	
15,944	16,255	16,234	16,286	16,366Mental health	
54,790	92,876	105,775	110,146	162,692Tuberculosis control	
150,800	147,379	196,767	201,816	211,771General public health 	
117,195	111,696	191,086	210,157	218,627Cancer control	
45,415	54,309	41,746	40,730	52,308All grants 	
602,395	715,268	728,914	822,862	905,919
N.B.-The amounts shown are the amounts expended for the first four years of the national health program (1949-53) and the amounts approved for fiscal year 1953-54 up to January 15, 1954.

Questions



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION

Mr. Holowach:: 1.	What is the total cost of administration of the
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation for 1952 and to date in 1953?	[DOT]
2.	How much of the above amount has been appropriated for the international service of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation?
3.	What is the policy and purpose of the international service?


Mr. McCann:: 1.	Operating expenditures of Canadian Broadcasting Corporation:
National service
1951-52 Sound	$10,674,415.36
Television	 245,889.76

1952-53 Sound	$11,389,133.98
Television	 2,914,882.99

International service
(from vote by parliament)
1951- 52	$1,821,454.96
1952- 53	 1,883,596.24
2.	See answer to No. 1.
3.	The purposes of the service include: spreading knowledge and understanding of Canada in other countries; promoting international understanding and good will with other peoples; advancing the cause of freedom and democracy and combating opposing influences on men's minds; broadcasting to Canadian troops overseas. The operating program policies, appropriately adjusted according to the interests of the peoples in the areas concerned, are made in continuous consultation with the Department of External Affairs.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Holowach:: How many private companies are presently engaged in the production of television films in Canada, and what are their names and addresses?


SHIPMENTS OF GRAIN, SASKATCHEWAN
Mr. Argue:: 1.	How many railway carloads of grain were shipped, during each week from August 1 to October 31, 1953, from the following Saskatchewan marketing points: Aberdeen, Aberfeldy, Adamson, Alvena, Amazon, Arma, Armilla, Bonne Madone, Booth Sdg., Borden, Bounty, Bruno, Bryant, Carlton, Carlyle, Carpenter, Carragana, Ceepee, Central Butte, Clarkboro, Clarks Crossing, Clash-moor, Dalmeny, Dalzell, Hague, Halbrite, Henty, Hepburn, Herbert, Langham, Lanigan, Leckford, Leinan, Macdowall, Macklin, Mennon, Meota, Osier, Otthon, Parkside, Parry, Prud'homme, Punnichy,

Radisson, Rak, Ralph, Renown, Reynaud, Roddick, Rokeby, Rosthern, Smuts, Snipe Lake, Totzke, Tramping Lake, Vonda, Wakaw, Waldeck, Waldheim, Waldron?
2.	How many elevator companies are in business at each point?


COST PLUS CONTRACTS
Mr. Thatcher:: 1.	Since March 31, 1953, how many contracts have been let by the Department of National Defence, the Department of Defence Production or the Department of Public Works, (a) on a basis of "cost plus a per cent": (b) on a basis of "cost plus a fixed fee"?
2.	What was the dollar value of each such contract, and to what company was it given?


AVERAGE WHEAT PRICE
Mr. Argue:: What was the average price for wheat sold outside the international wheat agreement, during each of the crop years 1949-50, 1950-51, 1951-52, 1952-53, and during the present crop year from August 1, 1953 to January 15, 1954?


FEDERAL GRANTS TO PROVINCES
Mr. Michener:: 1.	In the last fiscal year, what percentage of each province's total revenues was represented by the subsidies, grants and payments made by Canada to the province?
2.	What were the respective revenues and payments?


John Horace Dickey: Return tabled.


SOLDIER SETTLERS
Mr. Robert Fair (Battle River-Camrose):: moved.	i
That, in the opinion of this house, the government should take into consideration the advisability of giving clear titles to all soldier settlers of great war I who hold land under contract with the soldier settlement board.
He said: In discussing this resolution once again I hope that on this occasion we shall have action taken by the government before the next session is called so that it will not be necessary for me to place this resolution on the order paper again.
To many of the older members of the house this is perhaps an old story, but as we have some 70 new members I think it will bear telling all over again, at least in some modified degree, perhaps.
The Soldier Settlement Act was a piece of legislation that was passed back in 1919, immediately after great war I was concluded. It was passed in a hurry without much consideration and apparently without much knowledge, on the part of those who had to do with the framing of the act, of the conditions that existed. Some 72,000 veterans

of great war I wanted to settle on the land. In my opinion they did not know just what they were trying to let themselves in for. Eventually, 25,017 settlers were set up under this legislation. The total amount of money involved was $109,034,331 which meant that there was an average advance of $4,358.40 made available to each settler. To begin with the interest rate was set at 5 per cent which meant that at that rate it would take only 20 years in order to double their debt. Just as soon as those men went into arrears, the rate of interest was immediately "upped" to 7 per cent and by that very method-in fact by the method of charging them 5 per cent to begin with-the cards were immediately stacked against them.
There was another proposition that did not seem to occur to the framers of this legislation and it was this. While the debt against the soldier settler remained at a certain level, that level was much higher than it should have been because we had just finished a war and as a result had a certain amount of prosperity. But while the debt against the settler was guaranteed, there was no guarantee whatever of the prices that the farmer would receive for his products as the years went by. In this way I believe the settlers were doomed to failure regardless of their suitability for that occupation.
At the time this legislation was brought into effect teams of horses sold for as high as $500 a team. Milch cows sold for anywhere from $125 to $150 apiece. The price of wheat ranged around $3 a bushel and in some cases even higher than that. Of course, that situation was soon taken care of because when the price of wheat, according to some people's opinion, was too high we had a wheat board set up with the definite purpose of reducing and holding down the price of wheat. Before long the price of horses went to a figure as low as $50 a team. In many cases those were only what we used to call crowbait in the first years I was out in that section of the country. Milch cows went down in price to $10 apiece and after a short time we found that wheat decreased in price to a figure as low as 20 cents a bushel at the elevator.
In case anybody should have any doubt about the prices I am giving, may I say that I have here a slip of paper entitled "Authority to Sell Chattel Equipment". This document was issued by the supervisor of the soldier settlement board, Mr. Charles G. Emslie, on December 24, 1924, to a settler whom I know very well; his name is Mr. George Connon. The address here is Islay.
Soldier Settlers
At the present time his address is Hazeldine. I might say that Mr. Connon is one of the men who have been down here on delegations, and now, after a good many years, he owns his farm and has made a good job of arranging for a good set of buildings, fruit trees and shelter belt and all that kind of thing. The description of the chattels given here lists 8 cows. Details are given showing their colour, age and weight. In addition to the 8 cows there is one roan bull 3 years old and two yearling calves. This whole list includes the net amount of $107.50. That means that the 7 cows were listed at $10 a head, 1 at $7.50, the bull at $10 and the two yearlings at $10 each. If anybody wishes to see this document, it is here and may be inspected. There is no question whatever as to the prices I have given. It will thus be seen that the 11 head of cattle that this fellow bought at a price of anywhere from $1,500 to $1,800 was now reduced to the price of $107.50. Many people are wondering why in the world those settlers did not make good. That is one of the reasons.
From the same man I have received another paper. It is an inspection certificate for a carload of oats shipped in 1931. That is before we reached the lowest prices. The carload of oats weighed 2,417 bushels after deduction for dockage, and he received a net price of 16 cents a bushel. It probably cost him 7 or 8 cents a bushel to have that grain threshed. Then he had to pay his freight and other charges in addition, as well as taxes on the land and many other costs in connection with the growing of grain. This illustration again should show people one or perhaps several of the reasons why the farmers were not able to make good under the set-up as originally laid down in the legislation.
There is another matter here that does not look good to me, and I brought it to the attention of the house previously. It is this. In many cases, when the soldier settlement board bought land for resale later to the veterans, the agreement for sale contained the oil and mineral rights. But in 1921, I believe it was, an amendment was made to the Soldier Settlement Act. This amendment took away from the settler and vested in the crown those oil and mineral rights. I remember that about 1938 the then minister of mines and resources, who is now a recipient of some of the good things the country can produce and sits in the other end of this house of parliament, brought in legislation to have those mineral rights restored to their proper owners. The legislation went through the house here without much discussion and,

Soldier Settlers
when it went on to the other end of this building, it was decided there that it should be sent to the banking and commerce committee. I read the Hansard report of what took place. According to it, some of them felt that these farmers were not interested in oil or mineral rights. They said, "They are farmers, so we will just take these rights away". After the matter had been discussed in the banking and commerce committee, it was brought back to the Senate. The report of the committee stated that they should leave the legislation as it was, with the result that the men were again deprived of part of the security which they should properly have had in their agreement for sale. In my opinion, that is a steal from those fellows who went overseas and is something that cannot be forgiven by me or by anybody else who has at heart the interests of these men.
We thought some of our neighbours around the Lloydminster district had a clear-cut case. One of them discussed the matter with me; and at the same time he had a lawyer, Mr. V. U. Miner, who is the mayor of Lloydminster, working on the matter. I remember distinctly coming from Edmonton and riding on the bus with Mr. Miner one evening just before Christmas. We discussed this matter; we thought we had better get our heads together and see what we could do about it. All of the papers were clear and Mr. Miner, a public-spirited lawyer-not of the two-by-four type mentioned here yesterday-stated that he was prepared, if necessary, to give his time and to fight this case through the courts. At that time the Minister of Veterans Affairs was none other than our very good friend, the present Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg). I came down here, discussed the matter with him and told him what we intended to do. I thought it was only fair to do that. He said, "Fair, wait for two or three weeks and we will see what we can do." As a result of his efforts, and without any legislation of which I am aware, the oil rights that had been filched away from these soldier settlers away back in 1921 or 1922, and which had been denied them in 1938 by the gentlemen at the other end of this building, were returned to them. I believe the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen was the man mainly responsible for the action taken earlier.
These soldier settlers were not making good and, as I stated before, it was not through any fault of theirs. We remember the conditions that existed in agriculture and in many other industries during the depression years following 1929 and up to the time war again brought prosperity to us in the 1940's. In order to try to keep these debts down to a point where the men could get along without

becoming too badly discouraged, the government first of all brought about a consolidation of loans. Then they decided that the interest rate was pretty high. The interest rate on arrears had been raised to 7 per cent, and the government decided they would cancel the interest charges. That was not good enough, so they decided that the price of the land was too high. To my knowledge some farms in my part of the country were sold at a price four times that obtaining in private sales.
That is one of the things that first of all got me busy on this particular matter. In 1930 there was a 30 per cent reduction in the loans, and in 1936 legislation was introduced giving these settlers the benefit of a dollar for dollar bonus when they paid any of their arrears. I believe all hon. members will recall that at that time conditions were such that people could not make a living on the land, let alone pay off their debts. That system was not working out very well, and in 1938 the legislation was abolished.
The soldier settlers were then allowed to go before the farmers' creditors arrangement board and have their debts reduced. In spite of all the things that were done, and which were considered by many to be very worth while, I want to state that these concessions did not begin to keep pace with the deteriorating condition of agriculture. During all these years these farmers, and particularly their wives and families, suffered privation and want by reason of the fact that they were unable to pay for medical, dental and hospital care. In many cases these settlers or their wives or families passed to the great beyond simply because of the conditions under which they were forced to live.
In the early thirties the price of wheat fell to 19J cents a bushel in my part of the country. Oats went down to 6 cents a bushel, and in many cases it cost 7 or 8 cents to have oats threshed. Cattle sold for a cent a pound, and at that time the dominion government purchased a number of cattle, good, bad and indifferent, at that price. The best hogs that could be raised sold for 2i cents a pound. When taken to market they were turned over at 2J cents a pound. I remember very well that eggs sold at 3 cents a dozen. These prices are not hearsay. Together with the soldier settlers, many of whom were my best neighbours, I went through these conditions.
In spite of the conditions that existed, over which the settlers had absolutely no control, an ambitious director of soldier settlement operations in Ottawa, who it would appear acted without any ministerial supervision

whatever, decided that he would get rid of the soldier settlers who were in debt, probably because he wanted to make a good showing and earn a promotion. They were not paying their debts but they could not do so. He embarked on a program of demanding and getting quit claim deeds to their property and kicked the settlers and their families out on the roadside. In cases where they refused to get out he served them with a thirty-day notice to vacate.
According to figures obtained from the department, in many cases these men and their families were kicked out on the roadside, and the director did not care. I do not think that is the way to treat our veterans who went overseas and offered everything they had, and who were promised that the country would look after them when they returned. But that is what happened. Then there were some of these settlers who were brave enough to enlist after world war II broke out. They decided that here was a chance for them to make a living for their wives and families. Many of them enlisted. Some of them went overseas to different theatres of war and some remained on this side of the water. Of course they could not farm their land while they were away. No provision was made for payment on their debts to the board. What happened? I should like to refer to order in council P.C. 138/1936, passed by His Excellency the Governor General in Council on the 19th March, 1941. Under the heading "Soldier Settlement" it reads as follows:
The board has had under consideration a submission of the hon. the Minister of Mines and Resources reporting that:
1.	A considerable number of persons who agreed to purchase farms from the soldier settlement board or from the director of soldier settlement on long term contracts have enlisted in the Canadian armed forces.
2.	In many cases the dependents of such enlisted persons continued to occupy their farms but no provision has been made for payment of instalments in respect of their contracts or of taxes in respect of their farms.
3.	The director of soldier settlement has no authority to carry such accounts indefinitely and it is considered desirable to provide for deduction from dependents' allowances to cover local taxes and interest due.
They were not satisfied with kicking people out on the road but decided to extract something from the allowances paid by the armed forces to the wives and dependents who were still on the land. The order in council continues:
Accordingly the board recommend that notwithstanding any provision to the contrary contained in any of the regulations providing for payment of dependents' or marriage allowances in respect of dependents of members of the Canadian armed forces, that in all cases where the dependents of an
Soldier Settlers
enlisted person continue to occupy the farm for which such person is indebted to the director of soldier settlement and in respect of which the contract terms are not otherwise satisfactorily provided for, there may be deducted from the dependents' or marriage allowance amounts sufficient to provide for payment of taxes levied by the local taxing authority in respect of the property in question and interest accruing annually on indebtedness to the director of soldier settlement, such deductions to be made monthly and in no case to exceed $20 per month except with the consent of the dependents concerned.
When the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) was speaking a few days ago in the house I was wishing that it was possible for me to offset some of his fine arguments about the present government's administration by handing him a little bouquet like this. It is a beauty and I think should be preserved for all time to come. I feel that the veterans of the second world war received very good treatment compared with those of world war I. I believe that the exposure of the treatment accorded the veterans of world war I has had quite a bit to do with the treatment accorded veterans of world war II.
In the Western Producer of November 13, 1947, we find this:
In a recent issue "The Legionary" directs attention to an interesting item of news. It points out that the Right Hon. Ian A. Mackenzie, Minister of Veterans Affairs, last month presented what he described as "a startling comparison" between land settlement operations under the Soldier Settlement Act after world war I and those under the Veterans Land Act for veterans of world war II.
The figures concerned operations in the province of British Columbia, but it is to be assumed that similar conditions prevail elsewhere. In the year 1925 loaning operations under the Soldier Settlement Act reached their maximum in B.C., as in other provinces. By that year, Mr. Mackenzie said there had been 3,493 loans made under the Soldier Settlement Act, totalling $15,503,474. The average loan was $4,401 and the average loan payable after allowing for 10 per cent down payments was approximately $4,080.
Turning to Veterans Land Act operations, the minister explained that as of July 31 this year there had been 3,030 loans approved under V.L.A. in British Columbia, for a total of $14,720,115. The average loan was $4,094, but the average loan repayable is only $2,027, due to the financial formula contained in the act.
I might state here that instead of the 5 per cent and 7 per cent charge under the Soldier Settlement Act, the veterans of world war II are getting a rate of interest of 3-5 per cent which, in my opinion, is still quite high.
In case I should forget it later on, I might state that there are a number of veterans of world war I who are still on the land, and some in towns, villages and cities, who are not making a very good living. Some of them have their land paid for and some have not. In some cases these men are receiving war

Soldier Settlers
veterans allowances. I should like to refer now to the recommendations in the brief presented by the Canadian Legion to the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and his cabinet on November 10 last. Two of the recommendations in that brief are as follows:
1.	That the basic rate of war veterans allowance be increased to $60 per month for a single veteran, and $120 for those who are married.
2.	That the ceilings on total permissible income under war veterans allowance be increased to $1,200 per year in the case of a single recipient and $2,000 per year in the case of those married.
I hope these recommendations will be adopted because they have been advocated for many months by members on all sides of the house. I hope that the government will see to it that, in particular, the request for an increase in allowable income will be granted. I believe that request is worthy of consideration. The same remarks apply, of course, to the other request. The granting of the requests will not hurt the government, and it will not hurt many of these people to do some additional work in order that they may build up their income to give them something like a reasonable standard of living.
Time was running out, and many of these old settlers had one big problem on hand before they passed on to the great beyond. This problem was to get a clear title to the land, and be able to leave their wives and families some form of security. These men were all growing older, just as all of us are. Away back in 1936, in the Lloydminster district, a soldier settlers union was formed. Membership was drawn from several other sections of Alberta and Saskatchewan. After some vain attempts to get recognition from any quarter, this organization went out of existence.
In the early forties another organization was formed in Saskatoon under the name of Soldier Settlers Association of Canada. Mr. H. C. Baker was the president and Mr. A. J. Sibley was the secretary treasurer. These two men deserve a lot of commendation for the work they did, particularly Mr. Sibley, who has written hundreds or thousands of letters in connection with this matter. These men received good support here for their demands. I believe they made three trips to Ottawa and made representations to the cabinet and the special committee on veterans affairs. Again I want to express the thanks of the delegation for the courteous treatment they received at the hands of the cabinet and the special committee on veterans affairs. They were pressing for clear titles, and many people at home were supporting their demands.

