Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition):

Mr. Speaker, I am not certain that this is not a motion which should be preceded by notice.

Mr. LAPOINTE (Quebec East):

It was.

Mr. BENNETT:

Oh, I understand. The

question which arises on the motion may be said to divide itself into two branches, the first of which is covered by the constitution. Section 51 of the British North America Act reads as follows:

On the completion of the census in the year one thousand eight hundred and seventy-one, and of each subsequent decennial census, the representation of the four provinces shall be readjusted by such authority, in such manner, and from such time, as the parliament _ of Canada from time to time provides, subject and according to the following rules:

(1) Quebec shall have the fixed number of sixty-five members:

(2) There shall be assigned to each of the other provinces such a number of members as will bear the same proportion to the number of its population (ascertained at such census) as the number sixty-five bears to the number of the population of Quebec (so ascertained):

(3) In the computation of the number of members for a province a fractional part not exceeding one-half of the whole number requisite for entitling the province to a member shall be disregarded'; but a fractional part exceeding one-half of that number shall be equivalent to the whole number:

(4) On any such readjustment the number of members for a province shall not be reduced unless the proportion which the number of the population of the province bore to the number of the aggregate population of Canada at the then last preceding readjustment of the number of members for the province is ascertained at the then latest census to be diminished by one-twentieth part or upwards:

(5) Such readjustment shall not take effect until the termination of the then existing parliament.

This section indicates the legal limitations imposed upon parliament in connection with redistribution.

Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):

There is

no limitation there.

Mr. BENNETT:

There is a very considerable limitation, if the hon. gentleman will permit me to say so. First, there is the limitation as to the number of members to represent Quebec; the number is placed at sixty-five. The second limitation is as to the number of seats that other provinces have with relation to the fixed number of sixty-five, and the other limitation is as to reductions.

To section 51 must be added the provisions contained in the amendment made to the British North America Act in the days of the Borden administration by which no province's representation in the commons is to be diminished below its senatorial representation. Therefore the province of Prince Edward Island, with a population of between 80,000 and 90,000, has four members in the House of Commons, because under the provisions of the agreement under which it entered confederation it has four members in the Senate. Similarly the provinces of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia must have ten members each because they have ten members in the Senate. Therefore there is the limitation imposed by section 51, together with the amendment made to the constitution which provides that the representation of a province in the house shall never be less than its representation in the Senate.

The method by which redistribution is to be done fairly is a matter that has engaged the attention of this house ever since there has been a parliament in Canada. It will be remembered that in 1887 the charge was made that a great deal of gerrymandering took place in the constituencies, and that allegation became a distinct issue in that and succeeding elections. In the redistribution which took place after the census of 1891 there were also complaints, and at a subsequent redistribution an effort was made to do something by setting up a committee of the house composed of members from all parties to bring about a reasonable agreement between the parties. After the census of 1921, agreement which was not complete was arrived at; one might say it was agreement with respect to over ninety per cent of the constituencies. In 1931 there was an agreement at one time, but unfortunately disagreement subsequently arose, so that it could not be said that the committee arrived at any final agreement satisfactory to all parties. The great difficulty in Canada has been that because of the shifting of population from rural to urban communities we have a condition which is a reality and which cannot be dealt with on an equitable basis, as was originally intended by

Elections and Franchise

the constitution. For if you had representation by population, just that and nothing more, the representation from the cities and towns would deprive the rural communities of many of the seats they now have. That difficulty has confronted every parliament which in recent years has had to deal with redistribution. But never was the problem so difficult or the situation so acute as it was after the census of 1931, because for the first time in our history, as I have so frequently pointed out, we had a majority of population in our cities and towns. Therefore the basis or unit of representation in connection with urban seats was made far larger than with respect to rural communities, so that if possible the rural population might have representation in the house practically equivalent to that of the urban portion of the dominion. That has not been easy. It may be that there is some fairer or better method which may be set up, but it must be remembered that after all parliament is a far better tribunal than any commission to determine the basis upon which rural communities shall find representation, and is a better body to be entrusted with the duty of applying the rules of representation in parliament.

If representation by population were obligatory it is quite clear that in this house there would be a diminution of members from rural communities and an increase from the urban centres of Canada. In view of what was said by all hon. members, including the Prime Minister, I believe that is something which would be undesirable at this particular time, having regard to the importance of the basic industry of agriculture in the life of Canada as a whole.