First of all, these men secured more than 12,500 signatures on a petition circulated throughout the west. They had the support of the Alberta legislature; the Saskatchewan legislature; the farmers' union of Saskatchewan; the association of rural municipalities; the Saskatchewan wheat pool; the united farmers of Canada, Saskatchewan section; united farmers of Alberta; Alberta branch of Canadian Legion; the British Columbia branch of the Legion and many other branches, including the dominion Legion command.
After making the final presentation to the special committee on veterans affairs here in June 17, 1948 the committee dealt very leniently with them and gave them a very good reception. I happened to be present. A few days after the delegation left, the committee had an opportunity of discussing this matter. This is the report turned in by the veterans affairs committee under the heading "Soldier Settlement Act".
Your committee recommends that all indebtedness of soldier settlers under the provisions of the Soldier Settlement Act, 1918, be remitted, and that they be granted clear title to their holdings.
That was the report of the special committee on veterans affairs, a committee which has done an excellent job ever since it was set up.


Mr. Brooks:: What is the date of that?


Robert Fair: June 17 the representation was made, and this report was turned in a few days later, in June, 1948. This committee was working without any skulduggery or anything of that kind. The committee must be complimented for the work done for the soldier settlers, who greatly appreciate it.
The Canadian Legion presented a brief to the veterans affairs committee on October 26, 1945, and under the heading "Soldier Settlement Act", this is what they had to say:
Therefore be it resolved that, in order to be fair to our aging veterans and to bring the old and the new settlement acts more into line the dominion government be asked to readjust the debts of the 6,153 original soldier settlers who have not paid for their lands, such readjustment to take into consideration the difference in interest rates charged under the said acts; and that following such readjustments the government be further asked to cancel the debts of those original soldier settlers whose debt has been, or may hereafter be, reduced to 25 per cent of the original purchase price or the reduced purchase price.
Later on in the discussion in the committee the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch) was not quite satisfied with the limitations placed on that recommendation, and at page 315 of the evidence of the committee, October 26, 1945, he had this to say:
On page 11 of the brief there is a reference to the old soldier settlers, and the recommendation

there is that clear title be given provided a soldier reduces his indebtedness to 25 per cent of the original purchase price or the reduced purchase price. X do not think that will go far enough to satisfy the organization that calls itself the Old Soldier Settlers Organization, because they are asking for a clear title for all soldier settlers of the last war. I think we must all agree that the soldiers who are in the most difficult position of all are those soldier settlers who have had no chance of reducing their indebtedness to that 25 per cent, the ones who have been up against bad luck.
Some of you may call it bad management perhaps, but we know that the situation these men went through in the depression years put them in a position where they could not get the money to buy the farm. I should like very much to see that 25 per cent taken out of your recommendation, making it wide open so that title can be given to the old soldier settlers, whether in the fortunate position of being able to reduce their indebtedness to 25 per cent or not. I wonder if Mr. Walker would comment on that?
And Mr. Walker said:
I am sure it will not hurt our feelings if you do give them clear title.
It is quite clear and definite that the people who live in that section of the country and who know the conditions are quite in favour of these people being given clear title. The government, realizing that many of those settlers were in a tough financial position, where they could not get along on their own, decided to make a certain adjustment. For some time the most needy cases were taken care of.
During the past three or four years $150,000 has been placed in the estimates each year, and with that amount of money many of these cases have been cleared up. As of January 1, 1953, the figures show that 548 soldier settlers were still in debt. At January 1, 1954, that number had been reduced to 299, or a reduction of 249 settlers. The total debt of those men as at January 1, 1953, was $572,411.32. At January 1 this year, 1954, it had been reduced to $293,310.90, which means that they are still in debt to an average of $981. During the year, and up to the first of this year, $47,965.71, representing an average of $315.56 each, had been granted by way of reductions to 152 of the settlers.
I might point out that there is still more than $100,000 out of that $150,000 voted by the house still available for the reduction of those debts, and I am suggesting that before the end of the fiscal year, at March 31, the money should be spent in an effort to get some of those fellows out in the clear, so that they can see daylight.
Someone has suggested that they should be given help before a depression hits them. Well, I cannot see any reason in the world for another depression. And if one does come it will be man-made, just as it was back in the thirties.
Soldier Settlers
The government's main objection to granting clear titles is that veterans of great war II will not want to pay up. It says it will wait for perhaps 30 or 40 years, and then will have those debts done away with. In my opinion the conditions under which veterans of great war II have been settled are such that no such condition will develop. If this or any other government should permit conditions which would put those veterans in the same position as veterans of great war I, then we in the House of Commons have a job on our hands, a job of house cleaning, and we will have to do it in a hurry. So far as I am concerned, I shall be ready at any time to help in that campaign.
As I said before, the veterans of great war II have had a pretty good deal. We have yet to rectify the problems of the recipients of war veterans allowances, and should not let many weeks go by before that is done. I hope the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Lapointe) will give his attention to the matter.
I believe that in Canada we have the best country in the world, and I say that without fear of successful contradiction. We have treated well those veterans of great war II, and I suggest now that we should extend the same treatment to those few remaining from great war I who have gone on the land under the terms set out by the Soldier Settlement Act. Those men have paid everything they could over a period of more than 30 years. As a result of making those payments they have caused themselves and their wives and families to suffer privation and want.
In many cases their machinery and buildings are worn out and dilapidated, and a large amount of money is required these days to replace them. Many of those settlers are doing their best to clear up the debts, but they are hoping at the same time that before they move on to the great beyond they will get clear titles to their homes.
The excessive cost of the things they have to buy today, and the diminishing returns received for farm products, should spur the government to take action before it is too late. Many people do not realize that, because of the high cost of the things farmers have to buy in relation to the prices they receive for their grain, they are getting only about 90 cents a bushel for wheat, in terms of the value of the dollar in 1939.
I am suggesting in conclusion that without further delay, we give these 299 settlers clear titles. I wish to thank hon. members in all parties for their fine co-operation in this campaign on behalf of the old soldier settlers. Incidentally I would point out that I am not

Soldier Settlers
one, myself. Some people seem to think that, because I have discussed this matter on many occasions, I would receive some benefit from having these debts paid off. They will understand that this is not so when I explain that I did not buy any land from the soldier settlement board.
I wish to thank the members of the cabinet and the committee on veterans affairs for the kind co-operation and consideration given by them to the delegation which came here from the Soldier Settlers Association of Canada.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Mr. Speaker, I wish to take only a few moments of the time of the house to speak on this matter. As the hon. member for Battle River-Camrose (Mr. Fair) has just said, this is an old story. I remember when I was a boy at school reading the story of the battle of the Nile in which the author said: "It is an old story now, that battle of the Nile-but a brave story, and will never die of age".
The story the hon. member for Battle River-Camrose has told us over a long period of years-some 16 or 17 of them I believe-is an old one. It has also been a brave story, so far as the soldier settlers are concerned, and I hope that, like the story of the battle of the Nile, it will not die of age, but that it will be listened to.
The time has now arrived when the story should be completed. I congratulate the hon. member upon his persistence and his very clear statements of the facts. He has said that there are many new members in the house who have not heard the story about the condition of the soldier settlers, which has continued over a long period of years. It was all to the good that the hon. member should have renewed it today.
I am not going to follow him in all he has said, because I have spoken on this subject on a number of occasions previously. I would also congratulate the Legion, former ministers of veterans affairs, and also the committee on veterans affairs, all of whom have taken a keen interest in this matter.
I do not think the hon. member's efforts have been in vain. While he has not succeeded in obtaining 100 per cent of his ideal, he has received 50 per cent; and as we often say, "Half a loaf is better than no bread". It may not be as necessary to press this matter today as it was some years ago, because considerable attention has been paid to it.
As the hon. member has pointed out, while there were 25,000 who took up land under the Soldier Settlement Act some 35 years ago, today there remain only about 299. I imagine that the number will be less than that and no doubt the minister will give us the correct

number when he speaks. The number has been reduced from 25,000 to that small number. These men owe considerably less than $1,000 on the average. As I said a moment ago, from 1919 to 1954 is a long time. While in the army we used to sing an old song "There's a long, long trail awinding into the land of my dreams". There certainly has been a long, long trail awinding to those who took up land under the Soldier Settlement Act. It has been a pretty rough and stony trail as far as they are concerned. The hon. member for Battle River-Camrose (Mr. Fair) has outlined many of the difficulties which they encountered.
A great deal of credit is due to those men who have paid for their farms under the most extreme difficulties over that long period of years. Others have not been able to pay in the 35 years. I will not say that there are excuses, but no doubt there are many reasons why they have not paid. Perhaps some of them were poor farmers to start with. I met many men after the first war who had a great love for the land and open spaces and who thought they would like to take up farming. They did not prove to be good farmers and as a result they did not make a success of farming and could not pay for their farms.
There were others who had large families and who located on poor farms and were thus unable to make a living. They also, over this long period of years, were unable to pay for their farms. Certain sections of the country were not well adapted to farming. I have heard hon. members from Alberta tell of men who took up land in southern Alberta and in other dried-out areas of the west. The cards were stacked against those men and in the ordinary course of events they just could not pay for their farms.
The government has been generous in the past as far as these men are concerned, but there are only a few of them left. As the hon. member stated, these men are not young. They have lived most of their lives. Their average age is around 64 to 65 years. Before they pass on to the great beyond they would like to feel that they own the farms on which they have lived for the past 35 years. They would like to hand on their farms to their children, or probably to their grandchildren, the farms upon which they had raised their children and upon which they had spent most of their working lives.
This is practically all I wish to say to the minister this afternoon. These men have worked for 35 years on these farms. I do not think that if we waited for another 35 years we could clean this up and say that the last man has paid for his farm. In the first place, these men will not live that long. I think

the problem has been reduced practically to the irreducible minimum. It seems to me that there would be no better time than right now in this year 1954 for the minister to act. There is only a small amount still owing, I imagine in the vicinity of $300,000, and the minister will tell us the exact amount. I should like to see the minister get up this afternoon and tell us and these few men

I know it is absolutely hopeless for some of them to be able to pay-that the slate is going to be wiped clean.
There is no need of the minister repeating the excuse which has been used in the past that it might be considered unfair to those men who bought farms under the Veterans Land Act or to those old soldiers who have paid for their farms. There would not be one dissenting voice from the old soldiers who have paid for their farms. The men who bought land under the Veterans Land Act received so much better treatment that they would be ashamed to complain of any treatment given to these men.
This is all I have to say. As I said before, I have spoken on this matter time and time again. If the minister is not prepared to take action himself and announce it today, I hope he will take up the matter with his colleagues and before this session is over permit us to write "finis" to this long story of suffering as far as these old veterans are concerned.


Mr. E. G. McCullough (Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, a great deal of credit is due to the hon. member for Battle River-Camrose (Mr. Fair) for his great persistence in bringing this matter before hon. members of this house. I was present in the house from 1945 to 1949 and I can remember the hon. member persistently bringing up a resolution similar to the one we are debating today. The resolution reads:
That, in the opinion of this house, the government should take into consideration the advisability of giving clear titles to all soldier settlers of great war I who hold land under contract with the soldier settlement board.
There is little need for me to attempt to document the case as the hon. member for Battle River-Camrose has done this excellently. I think all members of the house will agree that the evidence which he has placed before us would indicate that it is expedient for the government to take action to bring justice to those veterans who bought land under the soldier settlement board.
I know that many times I have sat in farm homes in my constituency and listened to veterans tell of how they bought land under the soldier settlement board. Those soldiers made one realize the real problem 83276-95i
Soldier Settlers
these men had and that it is one in connection with which the government should take action.
I recall the debates which took place between 1945 and 1949 in this house and I do not recall one hon. member rising to his feet and contending that these soldier settlers had got justice. I remember on one occasion the then member for Rosthern got up and stated that while he agreed with the sentiments of the resolution he felt it would be unfair to those soldier settlers who had died and for that reason he was going to vote against the resolution.
I wish there were more members in the house this afternoon to have heard the argument of the hon. member for Battle River-Camrose. I am sure all would have agreed with him, and with those of us who are supporting the resolution, that it is time that the government took action in connection with this matter. I recall that in 1945 the number of soldier veterans who had bought farms under the Soldier Settlement Act was in the neighbourhood of 6,000. Through death, and for other reasons, that number has been reduced until as at January 1 of this year it stood at 299.
I should think that, when we have an economy which in 1953 will have produced a gross national output of over $24,000 million, this would be a matter which does not and should not be too large a job to settle.
I believe all hon. members supporting this resolution will agree it should not be talked out. It is my hope it will go to a vote this afternoon and that that vote will indicate to the government that members of this house are in full support of this resolution.


Mr. G. H. Castleden (Yorkton):: Mr. Speaker, in supporting this resolution I want to add my voice to that of the other members who have paid tribute to the hon. member for Battle River-Camrose (Mr. Fair), who has for years championed the cause of these men against what has been recognized by those who know the story as a grave and serious injustice.
After world war II there was a recognition in this house of the wrongs, errors and mistakes that had been committed by the administration in handling the affairs of the soldier settlement board, and it was realized that these mistakes had resulted in privation and a good deal of unnecessary suffering among men who had already served their country in the theatre of war and had come back to make their homes in the rural areas of this dominion. In spite of that fact, however, many of these men continue to suffer, and many of them have lost their life's work.

Soldier Settlers
I knew many of them in my own constituency and I want to tell this government of the bitterness that was felt by some of these men and their families after they had been evicted by this government following years of hard work. That bitterness remains in the hearts of many of these men and their families.
The member for Battle River-Camrose started this fight some 15 years ago. If he could have reached the ear of the government at that time a good many hundreds of veterans would have been saved, and a great deal of good could have been done. Today there is nothing left but this belated gesture which, if agreed to, will affect some 300 men. But even this gesture would be a good thing. I am sure it would have the support of every Canadian who knows the story, and the support of the vast majority of the members of this house who know the story.
I plead with the minister to make this gesture this afternoon. Surely he can give some ray of hope to the few men who remain.
The story of the soldier settlement board and the records in this house produced year after year, giving the cost of collecting the money from these men during the days of depression and hard crops, described by the hon. member for Battle River-Camrose, show that it cost the government more to administer the department than they collected from the men in these areas. These men were placed under an impossible load; under a debt that wore them out and in many cases led to the loss of their life's work.
If this gesture can be made this afternoon, as called for in this resolution, it will in part recognize the noble work of these men who, are real Canadians, who suffered in the field of battle and came back to play their part as good citizens in this Canada of ours. Such a gesture would do something to restore the faith of many embittered people in the good will of the Canadian people and the Canadian government.


Mr. O. L. Jones (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to express my thanks and also the thanks of the veterans in the Okanagan valley to the member for Battle River-Camrose (Mr. Fair) for bringing up this question.
We have quite a number of the 299 men who have been referred to now living in the area which I represent. I well remember the time 20 years ago when these men were placed rather hastily on unsuitable land. They had no chance to make a living but they were placed on this land presumably because the government was stuck with it
[Mr. Castleden.l
and had been ill-advised enough to purchase it. Many of them quit after three, four or five years and sought work or land elsewhere. As regards the remainder, as far as the soldier settlement board was concerned, they were left with this problem on their hands. A lot of them were anxious to help and they tried to purchase the land at a lower price from the soldier settlement board. But the board wanted its pound of flesh and they forced these fellows off the land and eventually some of that land was sold to newcomers, aliens who had come to Canada, at a lower price than that offered by the returned men.
I feel these returned men have had a raw deal from the very day they bought this land and they are still getting a raw deal. They will continue in that position until we face this problem. It is not a big problem for it involves less than 300 men and they are men who are for the most part at the age of 60 or 70, or perhaps 75. They are no longer able to cope with the struggle of keeping their land and farms going. The land they hold was never any good in any case and that is why they are behind in their payments today.
I believe the country at large and veteran members of this house are wholeheartedly behind this resolution, and in implementing it we would be giving no more than justice to a group of men who helped this country out at a critical period during the first world war. I hope a vote will be taken. I hope it will be a free vote and that it will serve to indicate to the minister that the time has now arrived when his small valiant band of men should be treated right, as the Canadian people would wish to see them treated.


Mr. Ray Thomas (Weiaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, I just want to add one word in support of the resolution put forward by the hon. member for Battle River-Camrose (Mr. Fair). I am sure that after the case he put up today anything I can say would be in the nature of an anticlimax. Yet I feel it is only right that I should add my voice to that of those who support these veterans in their attempt to see that they get a fair share of the things they should get 'out of this country.
These men sacrificed and fought during the first world war. They came back to settle themselves, make good citizens, and work for the benefit not only of themselves and their families but of their country, and in order to produce things Canadians need. They bought their land at a time of inflation and paid extremely high prices for that land, only to see the bottom drop out of everything

within a very few years. These men fought against droughts, depression, and high rate of interest and they are still trying to pay for their land because they got so far behind with the interest payments during a period when they could scarcely keep their families together let alone pay the interest on their farms.
Many of these men have now paid more than the original cost of the land and they are still in debt. They are getting older. Their ability to produce is getting less all the time and I think there should be some recognition of the efforts these men made during the past 30-odd years in trying to keep up payments and raise their families while at the same time contributing to the welfare of this country.
I know the argument has been used many times that by implementing a measure such as this we would be discriminating against those who had paid up and against the veterans of world war II. I do not think there is one veteran who took land under the Veterans Land Act after the second world war, or one veteran who took land under the Soldier Settlement Act and was able to pay for it, who would raise any objection whatsoever against giving these men clear titles to their land so that they may at least have some sort of security, and have a little bit of property that they can call their own in the twilight of their lives.


Hon. Hugues Lapointe (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in this discussion on the resolution introduced by the hon. member for Battle River-Camrose (Mr. Fair), I feel that I would be remiss in my duty as Minister of Veterans Affairs if I did not commend the hon. member for the sympathetic interest he has shown in the matter now under discussion over the last twelve or fifteen years, I believe, that he has been sitting in this house. I think he should be commended for this interest. There is no doubt that he has focused the attention of all hon. members-particularly veteran members-who are interested in the case of veterans of world war I on the situation of the soldier settlers who were settled under the 1919 act.
This matter has been debated every year for some time, and I do not think it is necessary for me to go over the history of the soldier settlement of 1919. I think it is admitted by all those who are acquainted with the subject that the scheme under which these men were settled was pretty much a haphazard one. It was one that was evolved hastily at the end of the first world war. It must be remembered that at that time the
Soldier Settlers
government of the day and the parliament of the day did not have any previous experience on how to handle thousands of men being demobilized in a short period of time and on how to find a proper formula to rehabilitate them into the civilian economy. Because of the haste with which the scheme was evolved and because of that lack of experience, I think there is no doubt that, under the Soldier Settlement Act, many may have been settled under conditions which proved to be too onerous for them to make a success of their endeavour. I think that fact has been recognized.
The fact that these men settled under this act had a very hard time of it during the lean years of the depression, during the twenties and the thirties, I think was recognized by the government of the day. When illustrations are given, as has been done in various instances-and as was done by the hon. member for Battle River-Camrose this afternoon -of the actual conditions experienced by some of these settlers, it must be remembered that, rightly or wrongly, that situation existed in the whole of the farming communities in this area at that time. I well remember that, during the course of a debate on a similar resolution, a former member of the house- I think he was the then member for Selkirk, Mr. Bryce-mentioned the sorry plight in which he found himself as a farmer in the area in which these settlers were located. He concluded by saying that probably many of them could not take the knocks as well as he could.
During the course of this debate it has been said that these men should have clear title because they have been paying for so many years. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that that fact in itself is not a strong argument.
As we all know, representations are made continuously to have long-term contracts under various loan schemes sponsored by the government, whether in the housing field or in the farm loan field. It could be a strong argument only if the extended term is one which affects a contract whose conditions are too onerous and might be termed unjust.
I submit that debt reduction for soldier settlers has been going on for many years. In fact, it dates back to 1922. The hon. member for Battle River-Camrose will recall that originally there were, I believe, 25,017 settlers and that at that time the investment by the federal government under this scheme was slightly over $109 million. Every few years since then there has been some kind of legislative revision designed to relieve those settlers, by reducing their obligations under the terms of their original contract, by

Soldier Settlers
revaluation or by other adjustments of the sort. As I mentioned before, it was recognized that the terms of these contracts were too onerous under the depressed conditions of the twenties and thirties.
The first of these measures was in 1922. If I may, I think I shall take the liberty of enumerating to the members of this house what has been done since the scheme was originally enacted, because it will put the problem in its true perspective. In 1922, 21,269 settlers benefited by an interest exemption which amounted to $10,270,000.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: What was the original interest?


Hugues Lapointe: Five per cent.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Five per cent to seven per cent?


Hugues Lapointe: Five per cent.


Mr. Quelch:: Seven per cent.


Hugues Lapointe: I am not quite sure. I am sure the hon. member for Battle River-Camrose will correct me if I am wrong. After that I think it became 7 per cent on the arrears or on the interest; I am not quite sure.


Robert Fair: That is right.


Hugues Lapointe: On the arrears. A few years afterward, in 1925, there was a reduction in the price of livestock effective as at the standard date in 1925. What is referred to as the standard date is the day on which the instalment becomes due. There was a 40 per cent reduction in the price of all livestock sold to a veteran prior to the standard date in 1920 and a 20 per cent reduction in the price of livestock sold to a veteran after that date and prior to the standard date of 1921. That reduction amounted to approximately $3 million. In 1927 there was again a new measure which took the form of land revaluation. It reduced the principal owing by veterans by $7 million and it affected some 7,043 settlers.
In 1929 a new measure, which I believe was implemented in 1930, granted a 30 per cent reduction in principal and interest amounting to $11,300,000, and aided 11,912 settlers. In 1933, three years later, a further interest remission totalled $1,310,000 and benefited some 11,612 settlers.
The next measure to alleviate the difficulties of soldier settlers was introduced in 1933, when the dollar for dollar bonus was instituted. During the period from 1933 to 1939 inclusive this measure permitted a reduction of principal payments by some $2 million and interest payments by $1,500,000, thereby helping some 8,512 settlers. In 1934,

as my hon. friends know, the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act came into force, and it was applicable to soldier settlers. Under this act up to 1942 soldier settlers received a reduction in principal and interest commitments of nearly $7 million, and about 2,419 settlers were affected.
In 1942 the entire position of soldier settlement was completely reviewed by a special committee on veterans affairs. It was found that the general position of soldier settlers, as shown in the annual report for 1942, should be investigated. It was revealed that approximately 50 per cent of the settlers were in what could be termed a sound or satisfactory position, and that the other 50 per cent were in doubtful or unsatisfactory positions. To illustrate my point, a detailed analysis of the situation showed that 2,953 settlers had acquired an average equity of 67-5 per cent in their farms, and that 606 settlers had acquired an average equity of 32 per cent. Of those in what were termed doubtful or unsatisfactory positions, 1,078 settlers had acquired an average equity of only 17 per cent, and 2,723 settlers had no equity at all.
The parliamentary committee therefore focused its attention on the latter two classes, and it recommended that further relief was necessary for soldier settlers. An order in council was passed in November, 1942, being P.C. 10/472. It contained two main provisions. One was the reduction of debts of soldier settlers by the treasury board on the recommendation of the director, and the second was the extension of term agreements. The provisions of this order were pretty realistically applied by the director, his officials and the responsible officers in the various districts. For the first time in the history of soldier settlement adjustments were made to meet individual circumstances and set patterns for procedure. The basic approach was to consider the capacity of the individual settler in relation to the estimated productive value of his land.
In the three and a half years following this order in council 2,419 debt reductions went through the books, the write-off amounting to approximately $1,300,000. As the result of this procedure soldier settlers made a good response, and by March 31, 1946, 268 settlers had already repaid their loans in cash. I think that is evidence that the order in council passed in November, 1942, had proved a practical and constructive measure with respect to debt repayment for soldier settlers.
The general position of soldier settlers as of March 31, 1946, showed a total of

4,276 active settlers compared with 7,255 in 1942, at the time the order in council was passed. Their total debt was $4,960,000, with an average debt of $1,160. But the average value of their farms still held at $2,500, based on the 1941 inventory, although that was 1946. In the four-year period between March 31,	1942 and March 31,
1946 a total of 2,621 soldier settlers, or one-third of the total active settlers in 1942, repaid their loans in cash and received title to their farms.
One point I wish to make is that through the application of this order in council not only did a great number of soldier settlers repay their loans in cash and get clear titles, but settlers originally classified as being in a doubtful or unsatisfactory position were able to meet the terms, and many of them also secured clear titles to their land. In other words, the quality did not deteriorate over these years.
In 1948 the matter was again discussed in the veterans affairs committee and in the house. My predecessor, the present Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg), introduced a new policy whereby each year an amount was voted in the departmental estimates to help reduce the debt and give clear titles to the remaining settlers. This has had the effect of reducing the present number of settlers to a very small figure. As a matter of fact, I believe the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Fair) will recognize that the action taken by my predecessor, and which has been continued ever since 1948 has, to a great extent, had the effect which he wishes to achieve by his yearly resolution. I believe I can quote figures which will illustrate this fact.
As of October 31, 1948, when the first order in council implementing the new policy came into force, there were 2,637 active soldier settler accounts with a total indebtedness of $2,842,534.30. On December 31, 1953, that is this last December, there were 299 active accounts with a total indebtedness of $293,310.90. I venture to say that it is possible my figures are already slightly out of date, because negotiations are continuously being conducted with these settlers to get them to agree to the new arrangement.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Might I ask the minister a question? I am sorry to interrupt, but how many of those would be British settlers under the British settlers' scheme?


Hugues Lapointe: I think they are considered separately.
Soldier Settlers


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I might say that in the 1953 report of the Department of Veterans Affairs there is this paragraph on page 65:
It might be explained that in addition to qualified soldier settlers established under the act, these figures include 74 British family settlers and 27 soldier settlers who purchased reverted properties on civilian agreements, and were eligible for debt reduction under the order in council by reason of their service in a theatre of actual war.
I was wondering about that.


Hugues Lapointe: I have some figures which may be of interest to the hon. member. In addition to the numbers I have mentioned of soldier settlers who were granted reductions, 120 settlers who were eligible to apply for benefits under the Soldier Settlement Act but purchased under the British family settlement scheme or on civilian agreements have also been granted debt reductions.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Those 299 would not be original soldier settlers?


Hugues Lapointe: My understanding is that they are all soldier settlers. If I am not correct I shall let the hon. member have the correct information. Of the 2,637 active soldier settler accounts as of October 31, 1948, 1,599 had been granted reductions under the various orders in council. As at December 31, 1953, 1,511 had already obtained title, and 827 settlers repaid their accounts and obtained title without any reduction under the provision of the various orders. At the present time, of those 299 accounts which are left with a total indebtedness of $293,310.90 there are 88 who are already repaying the reduced indebtedness after adjustments had been made. In other words, 88 of them have come to an agreement with the director and are paying under the new conditions. This leaves 211 accounts which are not adjusted.
These 211 accounts on which no adjustment has been made as of December 31, 1953, have a total indebtedness of $205,142.26. Of those 211 accounts 41 are not eligible for a reduction for various reasons, such as the fact that the settler and his wife are both deceased or the settler has sold his farm under a private agreement and it is now impossible for the director to make an adjustment with the settler. This leaves 170 who are eligible. Of the 170, there are 36 who have refused to apply for a reduction, although they have been approached and in many cases it was felt that under the order in council they would be entitled to a reduction. These people have said they would continue under the original terms of their contract until final

Soldier Settlers
payment was made. However, we are continuously reviewing the cases of these settlers who have refused to accept a reduction.
There are others whose cases do not meet the terms of the order in council and who, in the estimation of the director, do not warrant a reduction now. I recall that at one time, I believe when the departmental estimates were being discussed, I quoted a case in answer to a question by the hon. member for Battle River. He thought it was a rather odd thing in that the man had refused to meet his obligations, although he was financially capable of doing so. I agreed at that time that I had possibly quoted an extreme case, but I can assure the hon. member that of the balance of 134 active accounts, the majority are settlers who are now capable of paying and who are in a financial position to do so.
I do not want to go through numerous files and name numerous cases, but I can assure the hon. member that some of these settlers are probably in a better financial position than many of their neighbours in the area. Some of them own another farm and operate two farms. They own farm machinery on which there is no debt. Some have homes in the city in addition to their farms, and spend the winter in the city. I will admit that such cases are limited in number, but the hon. member will have to admit also that the number of cases left is quite small indeed. As I say, it is now 134.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: May I ask the minister another question? I was rather interested in the 36 who refused to accept assistance. What would be their reason for refusing? Would it be because they are not able to meet the terms of the provisions laid down by the board?


Hugues Lapointe: I think the best way to answer the hon. member is to read a letter. I do not think he will ask me to quote the name, but it is from one of those settlers who was approached by the supervisor of his district because the supervisor felt the man had reached an age and the productivity of the farm had reached the stage when he should get a reduction. The letter reads as follows:
In reply to your letter-
And the number of the letter is given.
-dated April 11 I am afraid I shall not be interested in the proposal you put forward for some years, if in fact I am ever interested in it.
Firstly, it will take the next three years to catch up with the urgent dilapidation-barn, roof, eave-trough, woodshed, veranda, hydro.
Secondly, I am more interested in completing my own payments than accepting quite unnecessarily (in my case) government handouts. I am 66 years old in August, and I am told I shall get the old age pension of $40 a month when I am 70. I am in perfect health, and I intend to stay on my farm, as

long as I live. So do not feel there is any need to worry about making a yearly payment of about $170.
Then he goes on to say that lambing was not good but that the calves were good. This is one of the cases. I will admit they are not numerous but, as I said before, we are dealing with only a hundred odd cases. And because of the circumstances I do feel, although I have the greatest sympathy, as has everyone else in the house, for all these soldier settlers who went through a hard period of their lives on these farms, that the matter has now reached the point where it is a question of a few individual cases. In all fairness to the other veterans and to the taxpayers of this country, I do not feel these men who now are left and who are capable of meeting their obligations should get clear title.
I am quite willing to propose to the hon. member for Battle River-Camrose (Mr. Fair), who has been such an advocate for these settlers that, now that this matter has reached such small proportions, I am willing personally to go through every one of the files of these 134 settlers who might be able to qualify for reductions and obtain clear titles under the present proposal. And I am willing, after having gone through them, to submit to him my opinion on each case, and let him discuss whether my views have merit or not. However, I regret that under present conditions it is impossible for me-and I am speaking for the government-to accept my hon. friend's resolution. I shall have to vote against it.


Victor Quelch: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few remarks arising out of the statement made by the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Lapointe). He has admitted that the settlers under the old Soldier Settlement Act suffered undue hardship, partly on account of the way the act was drafted at that time and also largely due to the fact that in those days we appointed a number of men who, in reality, were not qualified to act as soldier settlement supervisors. As a consequence of this many of the veterans were saddled with land at exorbitant prices. They also acquired stock of poor quality at exorbitant prices. And so, as a result of these conditions, they had two strikes against them before they started.
The hon. member for Battle River-Camrose (Mr. Fair) has referred to the difficult situation in which the soldier settler found himself during the depression. The Minister of Veterans Affairs replied that civilian farmers, also, found themselves in the same position. But let me point out to the minister that there

is a vast difference. Soldier settlers, prior to the depression, had been saddled with exorbitant debts as a result of inflationary prices. Civilian farmers, on the other hand, had been benefiting from those exorbitant prices and, as a consequence, had been able to build up a reserve which helped to carry them through the depression.
So there is very little similarity between the two cases. On the one hand you have a man saddled with a heavy debt as the result of high prices, and on the other hand a man who has been able to build up a reserve as the result of those same high prices. So I suggest to the minister that there is no comparison between the two cases.
I speak with some knowledge of what I say, because I was one of those who settled under the old Soldier Settlement Act. I remember well the great difficulties in trying to carry on between 1930 and 1935. As a matter of fact, I think I could say that one of the reasons I am down here in parliament today is because I got so disgusted with the whole thing that I became somewhat hostile to the government of the day, and took a greater interest in politics than I would have done otherwise.
I do not wish to criticize unduly the supervisors of the soldier settlement board. I am frank to admit that during the years I always found them very sympathetic. But they used to point out to me that they were tied down by the rules and regulations under the act, and could not do anything about it. To the extent that they were able to do anything, I always found them most sympathetic. And my remarks about the soldier settlement supervisors of the early period do not in any way refer to the type of men who are on the job today. I know that those men we have today are, in the vast majority of cases, of a very fine order, thoroughly competent to deal with the situation.
The minister has also referred to the fact that many concessions have been made, and I agree with him that many concessions were made. But I remember only too well that those concessions invariably were too little and too late. The government waited until the arrears of interest had piled up to such a point that a settler was discouraged from trying to make any further payments. Then they would come along with a reduction, but that reduction was not sufficient to cancel all the arrears of interest.
Then again, a reduction was made in the amount owing on capital equipment. But due to the fall in prices that reduction was nowhere near the depreciation in value of 8327G-96
Soldier Settlers
that capital equipment. And so I repeat that while concessions have been made to those soldier settlers, they were always too little and too late to deal adequately with the situation.
The minister has said that the purpose of the act was to re-establish these men within a period of 20 years. That was originally its purpose. How long ago is it since these men were saddled with that debt? It is approximately 35 years. That is to say, it has required 35 years to establish many of the men who were supposed to be established, under the act, within a period of 20 years. I think we can say therefore, on that ground that as these men have not become established, due to no fault of their own, there would be every good reason for wiping out the amount of their indebtedness.
The minister has suggested that some veterans who left are capable of paying off their indebtedness, and pointed out that some of them are now living in towns. Well, I know several who are living in towns. Some years ago my attention was drawn to a couple who were living out in a drought area; I do not need to mention the name of the place. I went out there and found a family of a man, his wife and seven children, living on a farm on which no man should ever have been settled. It was nothing but a bunch of sand dunes.
I said to him, "Why do you not get out of here? You will never make a living off this farm." He said, "I am getting war veterans allowance to help me out, but they are deducting $15 a month for rent." All he had was a hovel, a two-room shack to house his wife, himself and their seven children. I suggested that he get off that farm and move to town, and that he would get the full amount of the war veterans allowance. He did go to town, and I made arrangements for him to get a small house there. When he left the farm he was able to get the full amount of the war veterans allowance, and I wish to congratulate the war veterans allowance board upon agreeing that the full amount should be paid.
I do not know what happened to the farm. It stands to reason that no one could make a living on it. No doubt it went back to the soldier settlement board and was included in the list of farms upon which soldier settlers had failed to become re-established. That man is now living in town, but no one can say that he is in good circumstances simply because his financial position has improved to the point where he can have a house in town.
There are many of these old settlers who have moved to the towns because they have

Soldier Settlers
become too old to carry on farming operations. They may have a cheap house in town and have rented their farms. The payments they receive from the rents are being made against the indebtedness. They are living on the war veterans allowance. These men are getting old; some of them are now 70 years of age. Surely instead of insisting that every little bit of money they can get should go to the soldier settlement board those veterans should be in position to put a little money aside to look after themselves in their old age. They have not been able to build up any reserve in many cases.
The suggestion has been made that the giving of clear titles to these veterans would create an injustice to other veterans who have paid. I do not think the minister need be worried on that score. That is not the attitude of the Legion, which has supported the idea that clear titles should be given, although they have not pressed for that. As a veteran I know that I certainly would not feel that way, and I went through a lot of hardship in the thirties. I am sure all fair-minded veterans who find themselves in the fortunate position of having been able to pay off their indebtedness and thus get into better circumstances would not for one minute object to this concession being granted at this late stage of the game. The minister should be prepared to go one step further than he suggests and wipe out the debts still owing by this small number of veterans.


Mr. T. H. Goode (Burnaby-Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps one who did not serve in the first world war should not enter into this debate. I think the hon. member for Battle River-Camrose is to be congratulated upon his persistence year after year in bringing up in the House of Commons this case of a decreasing number of elderly gentlemen. The hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch) has just stated that he is one of those who settled under this act. I am quite sure the hon. gentleman is not one of the 134 mentioned by the minister.


Victor Quelch: I paid up in 1935.


Tom Goode: Quite true; you did.


Victor Quelch: I was one of the fortunate ones.


Tom Goode: You might be fortunate, but I am sure the hon. member-I say this with all kindness to the 134 men-had a little more fortitude than some.


Victor Quelch: I didn't pay it from my farm, I paid it from my indemnity.


Tom Goode: The hon. member fulfilled his obligations. I am usually sympathetic toward cases of this kind, but I am not going to be
IMr. Quelch.]
sympathetic to this one. According to my notes, the minister told us that in 1948 there were 2,637 settler accounts to a total of $2,840,000 odd; in 1953 there were 299 active accounts to an amount of $293,300; at the present time there are 134 active accounts, and the minister mentioned some of those.
I do not suppose all those gentlemen should receive consideration from the department, although the hon. member for Acadia has made the point that some of them should be considered by the minister. The minister has said that he is willing to go through the files, and I hope he does. If he finds that there is one man who should receive consideration, then his time will be well spent.
In voting for or against this resolution I must take into consideration the taxpayers of Canada. I shall vote against the resolution for the reasons so ably stated by the Minister of Veterans Affairs.


Robert Fair: Mr. Speaker, I have only a few words to say at this time.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: May I remind hon. members that if the hon. member for Battle River-Camrose (Mr. Hair) speaks now he will conclude the debate.


Robert Fair: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to take up very much time because I have taken up quite a little already. I am not sorry for doing that, because I feel that an injustice has been inflicted upon a number of people, and I consider it my duty to see that it is remedied, if at all possible.
I thank the minister for the detailed information he has given the house. He gave the amounts that were wiped out by the different processes. I went into those different items in detail. While a number of concessions were granted, they did not at any time compensate for the unnecessary load that was piled upon these settlers to begin with. That has been my objection all the way along.
I have stated before that in my particular part of the country land was sold by farmers to the government at high prices, and then resold to veterans. I know of one particular case where a man sold his farm to the government at four times the price of other land in the vicinity, and that land was sold back to the farmer's son. I bought some of that land at one-quarter the price.
The same thing may be said about the purchase of farm implements and livestock. I cited some cases and gave particulars, and I think they should satisfy the house or anybody interested that land, livestock and equipment were bought at inflationary prices.

Within a few years prices had fluctuated to such an extent that it was impossible for these farmers to make a living or to come out at the right end of the deal.
The minister has said that he will go through the files. I only wish he had been minister in 1937, when I first brought up this matter. If he had gone through the files at that time he might have prevented a lot of men from being evicted. The minister has made reference to men living in the cities or in some cases on their farms, who are able now to pay their debts. I would tell the minister that that has not been done by the settler alone. If he will investigate those cases he will find that the man's wife and his children-I shall not suggest any particular number-have been working, and after 35 years the farmer has reached the position where he can pay for his land.
I hope the minister will go through the remaining files. In order that his hands may be strengthened in dealing with these 134 people who remain I hope to call a vote.


CANADA ELECTIONS ACT
Mr. Rodney Adamson (York Wesi) moved:: That, in the opinion of this house, the government should take into consideration the advisability of amending the Canada Elections Act so as to exclude the holding of a general election during the months of July or August except in a state of emergency.
He said: Mr. Speaker, at the outset I wish to stress the last five words of this resolution,

Canada Elections Act
namely "in a state of emergency". By including these words the resolution specifically does not take from any government in power the essential right to call an election should an emergency exist. The purpose of the resolution is merely, under normal circumstances, to regard the hot summer months in the same way we regard the frigid winter months, as being improper times to hold a general election. If passed, the resolution is merely a recommendation to the committee which will be set up to revise the Canada Elections Act. At the outset I would ask a favourable decision of the house because I feel it would certainly be in the interests of succeeding parliaments to do as I have suggested.
The modern concept of free, democratic government depends upon two things. The first is that those chosen to represent the people in legislatures shall be elected by a free vote, and that the conditions of the franchise shall be as universal as possible. The second condition, which is equally important, is that a large percentage of the electorate shall take part in the election so that the candidates who are chosen to represent the people shall in fact be the choice of the majority.
Our system of elections provides that the candidate who obtains the largest number of votes shall be elected to the house whether or not he obtains a majority of the votes cast. All that is needed is a plurality over the other candidates individually. We have rejected-and rightly so, I think-such systems as the single transferable vote and any form of proportional representation. In the 1953 election, as I will shortly show, in a huge number of constituencies in Canada the largest number of electors were not those who voted for the member who now represents the riding in this house but those persons who in fact did not vote. In some cases those not voting actually exceeded the total vote cast for all candidates.
Anything which tends to restrict or prevent an individual vote being cast is dangerous, and the end result is bad no matter whether the steps taken to prevent the vote being cast are of a coercive nature or whether they take the form of encouraging apathy in a general election. We in Canada have been fortunate in that coercive practices have been kept to a minimum. We have not, however, been so fortunate with regard to the overcoming of apathy toward our national problems, and it is this danger which is increased by an election held in the heat of the summer and during the period when Canadians living in urban centres are, by national habit, on holidays.

Prior to the end of the 21st parliament, when the August 10 date for the election was given publicity in a newspaper which is close to the government, the question of apathy was raised in the house by the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming), to which the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) replied that it was more important to see that the electors were at home during the enumeration than on election day because if they were not on the list of electors they would be deprived of their votes.
This argument is both naive and spurious; naive because if a citizen is out of his electoral district on election day he obviously cannot vote no matter whether or not he has been enumerated, and spurious because if an elector is not on the list even a few days before the election he can be sworn in by the provisions of the elections act as recently revised. There was a case in my own riding of York West where the residents of a whole street had been omitted by the enumerators, but thanks to the good offices and efficiency of the chief electoral officer they were put on a special list of electors and thus enabled to cast their votes.


Mr. Mcllrailh:: Who said that?


Agar Rodney Adamson: It was done. A whole street was omitted but the residents were enumerated, put on the voters' list and cast their votes. We worked all day Sunday to get it done for the voting on Monday. I wish to say now that the chief electoral officer was extremely co-operative. The case involved a street running between two long streets of new houses, and neither the enumerating team on the first street nor the enumerating team on the second street took the trouble to enumerate the cross street. I think this was discovered on the Friday night. Anyway, the officials worked on Saturday and Sunday, got the list printed, and everybody on that street was entitled to vote.


Mr. Cardiff:: Would that be legal?


Agar Rodney Adamson: Oh, yes, absolutely legal. Furthermore, if enumeration takes place at a time when many people are away, the enumerators can and generally do, because it is in their interest to do so, find out the names of those persons normally resident in the house which may be vacant and add them to the lists. A family who may be holidaying when the enumerator calls on them can be placed on the election roll and enabled to vote, but if the same family is away on election day they lose their votes.
In a country as subject to the great extent of temperature and climatic variations throughout the year as Canada, climate has a very important part to play in our lives.

It is generally considered inadvisable to hold elections during the harvest period, and it would be obviously wrong to hold an election during the bitter winter months. Both of these periods would deprive large numbers of Canadians of their right to vote. The same holds true of a midsummer election in the months of July or August, particularly for the urban voter, and the results of the 1953 election were nothing short of disgraceful in this regard.
What is equally disquieting, however; is the showing for the provinces of British Columbia, Alberta and Manitoba, where in 1953 the vote showed that in only five constituencies in these three provinces did the elected member's vote exceed the number of citizens registered who failed to exercise their franchise, whereas in 1949, when the election was held in June before the holiday season had really got under way, 36 constituencies returned members to this house whose vote exceeded the unpolled vote.
I propose to deal with this in more detail in a minute. I have worked out for every constituency in Canada for the 1949 and 1953 general elections the number of those who did not vote and the difference between these figures and the number of votes cast for the elected members. I do not ask that these figures be placed on Hansard but I suggest that, if they could form an appendix to Votes and Proceedings and be printed later at the convenience of the printing bureau, it would show every member how his constituency voted and the trend as between 1949 and 1953. I have also worked out a summary of the figures for each province for the 1949 and 1953 elections, and I would ask permission to have these summaries placed on the record.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. member leave to place these summaries on the record?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. gentleman mean that they should be interspersed with his remarks in Hansard or that they should be an appendix to Hansard?


Mr. Martin:: Votes and Proceedings.


Agar Rodney Adamson: If I may speak to the question, the results for the individual constituencies take up several pages. I think Votes and Proceedings would be satisfactory for them, but the summaries give the story in detail.


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreeable?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
(For tables and summaries see appendix, pages 1517 to 1534.)
Canada Elections Act


Agar Rodney Adamson: The distribution of the
Canadian electorate is approximately evenly divided between urban and rural voters. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, the city dweller takes a holiday during the summer months. This is particularly true of the industrial worker, and it has become a common practice for entire industrial plants to close down for a period of two weeks sometime during these months.
The industrial worker in Canada today generally goes on a trip or takes his family out of the hot city to a summer resort or cottage, frequently situated on one of our beautiful Canadian lakes. When he has moved his family or is on a trip he cannot be expected to return to vote, because the expense entailed in bringing his family back from the lake doubles his cost of transportation for his holiday, and this he cannot afford. Therefore, if an election is called while he is on holiday he is disfranchised. There is just no other word for it.
In my own riding the largest aircraft factory in Canada, the A. V. Roe Company, was closed during election day, and there is no doubt the huge majority of the employees were deprived of their vote. There were other industries in the same position. The result was that the vote in York West fell from 75 per cent in 1949 to 61 per cent in 1953, that is of the total electors on the list. I was elected by 25 per cent of the electors on the list in my riding, yet I obtained 42 per cent of the vote cast. This I consider to be far from satisfactory.
However, my position is substantially better than many of the other Toronto and York ridings. The members for the city of Toronto itself obtained only 26 per cent of the total votes on the lists, and in the 7 York seats only 25 per cent of the total electors. Therefore the members who represent Canada's largest city in this parliament only represent really about a quarter of the electors. In other words, there were three times as many people who either did not vote or voted for somebody else as those who voted for the members who claim to represent the various ridings in Toronto and the Yorks.
To put it another way, the unpolled vote in Toronto exceeded the total vote of all the Toronto members by 758,500 votes, or an average of 6,900 per constituency. In the Yorks the figures were 52,530 or an average of 7,500 per constituency. The unpolled vote in both Toronto and the Yorks came to the staggering figure of 337,000, over one-third of a million, and it exceeded the total votes cast for all the elected members by no less than 129,000. In 1949 the members were

Canada Elections Act
elected for Toronto with, a majority of 4,345 over the non-voters, and in the Yorks with a majority of 1,135. Thus it can be seen that the members from Toronto and the Yorks in the 21st parliament had a majority of nearly 10,000 votes over the non-voters, whereas in 1953 this had changed to a minority of 129,000. The percentage cast in Toronto in 1949 was 71 per cent. This dropped to 57 per cent in 1953. The percentage vote cast in the Yorks in 1949 was 73 per cent, and this dropped to 60 per cent in the 1953 election.
The largest non-vote in Canada was in York South, where no less than 28,242 electors failed to vote, and the difference between the non-vote and the vote cast for the elected member was 16,026. In York South the votes cast for the elected member were less than one in five; actually only 19-6 per cent of the electors on the list voted for the member who represents the largest riding in Canada. I may say that the hon. member and I have discussed this; and while I am not speaking for him, of course, I am sure the same conditions obtained in his riding as in mine. In fact I believe the same conditions obtained in all the industrial and urban ridings in Canada.
The situation in Montreal is almost equally deplorable. In 1949 the members elected had a majority of 73,500 over the non-voters, whereas in 1953 this had changed to a minority of 36,236. In other words, in Canada's second city there was a changeover of no less than approximately 110,000 votes. The percentage of votes cast dropped from 67 per cent in 1949 to 59 per cent in 1953. The same holds true for all other Canadian cities.
This condition is particularly bad in Vancouver, where the non-voters exceeded the winners' vote by 29,000 out of a total of 146,000 registered votes. The same condition showed in Edmonton, Calgary and Saskatoon, although the member for Regina did receive a majority over the non-voters. The four Winnipeg ridings were also bad. As a matter of fact, Winnipeg North Centre with 22,000 non-voters or 9,000 more uncast votes than those who voted, showed almost the worst result in Canada. The worst, outside of Toronto and Montreal, was Winnipeg South Centre, with an 11,606 majority of uncast votes. The same situation holds true for Hamilton, Lincoln, London, Ontario county, which contains the city of Oshawa; for Timmins, for Waterloo North and for Wentworth, which is partially in Hamilton.
The province of Quebec, however, has an extremely creditable record and only two ridings outside the island of Montreal

returned members with a vote less than that of the non-voters, that is rural Quebec. In Halifax, interestingly enough, the two members who were returned received an inferior vote to the number of non-voters. So far as I could ascertain that is the first time that has happened in many, many years. St. John's, Newfoundland, was in the same position.
Now, Mr. Speaker, that is all I have to say on the question of the urban voter and the summer election. We know the pattern of Canadian life. The average Canadian family, whether they be industrial workers, white-collar men or professional men, take a holiday during the summer. It is a national habit. It is almost as national a habit as the wearing of an overcoat in wintertime. When these people are on holidays they cannot afford to return from the place in which they are spending their holidays to exercise their franchise. The results, compared with 1949, show that the pattern of the 1953 election was deplorable.
However, there is a further disquieting manifestation concerning three out of four of the western provinces. Only in Saskatchewan was the vote for the elected members greater than the unregistered vote.
In British Columbia in only one riding, that of Kootenay West, can a member feel that his vote exceeds that of the absentees, whereas in 1949 not a single riding in rural British Columbia returned a member without a comfortable plurality.
In Alberta only the ridings of Lethbridge, Medicine Hat and Vegreville had a plurality in 1953, whereas in 1949 nine of the ridings returned members with majorities over the absentees. The total vote cast dropped from 69 per cent to 62 per cent. The story is similar or even worse in Manitoba, where the total vote dropped from 72 per cent to 59 per cent and the vote cast for the sitting members over that of the non-voters dropped from a majority of 33,742 to a minority of 62,390, or by nearly 100,000 votes.
In making this analysis, one cannot help but be impressed by the stability of the farm vote, for in Saskatchewan, rural Ontario, rural Quebec and the maritime provinces, with the exception of Newfoundland, the vote both in 1949 and 1953 can be considered satisfactory. However, here also the figures for 1953 show a distinct drop from those of 1949. In rural Ontario, for instance, the winners' vote was greater than the non-vote by 282,000 in 1949, but this had dropped to 123,000 in 1953, or by approximately 160,000 votes. In rural Quebec it dropped from 322,000 in 1949 to 270,000 in 1953. Only in New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and rural Nova

Scotia did the vote cast in 1953 compare in percentage with that in 1949. In Newfoundland in 1949 the elected members had a majority of 501 over the non-voters, whereas in 1953 this was turned into a deficit of 8,848.
I have made this rather extended study of the election because I believe it is of the utmost importance to us in Canada. Cynics have said to me, "Why do you worry? You got elected anyway." I consider that to be both a dangerous and despicable argument. To have the support, as I have, of merely one out of every four of my constituents is not a situation which can give me much comfort, yet every member from Toronto and the Yorks is in the same position, as are nearly all members from the island of Montreal, although the situation there is somewhat better than in Toronto, and all members from the larger urban centres in Ontario and British Columbia and practically every member as well from Manitoba, Alberta and British Columbia.
Therefore, to say that this parliament is truly representative of the majority of the Canadian people, or that the present government by any stretch of the imagination represents a majority, is extremely far from the facts as they are disclosed by a study of the past two elections. Whether or not the government would have been returned, or whether or not any individual would have been returned, or what the success of the various parties would be is not the question. The question is what percentage of the Canadian people do we in this sovereign parliament really represent. In my view it is a dangerously small minority. I place the blame for this largely on the summer election and the national pattern of Canadian life.
It may be said in defence of a summer election that it is easier to carry out the work of an election in the far northern parts of Canada during the summer than in the spring or fall when the break-up of the ice has to be contended with. This is no doubt true, but the number of ridings so affected would probably be only three or four, as compared with well over a hundred that are affected adversely. In this regard also it is interesting to compare the vote of the far northern ridings in 1949 and 1953. The surprising thing is that very little change is discernible in the picture for 1953, and what change there is is for the worse.
Once a country starts depriving people of their votes, even by holding an election at an awkward time, the free institutions of that country are in jeopardy.
Canada Elections Act
I present this resolution to the house in absolute sincerity. We do not represent a majority of Canadians, as we should. We fail to represent them, not through any act of coercion but merely because an election was held in the summer months, in the extreme heat, when apathy toward political matters was at its height. No matter whether I would have been elected or not, no matter whether any other member would have been elected or not; that is not the problem. The problem is this. We must take such great care of our electoral franchise that when the next general election rolls around the members who sit in this chamber can say, "At least we do represent a majority of the Canadian people".


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for York West asked a moment ago that certain figures be printed as an appendix to Votes and Proceedings, to which the house agreed. The Clerk now reminds me that it is difficult for him to enter such material in Votes and Proceedings.
A motion has been moved and debate is continuing thereon. An amendment, or other proceedings, may take place-but not the tabling of documents, which usually is done under the order for motions. Therefore it would be proper at this time only to have these figures printed as an appendix to Hansard.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: If that is agreeable, and if the house is prepared to change its mind, that could be done.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May we find out from the hon. member how many pages are involved? I think this is not the usual procedure, and the material he offers is not really germane to the argument he has adduced. It is interesting information; but how many pages are there?


Agar Rodney Adamson: I should think that it would take up three or four pages of Hansard. If I may be permitted to discuss the point raised, I would say that I had merely wanted this table made available so that it could be seen by the committee when revising the Canada Elections Act, when it is set up. I am sensitive about burdening Hansard with extraneous material, and I had thought that placing it in Votes and Proceedings would be the easier way of doing it. However, if placing it in Hansard is satisfactory to the house, I shall be content.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps we ought to be more sensitive about what is printed in Votes and Proceedings, because they constitute the official record of the house. Therefore I feel
1512	HOUSE OF
Canada Elections Act
much happier about printing the additional material in Hansard than in Votes and Proceedings. Is it agreed?


Mr. Maclnnis:: Before it is agreed, we should know who prepared the figures, under what authority, and that they are correct. This should be done before it is printed in Hansard. If they come from a government source that would be all right, but I should think it would be unnecessary to place them on Hansard because that source would be available to any committee just as though they were on Hansard. I think it is important to know what authority there is for the figures.


Agar Rodney Adamson: They were sent to me by the chief electoral officer. The figures show the difference between the non-voters and the elected member's vote. I think this is the first time that figures for non-voters have been prepared. While the figures are not as yet official, they came from the chief electoral officer. Ordinarily they would not be available until the blue book is published, but the figures I have used come from a document published by him.


Donald MacInnis: If they are from the chief electoral officer I withdraw my objection.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Agar Rodney Adamson: I may say that the percentages have been worked out by me on a slide rule, and there may be some slight discrepancies.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the motion moved by the hon. member for York West (Mr. Adamson) for three reasons. The first, and I think far and away the most important one, I shall deal with last. I am one of those people who believe that there are enough rigidities in our constitution and that it is most undesirable to add any more unless the reasons are really compelling. I recognize that that is a conservative, a reactionary, perhaps even a Tory argument, but I do not hesitate to make it because in respect of the constitution I am conservative, perhaps I am reactionary, and perhaps there is some relic of the Toryism in which I was brought up.
The second reason I oppose this motion is that it seems to me there is imported into it a phrase which is generally given a technical significance-I do not know whether the hon. member intended it to have that-and I refer to the words "state of emergency". I do not want to get into the kind of debate that has taken place in this house on some other measures, as perhaps that should be left to


other measures, but if by "state of emergency" he means the state of emergency contemplated by the War Measures Act of 1914, then I feel this proposal would be far too restrictive, and if there is time I shall try to show why I think that is so.
The third reason is that like the hon. member for York West I too am a member of parliament for a particular constituency. Perhaps both of us tend to look at things from rather a local point of view. I cannot go along with the hon. gentleman, as I prefer to go along with the bureau of statistics in the view that Montreal is still the largest city in Canada.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Not since the first of the month.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It seems to me that the rest of his reasoning was rather along the same lines. It was rather looking out from Toronto to the lesser breeds than looking at the rest of the country from the point of view the rest of us are apt to take.
As hon. members know, my direct personal experience with Newfoundland is not very great, but I can say that at least in 1953- I saw them myself-there were still many icebergs along the coast in June. It would not have been easy or perhaps satisfactory to have had an enumeration in that province in April. I imagine it would be almost impossible to do it properly in March or February or January.
I do not want it to be thought that my view is that the date of the election should be fixed primarily to suit the convenience of the five constituencies in Newfoundland which are not largely urban. I agree with what I think were the implications in what the hon. member for York West said, that probably there is no time for an election that works out to a better average for the whole country than the last fortnight in June, but I do not think there is any doubt that the best and safest months for an election in the five out-port constituencies, if I may use that term, in Newfoundland are July and August. Then there would be the greatest certainty of having good weather.


Mr. Fleming:: Good political weather?


John Whitney Pickersgill: So far the political weather in Newfoundland has been sunshiny most of the time. I was referring to the kind of weather the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) keeps track of.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Which is that? There are
still two kinds.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That kind of weather one year with another is apt to be best of all in the month of July, and the next best month is usually August. It may vary from season to season. I do not think there is much doubt that the slightly larger vote in Newfoundland in 1949 than in 1953 had little or nothing to do with the fact that one election was on June 27 and the other was on August 10. The election in 1949, being the first one after confederation, perhaps excited an exceptional amount of interest. If it would not be unbecoming in me to say so, I might suggest that in 1953 a good many people rather took for granted what the results of the election were going to be, and therefore there was not quite as much interest on that account.
Then the hon. gentleman, still looking from the vantage point, perhaps I should not say of Toronto but of Port Credit, referred to our national habit of taking holidays in the month of August. I have no doubt that in the metropolitan area of Toronto that has become a local habit, and there are many other parts of Canada where it has also become a local habit. But most of the people who go away from Bonavista-Twillingate in July and August do so because they have to earn their living, not because they are going on holidays. There is quite a lot of difference between conditions along Mississauga road and those in other parts of the country.
I know the hon. gentleman would at once rise to correct me if I suggested that it would not be a very great hardship to come back from Muskoka to Port Credit on a nice August day. He would say at once that he was not referring to people who can afford to go to Muskoka but to the industrial workers, especially in those plants which are shut down so that everyone may be on holidays. I think that is a problem.
This is a new problem that we did not face even in 1949. I think it is a problem which ought to be considered by the committee which I trust will be set up next year to look at the Canada Elections Act. I am just expressing here an offhand opinion and do not wish to be considered as committing the government, particularly as the government, in relation to the elections act, has never taken the same kind of position it takes in relation to most other legislation. It has always been understood that the elections act is directly the concern of both sides of the house and that the government has no special responsibility for it except to the extent that the government has on its side, generally speaking, more members than are on the other side.
Canada Elections Act
It seems to me that the right way to tackle the problem is to consider ways and means of providing for somewhat wider advance polling. I know there are great difficulties in doing that, in ensuring that there would not be frauds, that there would be no possibility of double voting and that sort of thing, but I do not think it should just be dismissed on that account. It seems to me that that is a better way of going about it.
I do not agree with what the hon. gentleman said about enumeration and voting. It seems to me a great many people are much more apt to be careless about getting their names on the list than they are about voting. We all know that under the present law enumeration takes place soon after an election is called and there is not yet the degree of public interest that develops later on in a campaign. It is much more difficult to get the individual voter to take his responsibility seriously to get his name on the list, other things being equal, than it is to get him to vote. I feel it is quite as important to make as sure as we can that adequate steps are taken to have the enumeration done at a time when it will be carried out properly, and to take all the other necessary precautions to see that people are encouraged to get their names on the list and that the list is a proper and full list-not too full-as it is to get people to vote.
The hon. gentleman talked about apathy during elections. I think that is a genuinely serious problem. I do not deny it for a moment. But I might just remind the hon. gentleman that there was a municipal election held in the city of Toronto last December for the purpose of electing a mayor and council; and it seems to me, though I do not carry the precise figures in my head, that the vote was under 30 per cent. Twenty-nine per cent is the figure that runs in my mind. It may have been that there were only a few more shopping days before Christmas, or it may conceivably have been that there was not much interest in that election and that the outcome was regarded by most of the voters as a foregone conclusion.
I am afraid, human nature being what it is, that when the 'outcome of an election is more or less a foregone conclusion, then regardless of what you do, short of making voting compulsory, there will be fewer people voting than when the people believe there is a real contest. I believe if we look over the results-and we will be able to do that since the hon. gentleman has gone to a lot of effort, which I think we all appreciate,

Canada Elections Act
to produce figures which will give us a clearer picture than perhaps we had before of what happened in 1949 and 1953-and if we apply to them our knowledge of ridings where most people thought they knew what the result was going to be, and the other ridings where they felt the result was in considerable doubt, it will be found that it was in those in which the contest was lively that the vote generally speaking was higher than in those where it was rather a foregone conclusion.
If I may allude once more to the province of Newfoundland, I am not sure that of the outport ridings the vote was not a little larger in the one where I was a candidate than it was in the other four. I think the answer to that is that in the other four ridings the result was absolutely a foregone conclusion, while there might have been some people who thought that in the case of Bonavista-Twillingate the result might have been in some doubt.


Mr. Knowles:: It was those cartoons which put you in.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Unfortunately the cartoons obtained a wider circulation in the district represented by the hon. member for York West (Mr. Adamson) than they did in Bonavista-Twillingate. That is for me a matter of genuine regret, because I feel that if those cartoons had been circulated more widely in Bonavista-Twillingate more people would have voted, and I really have not very much doubt that if more people had voted the proportion would have been just about the same.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Did the hon. gentleman have the largest majority on the island?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Don't make him blush.


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, the hon. gentleman who represents Burin-Burgeo (Mr. Carter), and represents it with great distinction in this house, had the largest majority in Newfoundland and proportionately one of the largest in any part of the country. I believe nine people out of every ten who voted, voted for him. In the case of my riding, I say when I do not expect to be corrected, that it was four out of every five. In fact I worked it out, and it was 79-9 recurring per cent. That was on the last figures I was able to get from the chief electoral officer.


Edmund Davie Fulton: What did Joey promise? I mean what did he foretell?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Nothing whatever but good government, and I didn't make any promises at all.

There is another reason I find it rather surprising that a member of the opposition should be introducing a motion of this kind, and I think it does great credit to the hon. member for York West that he should be so non-partisan as to do so. I took the trouble to look up the Parliamentary Guide to see when general elections had been held since confederation. I found that elections had been held on more days in the month of August than in any other month. In 1867 the election extended from August 7 to September 20, which means it took place in all but six days of the month of August. In 1872-they wanted to be really sure-it extended from July 20 to October 12. It included every day of August. I do not know whether they voted on Sundays in those days.


Agar Rodney Adamson: It was an entirely different election.


John Whitney Pickersgill: On both occasions, if my memory serves me right, the history books tell us the Conservatives won the elections. An election was called in January, 1874, and I have no doubt whatever the date may have had something to do with it, though not very much, and it was on that occasion that the Liberals won an election for the first time.
I skip over the others because there was no other election in either July or August until the year 1930, when an election was held on July 28. If I am not mistaken that was the last occasion on which the Conservative party was returned to office.
So, sir, this would be a self-denying ordinance, if you like, which the hon. gentleman is proposing, and perhaps we on this side of the house should welcome it except that it would tie our hands-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Give the people a chance.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -and give the people a chance to put the Conservatives in office once again.


Donald Methuen Fleming: We would not disfranchise hundreds of thousands of people as you deliberately did.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think, sir, that the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) with his customary good humour and moderation is somewhat imprecise in his use of the term, if I may dare to be so academic as to put it that way after what was said about me the other day by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell). Nobody was disfranchised. If there are a great many Canadians who value their holidays more than their franchise that does not mean they were

disfranchised. I think that kind of rather loose talk does not really do very much to improve public regard for our institutions. That is only my opinion and I am a novice in public life, as everyone knows.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is, in front of the curtain.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I do not know that I have done much hiding behind curtains or anywhere else. No matter how embarrassing any question may ever be on which I am called upon to vote in this house, I do not think I shall ever find it necessary to be out of the house when the vote is called.
I want to come back to what I said, at the beginning of these rather disjointed remarks, was in my opinion the most serious objection to this motion. Of course, my colleague the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott)-if I may take his name in vain when he is not here- would not think this was an objection at all, because he would say that all this resolution says is that in the opinion of the house the government should take into consideration, etc. I would not object to it either, as long as we could be sure in advance that that consideration would be unfavourable. But since there are certain hon. gentlemen opposite who, when a motion has been adopted asking the government to take something into consideration, have a habit of dropping out a few of the words-and I do not say distorting them-but giving the impression to others that some decision was made rather different from the one that was actually made, I think it would be inadvisable to take this kind of risk.
What I am really coming to, Mr. Speaker, is this. If the government did consider this suggestion favourably, or if anyone else did consider it favourably1-and I take it that anybody on either side of the house could introduce an amendment to the elections act; the hon. gentleman could have done so just as well as the government-and if anybody introduced such an amendment and that amendment was carried, I think it would be unfortunate. The reason I think it would be unfortunate is that, while I quite agree with the hon. gentleman that, other things being equal, the month of August is not the best month for an election-I quite agree with that suggestion-I do not think we should deny to ourselves any month of the year, because there are circumstances that are a good deal short of the kind of technical emergency envisaged in the War Measures Act when it might be extremely important to have an election.
There are some hon. members still in this house, although very few, who were here in the year 1926. Neither of those whom I
Canada Elections Act
have in mind happen to be in the chamber at this moment. But in the year 1926, as some hon. members who were not here then will also recall, a government was in office with a majority which, to put it mildly, was somewhat precarious. At any time in the six months between the time that parliament met early in January and the time the same parliament was dissolved on the 1st or 2nd of July, I think it was, it might have happened that that government would have been defeated in the house or that some other compelling reason would have arisen for the holding of an election.
It is true that the election did not come until September, I think it was. I have the date here and I might just as well have it right. It was September 14. I do not think September is as good a month as August for an election. But, at any rate, that election was held on September 14. If, as might easily have happened, sometime in May or June it had become necessary to have an election, I cannot think that it would have been to the advantage of the country or to anyone's advantage to have the campaign drag on for an extra month simply to let people go on their holidays.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Surely if the government were defeated, that would be an emergency.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. gentleman did not define his emergency. If that is the kind of emergency he means, I do not see any point at all in his motion.
In the year 1944 there was a situation which some of us will never forget. There was a situation in this house-I do not want to recall any of the memories-when it might have been necessary to have an election at a time of year which would have been even more unacceptable than is the month of August. I think there might have been no choice but to do so if certain circumstances had arisen, but happily they did not arise.
I do not think we should tie our hands in that way, Mr. Speaker. I believe almost any government we are ever likely to have, almost any government the people of Canada are ever likely to return with a majority behind it in this house, is going to be sufficiently responsible that it would not unnecessarily set an election at a time when it was felt it would have the result of reducing the number of people who could vote. I mean that of hon. gentlemen opposite in all of the groups just as much as I do of the members on this side of the house. Maybe I am naive, but that is my honest opinion. I do not believe any of them would take their responsibility so lightly that they would unnecessarily set

Canada Elections Act
an election at a time when they felt it would have the deliberate result of reducing the number of people who could vote.


Donald Methuen Fleming: You mean from now on?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I mean at any time.
Because that has nothing to do with what is before us now, I am not going to enter into a discussion of the reasons which were considered good and sufficient for having the election on August 10 of last year. But I would point out, Mr. Speaker, that while the hon. member for York West says that in many ridings more people did not vote than voted for the successful candidate, that fact does not mean that the result would have been likely to be much different even if a great many more of those people had voted. We have now had a certain amount of experience-whether they are good things or bad things is not the point-with what are called public opinion polls. We have one in this country that I believe is conducted honestly and fairly, and there has been the most extraordinary coincidence, both in the provincial and the federal fields, between their observations and the actual results of elections.


Donald MacInnis: Six o'clock.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the Secretary of
State permit one question?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Certainly.


Stanley Howard Knowles: A moment ago he said-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not think the
hon. member should put his question now when another hon. member has asked that we call it six o'clock, because it is safe to say that the Secretary of State would not have time to answer.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Very well.


Mr. Speaker:: As it is six o'clock, this
house stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2.30 o'clock in the afternoon.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Agar Rodney Adamson: What is the business for
tomorrow?


Paul Joseph James Martin: It has been announced. The bill standing in the name of the Postmaster General-


Edmund Davie Fulton: Housing first.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The business for tomorrow was announced yesterday.


Mr. Speaker:: May I say that I wish hon.
members would inquire as to the business for the next day before I say the house stands adjourned and rise to leave the house, and before the Sergeant-at-Arms has the mace on his shoulder.


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

Election Results, 1949 and 1953


[Stage Direction]
Total Non- Winner's	%
Constituency	Vote	Vote	Vote	Difference	CastBurnaby-Richmond	
33,248	17,877	12,848	5,029	65
13,298	5,756	7,330	1,574	70Coast-Capilano	
Comox-Alberni	
26,432	11,002	15,294	4,292	71
19,322	10,327	11,397	1,070	65Fraser Valley	
22,854	10,487	12,587	2,100	69Kamloops	
19,295	6,740	7,682	942	74Kootenay East	
13,822	4,020	5,546	1,526	77Kootenay West	
18,249	6,163	9,794	3,631	75Nanaimo	
36,689	13,931	17,507	3,576	72New Westminster	
33,027	13,080	13,904	824	72
10,107	5,060	5,847	787	67Vancouver-Burrard	
30,671	16,051	10,967	5,084	66Vancouver Centre	
24,509	14,692	10,299	4,S9S	63Vancouver East	
30,238	19,908	14,056	5,852	60Vancouver-Quadra	
33,530	15,909	16,661	752	68Vancouver South	
33,212	15,186	13,082	2,104	69Victoria	
34,760	12,495	19,324	6,829	74Yale	
31,522	10,313	13,298	2,985	75Totals	
464,785	208,997	217,423	8,426	% of total electors on list	
69%	31%	32%	1%	% of vote cast	
100%	45%	47%	2%	Elected Members' vote expressed as	a percentage of non-voters-	104%	
Total Electors in B.C.-673,782.

[Stage Direction]
Total Constituency Vote	Non- Winner's Vote Vote	Difference	% CastAcadia	
10,142	3,267	5,897	2,630	76Athabaska	
16,794	7,909	7,566	343	68Battle River	
14,124	6,423	7,708	1,285	69Bow River	
18,241	8,613	8,537	76	68Calgary East	
27,133	12,163	9,641	2,522	69Calgary West	
27,054	11,177	11,457	280	71Camrose	
15,812	6,608	7,364	756	71Edmonton East	
30,770	16,703	10,964	5,739	65Edmonton West	
31,416	14,749	14,333	416	68Jasper-Edson	
20,182	10,001	7,288	2,713	67Lethbridge	
19,079	8,055	8,880	825	70Macleod	
16,648	6,682	7,411	729	71Medicine Hat	
18,619	6,444	10,086	3,642	74Peace River	
20,121	8,429	7,727	702	70Red Deer	
19,482	8,917	10,549	1,632	69Vegreville	
16,096	4,949	8,859	3,910	76Wetaskiwin	
19,509	9,917	6,774	3,143	66Totals	
341,222	151,006	151,041	35	YUKON-MACKENZIE RIVER 1949	Yukon-Mackenzie River	
6,823	2,241	3,284	1,043	% of total electors on list	
69%	31%	31%	% of vote cast	
100%	44%	44%	
Elected Members' vote expressed as a percentage of non-voters-100%
Total Electors in Alberta-492,228
Total Electors Yukon-Mackenzie River-9,064
[Stage Direction]
Election Results, 1949 and 1953

[Stage Direction]
Constituency
Assiniboia	
Humboldt	
Kindersley	
Lake Centre	
Mackenzie	
Maple Creek	
Meadow Lake	
Melfort	
Melville	
Moose Jaw	
Moose Mountain	
Prince Albert	
Qu'Appelle	
Regina City	
Rosetown-Biggar	
Rosthern	
Saskatoon	
Swift Current	
The Battlefords	
Yorkton	
Totals	
% of total electors on list % of vote cast	
Total	Non-	Winner's	%Vote	Vote	Vote Difference	Cast18,511	3,531	8,442	4,911	8416,546	5,843	8,123	2,280	7416,775	3,205	7,872	4,667	8418,273	3,198	8,845	5,647	8516,525	5,047	7,564	2,517	7717,673	3,611	8,217	4,606	8312,957	3,910	7,078	3,168	7716,620	6,999	7,028	29	7019,092	3,129	11,120	7,991	8620,911	5,391	10,026	4,635	8020,170	3,946	9,277	5,331	8418,614	5,183	8,916	3,733	7820,270	3,160	9,017	5,857	8733,647	7,798	14,356	6,558	8116,802	3,588	8,793	5,205	8212,003	6,620	7,398	778	6427,844	8,327	11,749	3,422	7716,218	4,274	7,595	3,321	7916,784	4,781	8,034	3,253	7819,236	5,872	8,706	2,834	77375,471	97,413	178,156	80,743	79%	21%	38%	100%	26%	47%	
Elected Members' vote expressed as a percentage of non-voters-184%
Total Electors on List-472,884

[Stage Direction]
Constituency
Brandon	
Churchill	
Dauphin	
Lisgar	
Marquette	
Norquay	
Portage- N eepawa	
Provencher	
St. Boniface	
Selkirk	
Souris	
Springfield	
Winnipeg North	
Winnipeg North Centre...
Winnipeg South	
Winnipeg South Centre...
Totals	
% of total electors on list. % of vote cast	
Total	Non-	Winner's	%Vote	Vote	Vote	Difference	Cast20,519	6,970	11,263	4,293	7515,110	5,626	6,847	1,221	7317,698	5,219	7,896	2,677	7716.464	7,745	9,190	1,445	6817,222	5,295	10,144	4,849	7614,126	6,375	8,430	2,055	6918,400	6,192	9,192	3,000	7510,940	6,117	6,834	717	6418,993	7,313	10,766	3,453	7221,754	8,494	7,819	675	7212,757	3,304	6,108	2,804	7917,442	8,072	8,253	181	6832,175	12,939	12,432	507	7128,977	15,101	15,389	288	6634,230	10,933	16,235	5,302	7627,272	12,108	14,747	2,639	69324,079	127,803	161,545	33,742	72%	28%	36%	100%	39%	50%	
Elected Members' vote expressed as a percentage of non-voters-126%
Total Electors in Manitoba-451,882
	JANUARY 27, 1954 Election Results, 1949 and 1953 ONTARIO 1949				1519
Constituency	Total Vote	Non- Vote	Winner's Vote	Difference	% CastAlgoma East	
11,376	4,784	6,184	1,310	70Algoma West	6,934	10,127	3,193	74Brantford	
23,651	6,816	12,565	5,749	78Brant-Wentworth	
15.782	5,062	6,693	1,631	76Bruce	
15,084	3,237	7,517	4,280	82Carleton	
34,550	7,744	18,141	10,397	82Cochrane	
13,612	5,020	6,352	1,332	73Dufferin-Simcoe	
13,483	6,569	7,639	1,070	67Durham	
14,911	3,244	6,907	3,663	82Elgin	
21,314	10,977	10,265	712	66Essex East	
32,086	9,307	16,709	7,402	78Essex South	
19,713	5,742	10,427	4,685	77Essex West	
36,007	17,979	15,620	2,359	67Fort William	
21,046	5,693	9,569	3,876	79Frontenac-Addington	
15.096	4,224	7,724	3,500	78Glengarry	
8,748	1,838	4,809	2,971	83Grenville-Dundas	
14,156	7,088	8,450	1,362	67Grey-Bruce	
17,810	4,881	10,528	5,647	78Grey North	
18,982	4,729	9,949	5,220	80Haldimand	
11,621	2,780	5,432	2,652	81Halton	
19,626	4,327	9,546	5,219	82Hamilton East	
35,707	12,959	14,035	1,076	73Hamilton West	
28,645	12,337	12,324	IS	70Hastings-Peterborough	
12,065	3,628	6,578	2,950	77Hastings South	
25,489	5,620	13,099	7,479	82Huron North	
14,046	3,028	6,986	3,958	82Huron-Perth	
14,355	2,886	7,000	4,114	83Kenora-Rainy River	
20,381	7,403	11,297	3,894	73Kent	
28,610	7,310	14,903	7,593	80Kingston City	
18,877	4,910	10,045	5,135	79Lambton-Kent	
18,014	4,785	9,674	4,889	79Lambton West	
20,931	7,647	9,730	2,083	73Lanark	
18,393	4,205	19,921	6,716	18Leeds	
20,255	3,988	10,080	6,092	83Lincoln	
38,395	11,557	17,407	5,850	77London	
36,295	14,200	16,427	2,227	72Middlesex East	
21,568	8,473	9,258	785	72Middlesex West	
13,290	3,239	7,938	4,699	80Nipissing	
21,838	6,266	11,061	4,795	78Norfolk	
17,743	5,564	9,280	3,716	76Northumberland	
18,019	3,191	9,374	6,183	85Ontario	
32,813	9,385	13,412	4,027	78Ottawa East	
30,223	7,510	20,895	13,385	80Ottawa West	
42,517	10,113	24,295	14,182	81Oxford	
26,281	8,243	12,581	4,338	76Parry Sound-Muskoka	
24,182	7,492	11,036	4,144	76Peel	
21,576	7,417	10,570	3,153	74Perth	
22,421	6,601	10,901	4,300	77Peterborough West	
24,686	6,789	10,981	4,192	78Port Arthur	
25,065	9,651	12,646	2,995	72Prescott	
11,569	2,314	5,380	3,066	83Prince Edward-Lennox	
14,362	4,821	7,435	2,614	75Renfrew North	
16,623	3,969	8,358	4,389	81Renfrew South	
14,942	2,965	7,909	4,944	84Russell	
20,366	5,333	12,635	7,302	79Simcoe East	
20,675	5,735	10,030	4,295	78Simcoe North	
15,408	5,226	7,678	2,452	75Stormont	
21,136	5,241	12,639	7,398	80Sudbury	
35,779	10,690	15,636	4,946	77Timiskaming	
21,209	5,469	8,528	3,059	79Timmins	
18,868	6,093	7,949	1,856	76
21,934	5,819	11,061	5,242	79Waterloo North	
32,327	13,933	17,715	3,782	70Waterloo South	
22,781	6,398	8,740	2,342	78
50,736	17,568	23,734	6,166	74Wellington North	
12,648	2,757	6,057	3,300	82Wellington South	
21,990	5,425	10,344	4,919	80Wentworth	
43,470	17,518	16,443	1,075	71Totals	
1,508,251	462,736	744,758	282,022	% of total electors on list	
% of vote cast	
Elected Members' vote expressed as a Total Electors-1,970,987	
77% 23% 	
100% 31% percentage of non-voters-163%	38% 50%	
Election Results, 1949 and 1953

[Stage Direction]
Constituency
Broadview. Danforth... Davenport..
Eglinton____
Greenwood. High Park. Parkdale... Rosedale... St. Paul's .. Spadina.... Trinity	
Average Toronto.
York East	
York North	
York South	
York West	
Average Yorks	
Total Toronto York	
Average Toronto York

[Stage Direction]
% of vote cast	
% of electors on list	
Elected Members' vote expressed as Total Electors Toronto-486,039 YORKS
% of vote cast	
% of electors on list	
Elected Members' vote expressed as : Total Electors Yorks-261,092
Constituency
Argenteuil-Deux-Montagnes	
Beauce	
Beauharnois	
Bellechasse	
Berthier-Maskinonge	
Bonaventure	
Brome-Missisquoi	
Chambly-Rouville	
Charlevoix	
Chateauguay-Huntinj
Chicoutimi	
Com pton-Frontenac.
Hull	
Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm.
Kamouraska	
Labelle	
Bake St. John	
Lapointe	
Levis	
Lotbiniere	
Matapedia-Matane	
Megantic	
Montmagny-L'IsIet	
Nicolet-Yamaska	
Pontiac-Temiscamingue	
Portneuf	
Quebec East	
Quebec West	
Total	Non-	Winner's	%Vote	Vote	Vote	Difference	Cast13,651	10,507	s, m	67.... 23,774	8,127	9,969	1,752	74.... 29,495	12,724	11,431	1,293	70.... 40,888	12,422	19,853	7,431	77.... 29,759	11,047	10,454	S9S	7310,642	12,216	1,574	74.... 29,540	11,699	12,876	1,177	72.... 27,533	12,862	10,835	2,027	68.... 34,063	18,210	14,000	4,210	65.... 39,768	19,365	23,652	4,287	67.... 30,340	10,998	10,389	609	73141,837	146,182	4,345	12,816	13,347	531	7122,957	22,364	59S	72.... 39,486	14,337	18,933	4,596	7317,258	15,293	1,965	7116,669	19,184	2,515	7571,221	75,774	4,553	17,810	18,944	1,135	73212,229	221,956	9,727	14,149	14,797	648	.... 100%	41%	43%	.... 71%	29%	30%	! of non-voters-103%	... 100%	37%	40%	.... 73%	27%	29%	of non-voters-106%	QUEBEC 1949	Total	Non-	Winner's	%Vote	Vote	Vote :	Difference	Cast.... 20,857	4,522	10,500	5,978	823,918	10,267	6,349	857,563	11,631	4,068	693,076	7,395	4,319	803,746	11,770	8,024	843,302	9,802	6,500	835,576	8,831	3,255	7411,395	20,946	9,551	754,679	10,663	5,984	826,001	11,304	4,303	744,221	9,543	5,322	804,914	9,986	5,072	784,026	10,252	6,226	844,118	10,764	6,646	812,829	6,983	4,154	8413,652	16,899	3,237	634,147	12,567	8,420	844,233	9,865	5,632	786,408	18,446	12,038	82... 32,936	7,431	18,755	11,324	826,741	7,792	1,051	623,852	8,701	4,849	821,844	7,084	5,240	884,318	10,275	5,957	833,855	11,752	7,897	832,446	8,849	6,403	875,017	11,546	6,529	824,391	13,273	8,882	846,135	10,004	3,869	684,389	10,208	5,819	824,157	7,817	3,660	814,856	10,932	6,076	799,922	25,832	15,910	787,445	12,391	4,946	76
Election Results, 1949 and 1953 QUEBEC-Concluded
Constituency
Quebec South	
Quebec-Montmorency	
Richelieu-V ereheres	
Richmond-W olfe	
Rimouski	
Roberval	
St. Hyacinthe-Bagot	
St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville
St. Maurice-Lafleehe	
Saguenay	
Shefford	
Sherbrooke	
Stanstead	
Temiscouata	
Terrebonne	
Three Rivers	
Vaudreuil-Soulanges	
Villeneuve	
Iles-de-la-Madeleine	
Totals	
% of total electors on list_
% of vote cast	
Total	Non-	Winner's	%Vote	Vote	Vote	Difference	Cast26,568	7,790	19,383	11,593	7726,033	7,336	16,829	9,473	7819,365	4,695	12,795	8,100	8020,230	5,951	13,621	7,670	7724,375	5,639	11,708	6,069	8116,375	2,752	8,103	5,351	8616,953	13,538	14,702	1,164	5618,323	6,918	12,823	5,905	7328,123	7,203	13,898	6,695	8012,782	3,480	6,113	2,633	7922,074	5,771	12,993	7,222	7924,813	6,957	12,116	5,159	7816,902	4,823	7,736	2,913	7816,799	9,822	11,648	1,826	6327,702	8,039	18,304	10,265	7725,883	5,750	10,015	4,265	7211,404	3,483	7,622	4,139	7726,128	6,999	13,597	6,598	794,394	296	2,203	1,907	941,069,758	297,394	619,834	322,440	78%	22%	45%	100%	28%	58%	
Elected Members' vote expressed as a percentage of non-voters-208%
Total Electors-1,367,152

[Stage Direction]
Constituency
Cartier	
Hochelaga	
Jacques Cartier	
Lafontaine	
Laurier	
Laval	
Maisonneuve-Rosemont...
Mercier	
Mount Royal	
Notre Dame do Grace...
Outremont St. Jean	
Papineau	
St. Ann	
St. Antoine-Westmount...
St. Denis	
St. Henry	
St. James	
St. Lawrence-St. George.
St. Mary	
Verdun-La Salle	
Totals	
% of total electors on list % of vote cast	
Total	Non-	Winner's	%Vote	Vote	Vote	Difference	Cast23,213	13,969	11,993	1,976	6226,622	13,885	17,633	3,748	6625,359	9,375	15,298	5,923	7325,162	11,724	12,883	1,159	6821,348	13,968	15,578	1,610	6028,564	11,900	18,292	6,392	7130,941	14,584	20,512	5,928	6826,735	13,195	17,041	3,846	6734,521	16,019	21,654	5,635	6831,445	11,846	19,469	7,623	7321,615	13,940	16,215	2,275	6126,627	10,555	12,611	2,056	7220,456	8,748	14,528	5,780	7033,138	13,432	21,399	7,967	7129,555	16,123	18,866	2,743	6525,504	12,079	16,313	4,234	6829,274	20,588	18,705	1,883	5922,445	15,100	15,104	4	6022,042	13,615	13,773	158	6236,186	14,603	24,908	10,305	71540,752	269,248	342,775	73,527	67%	33%	42%	9%	100%	49%	63%	14%	
Elected Members' vote expressed as a percentage of non-voters-128%
Total Electors-810,000
[Stage Direction]
Election Results, 1949 and 1953

[Stage Direction]
Constituency
Charlotte	
Gloucester	
Kent	
Northumberland	
Restigouche-Madawaska.
Royal	
Saint John-Albert	
V ictoria-Carleton	
Westmorland	
York-Sunbury	
Totals	
% of total electors on list % of vote cast	
Total Vote	Non- Vote	Winner's Vote	Difference	% Cast12,441	2,920	6,197	3,277	8121,362	5,457	14,759	9,302	8011,854	1,816	5,754	3,938	8717,869	3,487	9,840	6,353	8424,587	8,933	15,919	6,986	7318,435	3,702	9,501	5,799	8338,691	15,433	18,691	3,258	7119,122	3,903	10,429	6,526	8336,417	9,935	20,649	10,714	7925,099	5,260	12,158	6,898	83225,877	60,846	123,897	63,051	79%	21%	42%	100%	27%	49%	
Elected Members' vote expressed as a percentage of non-voters-204%
Total Electox-s-286,723

[Stage Direction]
Constituency
Annapolis-Kings	
Antigonish-Guysborough	
Cape Breton North and Victoria
Cape Breton South	
Colchester-Hants	
Cumberland	
Digby-Yarmouth	
Halifax	
Inverness-Richmond	
Lunenburg	
Pictou	
Queens-Shelburne	
Totals	
% of total electors on list...
% of vote cast	
Total Vote	Non- Vote	Winner's Vote	Difference	% Cast26,497	4,239	13,202	8,963	8612,018	3,289	7,586	4,297	7916,748	5,979	9,461	3,482	7433,374	11,134	15,057	3,923	7527,722	5,314	13,550	8,236	8419,862	4,413	9,850	5,437	8220,716	5,396	11,084	5,688	7957,100	33,703	32,514	1,189	6315,775	5,068	10,584	5,516	7617,109	4,941	8,829	3,888	7821,683	5,469	10,930	5,461	8013,223	2,813	6,501	3,688	82281,828	91,758	149,148	57,390	75%	25%	40%	15%	100%	33%	53%	20%	
Elected Members' vote expressed as a percentage of non-voters-163%
Total Electors-373,585

[Stage Direction]
Constituency	Total Vote	Non- Vote	Winner's Vote	Difference	% CastKings	1,452 2,049 4,686	*5 079	Prince	Queens	Totals	8,187	23,741	15,554	% of total electors on list	
86%	14%	42%% of vote cast	
100%	17%	50%
Elected Members' vote expressed as a percentage of non-voters-291%
Total Electors on List -55,752

Election Results, 1949 and 1953

[Stage Direction]
Constituency	Total Vote	Non- Vote	Winner's Vote Difference	% CastBonavista-Twillingate	
11,209	13,202	9,744	3,458	46Burin-Burgeo	
13,691	8,179	12,590	4,411	63Grand Falls-White Bay	
Humber-St. George's	
14,247	13,345	12,301	1,0U	52
13,461	10,222	11,930	1,708	57
18,170	9,724	9,912	188	65St. John's West	
20,291	9,240	10,344	1,104	69Trinity-Conception	
14,121	13,337	10,929	3,408	51Totals	
105,190	77,249	77,750	501	% of total electors on list	
58%	42%	42%	% of vote cast	
100%	73%	73%	
Elected Members' vote expressed as a percentage of non-voters-100%
Total Electors-182,439
Province	Total Vote	Non-Vote	Winner's Vote Total ElectorsBritish Columbia	
% of total electors on list	464,785 69%	208,997 31%	217,423 673,782 32%% of vote cast	100%	45%	47%Elected Member's vote expressed as a percentage of non-voters	104%	Winner's vote greater than non-vote by 8,426	Alberta	341,222	151,006	151,041 492,228% of total electors on list	69%	31%	31%% of vote cast	100%	44%	44%Elected Member's vote expressed as a percentage of non-voters	100%	Winner's vote greater than non-vote by 35	Saskatchewan	375,471	97,413	178,156 472,884% of total electors on list	79%	21%	38%% of vote cast	100%	26%	47%Elected Member's vote expressed as a percentage of non-voters	
184%
Winner's vote greater than non-vote by 80,743
Manitoba	 324,079
% of total electors on list	 72%
% of vote cast	 100%
Elected Member's vote expressed as a percentage of non-voters	 126%
127,803
28%
39%
161,545
36%
50%
451,882
Winner's vote greater than non-vote by 33,742
[Stage Direction]
Election Results, 1949 and 1953
Province	Total Vote	Non-Vote	Winner's Vote Total ElectorsOntario	1,508,251	462,736	754,758 1,970,987% of total electors on list	77%	23%	38%% of vote cast	100%	31%	50%Elected Member's vote expressed as a percentage of non-voters	163%	Winner's vote greater than non-vote by 282,022	Toronto	% of total electors on list	% of vote cast	Elected Member's vote expressed as a percentage of non-voters	344,202	141,837	146,182	486,03971%	29%	30%	100%	41%	43%	103%	
Winner's vote greater than non-vote by 4,345
Yorks	
% of total electors on list	
% of vote cast	
Elected Member's vote expressed as a percentage of non-voters	
189,871	71,221	75,774	261,09273%	27%	29%	100%	37%	40%	106%	
Winner's vote greater than non-vote by 4,553
Rural Quebec	
% of total electors on list	
% of vote cast	
Elected Member's vote expressed as a percentage of non-voters	
1,069,758	297,394	619,834	1,367,15278%	22%	45%100%	28%	58%
208%
Winner's vote greater than non-vote by 322,440
Montreal	
% of total electors on list	
% of vote cast	
Elected Member's vote expressed as a percentage of non-voters	
540,752	269,248	342,775	810,00067%	33%	42%100%	49%	63%
128% _
Winner's vote greater than non-vote by 73,527
New Brunswick	
% of total electors on list	
% of vote cast	
Elected Member's vote expressed as a percentage of non-voters	
225,877	60,846	123,897	286,72379%	21%	42%100%	27%-	49%
204%
Winner's vote greater than non-vote by 63,051

Election Results, 1949 and 1953
Province	Total Vote	Non-Vote	Winner's Vote	Total ElectorsNova Scotia	281,828	91,757	116,634	373,585% of total electors on list	75%	25%	40%	% of vote cast	100%	33%	53%	Elected Member's vote expressed as a percentage of non-voters	163%	Winner's vote greater than non-vote by 57,390	Prince Edward Island	47,574	8,198	23,741	55,772% of total electors on list	86%	15%	42%	% of vote cast	100%	17%	50%	Elected Member's vote expressed as a percentage of non-voters	
291%
Winner's vote greater than non-vote by 15,554
Newfoundland	
% of total electors on list	
% of vote cast	
Elected Member's vote expressed as a percentage of non-voters	
105,190
58%
100%
77,249	77,750	182,439
42%	42%	
73%	73%	
100%
Winner's vote greater than non-vote by 501

[Stage Direction]
Constituency
Burnaby-Coquitlam	
Burnaby-Richmond	
Cariboo	
Coast-Capilano	
Comox-Alberni	
Esquimalt-Saanich	
Fraser Valley	
Kamloops	
Kootenay East	
Kootenay West	
Nanaimo	
New Westminster	
Okanagan Boundary	
Okanagan- Revelstoke	
Skeena	
Victoria	
Total without Vancouver	
Vancouver-Burrard	
Vancouver Centre	
Vancouver East	
Vancouver-Kingsway	
V ancouver-Quadra	
Vancouver South	
Vancouver Totals	
Totals B.C	
Total Electors in B.C.-730,549 Total Electors in Vancouver-235,796
B.C. % of electors on list	
% of vote cast	
Elected Member's vote as % of non-voters-73%
Total	Non-	Winner's	%Vote	Vote	Vote	Difference	Cast19,226	10,453	7,232	3,221	6520,528	11,256	7,021	4,235	6515,306	10,824	5,562	6,262	5829,676	14,501	13,614	887	6717,639	12,105	6,115	5,990	5920,670	10,237	9,537	700	6723,143	12,546	9,618	2,928	6416,229	8,946	7,578	1,368	6413,097	5,578	4,988	590	6918,242	8,728	8,990	262	6918,857	8,726	7,272	1,454	6934,742	17,369	10,770	6,599	6720,682	8,880	8,086	797,	7011,752	4,872	3,537	1,335	7012,237	8,355	5,332	3,023	6033,695	15,926	13,696	2,230	69325,451	169,302	128,948	40,354	26,000	17,874	9,035	8,839	6020,226	15,037	8,259	6,778	5820,151	14,063	10,192	3,871	5922,007	13,446	10,162	3,284	6229,138	14,229	12,769	1,460	6728,575	15,050	10,459	4,691	66146,097	89,699	60,876	28,823	471,548	259,001	189,824	69,177	65%	35%	26%	100%	55%	40%	
Election Results, 1949 and 1953

[Stage Direction]
Constituency	Total Vote	Non- Vote	Winner's Vote	Difference	% CastAcadia	
17,315	8,842	7,956	886	66Athabaska	
15,173	10,233	7,242	2,991	60Battle River-Camrose	
18,240	12,422	9,238	3,184	60Bow River	
15,397	8,575	7,320	1,255	64Calgary North	
29,480	17,968	11,002	6,966	62Calgary South	
29,829	19,665	12,491	7,174	61Edmonton East	
21,744	17,519	8,802	8,717	55Edmonton-Strathcona	
23,845	15,348	8,901	6,447	61Edmonton West	
26,267	18,914	11,301	7,613	58Jasper-Edson	
18,806	11,319	7,369	3,950	63Lethbridge	
17,216	9,240	9,757	517	65Macleod	
17,949	8,961	8,685	276	67Medicine Hat	
19,485	8,869	9,420	551	68Peace River	
20,696	11,061	10,152	909	65Red Deer	
16,784	9,853	8,792	1,061	63Vegreville	
17,078	8,010	8,023	13	64Wetaskiwin	
14,812	10,897	6,920	3,977	58Totals	
340,116	207,696	153,371	54,325	% of total electors on list	
62%	38%	28%	to%	% of vote cast	
100%	61%	45%	16%	
Elected Members' vote expressed as a percentage of non-voters-74% Total Electors on List-547,812

[Stage Direction]
Constituency
Assiniboia	
Humboldt-Melfort	
Kindersley	
Mackenzie	
Meadow Lake	
Melville	
Moose Jaw-Lake Centre____
Moose Mountain	
Prince Albert	
Qu'Appelle	
Regina City	
Rosetown-Biggar	
Rosthern	
Saskatoon	
Swift Current-Maple Creek
The Battlefords	
Yorkton	
Totals	
% of total electors on list.. % of vote cast	
Total	Non-	Winner's	Vote	Vote	Vote	Difference20,276	6,016	10,496	4,48020,901	7,205	9,512	2,30720,467	6,012	8,672	2,66018,297	7,032	8,021	98911,623	6,019	5,080	98920,041	4,049	10,024	5,97523,729	10,550	12,436	1,88618,316	4,574	8,697	4,12322,779	5,869	10,038	4,16918,174	4,646	6,988	2,34231,832	12,321	14,558	2,23720,544	6,097	11,404	5,40718,939	6,994	8,616	1,62224,999	13,821	12,056	1,76523,330	8,145	10,088	1,94318,748	8,808	8,922	21421,088	8,291	11,027	2,736354,083	126,449	166,635	40,38674%	26%	34%	8%100%	36%	47%	11%
Elected Members' vote expressed as a percentage of non-voters-132% Total Electors on List-480,532

Election Results, 1949 and 1953

[Stage Direction]
Constituency	Total Vote	Non- Vote	Winner's Vote	Difference	% CastBrandon-Souris	11,005	13,915	2,910	68Churchill	9,410	4,984	4,426	61Dauphin	8,281	6,839	i.us	64Lisgar	
14,457	11,839	6,531	B,S08	55Marquette	10,625	9,900	725	63Portage- N eepawa	11,109	8,858	2,251	61Provencher	10,494	6,632	3,862	49St. Boniface	12,566	8,051	4,515	60Selkirk	
14,273	10,736	6,265	4,471	57Springfield	9,444	6,240	3,204	56Winnipeg North	21,147	15,005	6,142	57Winnipeg North Centre	21,689	12,713	8,976	52Winnipeg South	20,969	12,597	8,872	60Winnipeg South Centre	24,095	12,489	11,606	55Totals	193,409	131,019	62,390	% of total electors on list	
59%	41%	28%	13%	% of vote cast	71%	48%	23%	
Elected Members' vote expressed as a percentage of non-voters-69% Total Electors on List - 465,976

[Stage Direction]
Constituency
Algoma East	
Algoma West	
Brantford	
Brant-Haldimand...
Bruce	
Carleton	
Cochrane	
Dufferin-Simcoe...
Durham	
Elgin	
Essex East	
Essex South	
Essex West	
Fort William	
Glengarry-Prescott..
Grenville-Dundas__
Grey-Bruce	
Grey North	
Halton	
Hamilton East	
Hamilton South....
Hamilton West	
Hastings-Frontenac..
Hastings South....
Huron	
Kenora-Rainy River,
Kent	
Kingston	
Lambton-Kent	
Lambton West	
Lanark	
Leeds	
Lincoln	
London	
Middlesex East....
Middlesex West....
Niagara Falls	
Nickel Belt	
Total	Non-	Winner's	%Vote	Vote	Vote	Difference	Cast11,371	5,490	7,494	2,004	6420,459	10,439	10,454	15	6621,543	9,271	9,567	296	7020,872	6,952	10,166	3,214	7513,940	3,795	7,132	3,337	7836,450	11,922	20,137	8,215	7514,309	5,803	6,667	864	7116,331	6,574	9,248	2,674	7114,461	4,881	6,684	1,803	7523,225	9,379	10,743	1,364	7129,701	17,945	19,946	2,001	6218,040	8,284	10,620	2,336	6928,657	25,801	15,199	10,602	5219,787	7,516	10,402	2,886	7219,294	4,951	7,800	2,849	7913,808	7,352	8,805	1,453	6115,515	6,704	9,236	2,532	7017,418	5,925	8,368	2,443	7420,465	8,437	9,914	1,477	7125,701	17,606	11,622	5,984	5930,149	17,648	12,296	5,852	6327,438	17,106	13,018	4,088	6118,721	7,812	11,084	3,272	7325,993	7,767	13,710	5,403	7721,137	4,996	11,045	6,049	8119,982	8,924	11,380	2,456	69-26,028	11,031	15,532	4,231	27,200	7,149	14,663	7,514	79'16,680	6,422	9,432	3,010	22,059	11,464	11,664	200	66:15,796	6,311	10,029	3,718	19,833	5,018	10,097	5,079	36,887	20,592	16,113	4,479	6331,533	16,663	15,254	1,409	6624,116	12,175	12,127	48	6714,837	4,988	8,645	3,657	7522,436	16,491	13,400	3,091	5815,062	7,734	8,821	1,087	66
Election Results, 1949 and 1953
ONTARIO 1953-Concluded
Total	Non-	Winner's	%Constituency	Vote	Vote	Vote	Difference	Cast
19,598	7,593	12,416	4,823	73
16,036	7,618	8,475	857	69Northumberland	
17,660	3,948	9,595	5,647	82
29,684	20,465	12,482	7,983	59
26,583	9,185	19,863	10,678	74Ottawa West	
35,900	13,338	20,933	7,595	73
25,347	10,260	12,693	2,433	71Parry Sound-Muskoka	
21,982	9,688	10,940	1,252	69Peel	
25,310	13,511	13,487	n	56
23,872	8,842	12,958	4,116	Peterborough	
25,171	8,276	13,206	4,930	75
24,475	10,859	12,272	1,413	69Prince Edward-Lennox	
12,527	6,604	6,726	122	65Renfrew North	
16,633	4,269	9,360	5,091	79Renfrew South	
15,404	3,789	8,627	4,838	80
24,115	9,058	15,969	6,911	73Simcoe East	
19,906	7,596	9,099	1,503	72Simcoe North	
16,112	6,865	8,316	1,451	70Stormont	
20,747	6,840	13,503	6,663	76Sudbury	
21,305	10,311	12,193	1,882	68Timiskaming	
18,702	6,961	7,497	536	73
13,944	9,159	5,541	3,618	61
21,675	7,253	12,634	5,381	75Waterloo North	
32,215	18,240	16,139	2,101	64Waterloo South	
21,681	8,693	9,058	365	71Welland	
27,913	12,467	15,411	2,944	69Wellington-Huron	
14,318	4,406	7,198	2,792	78Wellington South	
20,428	6,766	9,275	2,509	75Wentworth	
22,091	12,566	10,476	2,090	641,448,568	641,014	764,316	123,302	RURAL ONTARIO-	-1953	Total	Non-	Winner's	%Constituency	Vote	Vote	Vote	Difference	Cast% of total electors on list	
69%	31%	37%	6%	69%% of vote cast	
100%	44%	53%	11%	Elected Members' vote expressed	as a % of non-voters-119%	Total Electors on List-2,089,582	TORONTO 1953	Total	Non-	Winner's	%Constituency	Vote	Vote	Vote	Difference	CastBroadview	
20,983	18,153	10,403	7,7 50	54Danforth	
30,708	21,028	12,595	8,433	59Davenport	
21,687	16,348	8,919	7,429	57Eglinton	
30,881	20,391	17,354	3,037	60Greenwood	
22,050	16,305	9,702	6,603	59High Park	
22,977	15,304	10,032	6,272	60Parkdale	
21,732	15,131	10,391	4,740	59Rosedale	
21,132	14,999	8,702	6,297	57St. Paul's	
23,479	19,152	9,738	9,414	54Spadina	
27,258	24,979	15,496	9,483	52Trinity	
19,677	15,105	8,056	7,049	56Totals	
262,555	196,895	121,388	76,507	Average	
23,869	17,991	11,035	6,864	57% of total electors on list	
57%	43%	26%	17%	% of vote cast	
100%	75%	46%	29%
Elected Members' vote expressed as a percentage of non-voters-62% Total Electors on List-459,450

Election Results, 1949 and 1953

[Stage Direction]
Constituency	Total Vote	Non- Vote	Winner's Vote	Difference	% CastYork Centre	31,526	22,262	13,903	8,359	58York East	26,070	18,674	11,082	7,592	58York-Humber	27,171	17,688	11,157	6,531	61York North	22.459	11,047	10,988	59	67York-Scarborough	33,874	21,937	14,884	7,053	60York South	33,907	28,242	12,216	16,026	54York West	29,476	19.137	12.228	6,909	61Totals	204,483	138,987	86,458	52,429	Average	29,212	19.895	12,351	7,506	60% of total electors on list	60%	40%	25%	15%	% of vote cast	100%	68%	42%	26%	Elected Members' vote as a % of non-voters-62%	Total Electors on List-343,470	Total-Toronto and Yorks	467,038	336,882	207,846	129,046

[Stage Direction]
Constituency	Total Vote	Non- Vote	Winner's Vote	Difference	% CastArgenteuil-Deux Montagnes	
18,861	9,124	13,251	4,127	68Beauce	
22,732	4,557	13,016	8,459	84Beauharnois-Salaberry	
18,764	8,908	14,269	6,361	68Bellechasse	
11,990	4,290	7,124	2,834	74Berthier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere	
18,862	5,467	10,711	7,244	77Bonaventure	
15,643	4,820	9,177	4,357	76Brome-Missisquoi	
14,782	7,165	9,362	2,197	67Chambly-Rouville	
14,840	6,080	9,824	3,744	71Champlain	
22,744	5,876	14,420	8,544	79Chapleau	
21,080	9,245	10,495	1,250	70Charlevoix	
18,001	6,467	10,742	4,275	74Chateauguay-Huntingdon-Laprairie	
18,707	5,761	11,104	5,343	76Chicoutimi	
24,447	5,067	16,040	10,973	83Compton-F rontenac	
17,057	4,432	10,275	2,833	79Dorchester	
15,418	3,207	7,762	4,555	83Drummond-Arthabaska	
29,195	11,417	15,870	4,453	69Gaspe	
23,089	6,778	12,058	5,280	77Gatineau	
16,353	6,840	10,759	3,919	70Hull	
28,898	8,824	21,685	12,861	76Iles-de-la-Madeleine	
4,310	583	2,337	1,754	88Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm	
22,689	20,149	20,060	89	53Kamouraska	
11,828	6,459	6,065	394	65Labelle	
18,535	3,802	9,569	5,767	83Lake St. John	
15,453	2,337	8,697	6,360	87Lapointe	
22,169	5,853	11,854	6,001	79Levis	
19,276	4,843	13,897	9,054	80Longueuil	
24,694	14,264	16,688	2,424	64Lotbiniere	
15,926	2,664	9,047	6,383	85Matapedia-Matane	
23,454	6,132	12,689	6,557	80Megantic	
22,371	6,855	13,948	7,093	76Montmagny-L'Islet	
14,997	5,153	10,121	4,968	74N icolet-Y amaska	
19,276	5,181	9,483	4,302	79Pontiac-T emiscamingue	
15,414	6,025	9,041	3,016	72Portneuf	
18,180	6,773	12,701	5,928	73Quebec East	
32,974	14,530	25,945	11,415	69Quebec South	
25,311	10,648	18,951	8,303	70Quebec-Montmorency	
30,301	9,492	18,029	8,537	76Richelieu-Vercheres	
18,933	9,311	15,406	6,095	67
1530
[Stage Direction]
Election Results, 1949 and 1953
QUEBEC-Concluded
Constituency	Total Vote	Non- Vote	Winner's Vote	Difference	% CastRichmond-Wolfe	
20,393	7,721	13.006	5,285	72Rimouski	
23,901	7,746	8,554	808	76Roberval	
17,118	3,825	8,641	4,816	82St. Hyacinthe-Bagot	Acclamation	St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville	
18,327	9,502	16,088	6,586	66St. Maurice-LaHeche	
28,999	9,572	18,662	9,090	75Saguenay	
15,279	8,056	7,815	2it	66Shefford	
22,627	7,403	15.40S	8,005	75Sherbrooke	
23,900	10,669	15,815	5,146	69Stanstead	
16,770	5,593	10,034	4,441	75Temiscouata	
18,451	8,737	10,675	1,938	68Terrebonne	Acclamation	Trois Rivieres	
29,461	4,619	15,556	10,937	86Villeneuve	
22.956	11,757	14,844	3,087	66Quebec West	
23,020	8,202	8,464	262	74Vaudreuil-Soulanges	
10,707	6,022	8,463	2,441	64Totals	
1,043,664	374,803	644,497	269,694	% of total electors on list	
74%	26%	45%	19%	% of vote cast	
100%	28%	62%	40%	Elected Members' vote expressed as a percentage of non-voters-171%	Total Electors on List-1,418,467	MONTREAL 1953	Constituency	Total Vote	Non- Vote	Winner's Vote	Difference	% CastCartier	
16,246	10,022	12,493	2,471	62Dollard	
23,228	14,678	14,965	287	61Hochelaga	
25,406	17,674	19,367	1,693	59Jacques Cartier-Lasalle	
33,098	17,095	19,678	2,583	66Lafontaine	
20,426	14,968	15,285	317	58Laurier	
18,044	13,456	12,659	797	57Laval	17,036	19,337	2,301	62Maisonneuve-Rosemont	
29,250	19,139	12,266	6,875	61Mercier	
28,089	19,314	17,339	1,975	57Mount Royal	24,197	17,183	7,Oti	54Notre-Dame-d e-Grace	
33,441	20,749	16,690	4,059	63Outremont-Saint Jean	
16,774	16,615	11,536	5,079	50Papineau	19,276	10,387	8,889	58St. Ann	7,921	15,519	7,598	70St. Antoine-Westmount	
25,277	16,720	14,446	2,274	60St. Denis	
24,259	18,697	17,359	1,838	57St. Henri	14,338	15,046	708	62St. Jacques	
23,432	24,108	15,443	8,665	49St. Lawrence-St. George	
14,602	17,408	9,082	8,526	46St. Mary	16,933	16,288	645	57Verdun	18,541	20,281	1,740	59Totals	358,885	322,649	56,256	% of total electors on list	
59%	41%	37%	4%	% of vote cast	71%	64%	7%	
Elected Members' vote expressed as a percentage of non-voters-84%
Total Electors on List-866,393

Election Results, 1949 and 1953

[Stage Direction]
Constituency	Total Vote	Non- Vote	Winner's Vote	Difference	% CastCharlotte	
11,751	3,426	6,155	2,729	76Gloucester	
23,145	4,306	13,330	9,024	84Kent	
10,642	2,807	7,039	4,242	79Northumberland	
16,531	5,669	10,616	4,947	74Restigouche-Madawaska	
26,433	7,601	13,266	5,665	72Royal	
16,691	5,162	8,725	3,563	76Saint John-Albert	
38,160	14,947	18,881	3,934	72V ict oria-Carleton	
17,685	4,935	8,945	4,010	78Westmorland	
37,107	9,793	20,120	10,417	79York-Sunbury	
24,454	6,141	12,888	6,747	80Totals	64,787	120,055	55,268	% of total electors on list	
78%	22%	42%	20%	% of vote cast	
100%	29%	54%	25%	
Elected Members' vote expressed as a percentage of non-voters-186%
Total Electors on List-287,386

[Stage Direction]
Constituency
Total Non- Winner's	%
Vote	Vote	Vote Difference Cast
Antigonish-Guysborough	
Cape Breton North and Victoria
Cape Breton South	
Colchester-Hants	
Cumberland	
Digby-Annapolis-Kings	
Halifax	
Inverness-Richmond	
Pictou	
Queens-Lunenburg	
Slielburne-Yarmouth-Clare....
10,299	4,862	6,88415,754	7,764	9,53630,642	14,919	14,97125,867	6,951	12,27117,123	6,718	8,86031,809	6,642	16,42262,095	36,092	34,37614,335	5,814	9,03320,996	6,189	10,62823,120	6,260	13,05318,948	7,326	11,504
Totals
270,988	109,537	147,538% of total electors on list	
71%	29%% of vote cast	
100%	40%
Elected Members' vote expressed as a percentage of non-voters - 133%
38%
54%
2,022
1,772
5,320
2,142
9,780
1,718
3,219
4,439
6,793
4,178
38,001
11%
14%
67
79
83
67
79
Total Electors on List - 380,525

[Stage Direction]
Constituency	Total Vote	Non- Vote	Winner's Vote Difference	% CastKings	
9,123	1,214	4,750	3,546	89Prince	
16,765	2,610	8,782	6,172	87Queens (j)	5,101	10,219	5,118	80Totals	8,915	23,741	14,836	% of total electors on list	
84%	16%	43%	27%	84% of vote cast	19%	51%	32%	
Elected Members' vote expressed as a % of non-voters-269% Total Electors on List-54,987 83276-974
[Stage Direction]
Election Results, 1949 and 1953

[Stage Direction]
Constituency
[Stage Direction]
Total Vote
[Stage Direction]
Non- Vote
[Stage Direction]
Winner's Vote
[Stage Direction]
Difference
[Stage Direction]
% Cast
[Stage Direction]
Bonavista-Twillingate
[Stage Direction]
12,636
[Stage Direction]
11,511
[Stage Direction]
10,072
[Stage Direction]
1,439
[Stage Direction]
52
[Stage Direction]
Burin-Burgeo
[Stage Direction]
12,498
[Stage Direction]
8,945
[Stage Direction]
11,017
[Stage Direction]
2,072
[Stage Direction]
58
[Stage Direction]
Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador
[Stage Direction]
18,637
[Stage Direction]
14,812
[Stage Direction]
13,653
[Stage Direction]
1,159
[Stage Direction]
56
[Stage Direction]
Humber-St. George's
[Stage Direction]
16,142
[Stage Direction]
10,935
[Stage Direction]
12,529
[Stage Direction]
1,594
[Stage Direction]
60
[Stage Direction]
St. John's East
[Stage Direction]
19,460
[Stage Direction]
10,359
[Stage Direction]
8,310
[Stage Direction]
2,0J,9
[Stage Direction]
65
[Stage Direction]
St. John's West
[Stage Direction]
18,990
[Stage Direction]
11,600
[Stage Direction]
9,965
[Stage Direction]
1,635
[Stage Direction]
62
[Stage Direction]
Trinity-Conception
[Stage Direction]
12,221
[Stage Direction]
15,046
[Stage Direction]
8,814
[Stage Direction]
6,2S2
[Stage Direction]
45
[Stage Direction]
Totals
[Stage Direction]
110,584
[Stage Direction]
83,208
[Stage Direction]
74,360
[Stage Direction]
8,848
[Stage Direction]
57
[Stage Direction]
% of total electors on list
[Stage Direction]
57%
[Stage Direction]
43%
[Stage Direction]
38%
[Stage Direction]
5%
[Stage Direction]
% of vote cast
[Stage Direction]
100%
[Stage Direction]
75%
[Stage Direction]
67%
[Stage Direction]
8%
[Stage Direction]
Elected Members' vote expressed as a percentage of non-voters -
[Stage Direction]
89%
[Stage Direction]
Total Electors on List - 193,792
[Stage Direction]
Province
[Stage Direction]
Total Vote
[Stage Direction]
Non-Vote
[Stage Direction]
Winner's Vote
[Stage Direction]
Total Electors
[Stage Direction]
British Columbia
[Stage Direction]
471,548
[Stage Direction]
259,001
[Stage Direction]
189,824
[Stage Direction]
730,549
[Stage Direction]
% of total electors on list
[Stage Direction]
65%
[Stage Direction]
35%
[Stage Direction]
26%
[Stage Direction]
% of vote cast
[Stage Direction]
100%
[Stage Direction]
55%
[Stage Direction]
40%
[Stage Direction]
Elected Member's vote expressed non-voters
[Stage Direction]
as a
[Stage Direction]
% Of
[Stage Direction]
73%
[Stage Direction]
Non-vote greater than winner's
[Stage Direction]
vote by 69,177
[Stage Direction]
Alberta
[Stage Direction]
340,116
[Stage Direction]
207,696
[Stage Direction]
153,371
[Stage Direction]
547,812
[Stage Direction]
% of total electors on list
[Stage Direction]
62%
[Stage Direction]
38%
[Stage Direction]
28%
[Stage Direction]
% of vote cast
[Stage Direction]
100%
[Stage Direction]
61%
[Stage Direction]
45%
[Stage Direction]
Elected Member's vote as expressed as a % of non-voters
[Stage Direction]
74%
[Stage Direction]
Non-vote greater than winner's
[Stage Direction]
vote by 54,325
[Stage Direction]
Saskatchewan
[Stage Direction]
354,083
[Stage Direction]
126,449
[Stage Direction]
166,635
[Stage Direction]
480,532
[Stage Direction]
% of total electors on list
[Stage Direction]
74%
[Stage Direction]
26%
[Stage Direction]
34%
[Stage Direction]
% of vote cast
[Stage Direction]
100%
[Stage Direction]
36%
[Stage Direction]
47%
[Stage Direction]
Elected Member's vote expressed non-voters
[Stage Direction]
as a
[Stage Direction]
% Of
[Stage Direction]
132%
[Stage Direction]
Winner's vote greater than non-
[Stage Direction]
*vote by 40,386
[Stage Direction]
Manitoba
[Stage Direction]
272,567
[Stage Direction]
193,409
[Stage Direction]
131,019
[Stage Direction]
465,976
[Stage Direction]
% of total electors on list
[Stage Direction]
59%
[Stage Direction]
41%
[Stage Direction]
28%
[Stage Direction]
% of vote cast
[Stage Direction]
100%
[Stage Direction]
71%
[Stage Direction]
48%
[Stage Direction]
Elected Member's vote expressed non-voters
[Stage Direction]
as a
[Stage Direction]
% Of
[Stage Direction]
69%
[Stage Direction]
Non-vote greater than winner's vote by 62,390
[Stage Direction]
Election Results, 1949 and 1953
Province	Total Vote Non-Vote Winner's Vote Total Electors
Ontario		1,448,568 641,014 764,316 2,089,582
% of total electors on list		69% 31% 37%
% of vote cast		100% 44% 53%
Elected Member's vote as expressed as a % of non-voters		119% Winner's vote greater than non-vote by 123,302
Toronto		262,555 196,895 121,388 459,450
% of total electors on list		57% 43% 26%
% of vote cast		100% 75% 46%
Elected Member's vote expressed as a % of non-voters		62% . Non-vote greater than winner's vote by 75,507
Yorks		204,483 138,987 86,458 343,470
% of total electors on list		60% 40% 25%
% of vote cast		100% 68% 42%
Elected Member's vote expressed as a % of non-voters		62% , . , , Non-vote greater than winner s vote by 52,529
Quebec		1,043,664 374,803 644,497 1,418,467
% of total electors on list		74% 26% 45%
% of vote cast		100% 28% 62%
Elected Member's vote expressed as a % of non-voters		171% Winner's vote greater than non-vote by 269,694
Montreal		507,508 358,885 322,649 866,393
% of total electors on list		59% 41% 37%
% of vote cast		100% 71% 64%
Elected Member's vote expressed as a % of non-voters		84% Non-vote greater than winner's vote by S6,236
New Brunswick		222,599 64,787 120,055 287,386
% of total electors on list		78% 22% 42%
% of vote cast		100% 29% 54%
Elected Member's vote expressed as a % of non-voters		186% Winner's vote greater than non-vote by 55,268
Nova Scotia		270,988 109,537 147,538 380,525
% of total electors on list		71% 29% 38%
% of vote cast		100% 40% 54%
Elected Member's vote expressed as a % of non-voters		133% Winner's vote greater than non-vote by 38,001
Winner's vote greater than non-vote by 38,001
[Stage Direction]
Election Results, 1949 and 1953
Province	Total Vote Non-Vote Winner's Vote Total Electors
[Stage Direction]
-Prince Edward Island
[Stage Direction]
46,072
[Stage Direction]
8,915
[Stage Direction]
23,741
[Stage Direction]
54,987
[Stage Direction]
% of total electors on list
[Stage Direction]
84%
[Stage Direction]
16%
[Stage Direction]
43%
[Stage Direction]
% of vote cast
[Stage Direction]
100%
[Stage Direction]
19%
[Stage Direction]
51%
[Stage Direction]
Elected Member's vote expressed as a % of non-voters
[Stage Direction]
269%
[Stage Direction]
Winner's vote greater than non-vote by 14,836
[Stage Direction]
Newfoundland
[Stage Direction]
110,584
[Stage Direction]
83,208
[Stage Direction]
74,360
[Stage Direction]
193,792
[Stage Direction]
% of total electors on list
[Stage Direction]
57%
[Stage Direction]
43%
[Stage Direction]
38%
[Stage Direction]
% of vote cast
[Stage Direction]
100%
[Stage Direction]
75%
[Stage Direction]
67%
[Stage Direction]
Elected Member's vote expressed as a % of non-voters
[Stage Direction]
89%
[Stage Direction]
Non-vote greater than winner's vote by 8,848
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, January 28, 1954