Another point was raised, namely that of representation of the universities. Having regard to the provisions of section 51, as the statute now stands it is quite obvious that such representation would be impossible of accomplishment. There would have to be an amendment to the constitution itself in order to enable us to effect that purpose. There are many other matters which would have to be considered from the constitutional angle, if we were to give effect to some of the views we hold. No matter has been so much discussed by parliaments and legislatures as that of the redistribution at elections. It will be recalled that Gambetta in France had certain well defined views as to the division into electoral districts. At different times in England various views have obtained-the single member constituencies, the double member constituencies, and the question as to whether there might not be grouping of constituencies, giving benefit to 12739-50

all for the purpose of carrying into effect the theories of proportional representation. In this country we have in the main stuck to the practice of the single member constituency, except that there have been certain double member constituencies, which in many cases have lost their members by reason of diminishing population. No harm can come from a discussion of the matter by a committee, but I think the committee should have clearly in mind the limitations imposed upon their activities; for if it is suggested that a new redistribution could be introduced and carried through this parliament, insuperable difficulties will be found in section 51. On the other hand, I do not think even the most violent partisan will suggest that the last redistribution resulted in any advantage to the parity then in power. Under the circumstances it might well serve a useful purpose for the discussion to take place, because it is as old as representative institutions themselves and will continue long after we have concluded our discussions with respect to it. If it results in any advantage to air views that have been held from time to time and to take from books and papers the story of representation and redistribution-because you cannot bring witnesses here from France and continental Europe to tell us how they do it-and to have all that put in a report of a committee rather than have it available to us in the volumes from which it is taken, I have no objection, but I cannot see that it is going to serve any very useful purpose.

Mr. ,7. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre): I should like to make one

or two comments, Mr. Speaker, on this proposal. The leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) has suggested that there are very decided legal limitations upon what this committee can do, but it does seem to me, now that amendments to the British North America Act are being considered, it is quite possible that this committee might suggest certain amendments to that act, if indeed specific amendments are being considered. I cannot see why, for instance, because Prince Edward Island in days gone by had a certain number of members, it should have the same number of members to-day, out of all proportion to its population. I think that the people of the west have the right to be as fully represented as the people of Prince Edward Island. It is all very well to hold to certain historical traditions, but it is much more important to meet the needs of the present day.

The suggestion has been made that there might be some representation for the universities, because that has been the practice, I

Elections and Franchise

think, in England; but I would point out, Mr. Speaker, that there are certain groups in this country that need representation much more than the universities. I think of one class in the province of Alberta, for example, where there is a large number of miners scattered through some six or seven federal constituencies that are predominantly rural in character. The leader of the opposition suggests that the farmers, representing a primary industry, should be adequately represented. Well, what of the miners? It is almost impossible for them as a group to be represented under present conditions with small mining areas scattered through predominantly rural districts. If any group is to be given representation it ought to be some of these groups that are at present unrepresented. And again, I think of the large number of people engaged in construction work, scattered all over this country in small areas or along the railway lines, and of those engaged in the lumber camps. They are amongst the most needy of our population, yet in practice they lack direct representation. We have again and again urged that they be given greater facilities for exercising their franchise, but even if they were given that, it is very difficult for them to secure direct representation in this house. I hope when the committee is making its investigations it will not fail to remember some of these more or less neglected groups.

There is one other thing I should like to mention, and that is the necessity in any system of redistribution of a distinction being drawn between the people residing in urban and suburban communities, and people living in the country. Instead of making that distinction we have frequently split the urban population in two and added to each half a section of the surrounding country population. That may have been very desirable in some instances, from the standpoint of party politics, but I suggest that it does not contribute to the general welfare. The farmers have their own special problems, and it seems to me that the redistribution ought to be arranged so that they will have distinct representation. On the other hand, the people living in the cities and in the vicinity of cities really constitute a more or less unified community, and ought to be given representation as a city group.

Mr. WERMENLINGER:

According to

population?

Mr. WOODSWORTH:

According to population. I am suggesting that at present the urban and rural groups are split up and combined in the most astonishing ways. If this

committee would give attention to some of these considerations I think we might evolve an altogether new system that would reflect more adequately the needs of the people.

Mr. Speaker, with respect to

the question of notice, I quite agree with my hon. friend the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) that notice appears on the votes and proceedings of last Tuesday, but it has always been usual, as I understand it, to have the notice appear also on the order paper, and it is not on the order paper to-day. I do not know whether it was left off inadvertently. I have seen some of these notices put at the very first of the order paper when they were of a different category from the usual government notices. However, that is a matter of detail at the moment, and does not make any particular difference.

I should like to suggest to the Minister of Justice that the two matters which this committee was set up to consider are the Dominion Elections Act and the Dominion Franchise Act. It was stated by the minister in the house the other day, and quite properly -I entirely agree with him-that it was better to have these questions settled early in the life of a parliament rather than close to the time of an election. Both of these matters which the committee is going to consider are extremely important. Many things occurred during the last election to show that there were faults in both these acts. Some of them were perhaps not important, although other hon. members may not agree. At any rate those are very difficult matters for the committee to consider; they are of great importance. It will take the committee a long time, and it is right that this should be done early in the life of this parliament. But I submit to my hon. friend that this other subject which he now proposes to add to the duties of this committee is one about which there is no need for hurry. The next census will not be taken until 1941; by that time this parliament will have disappeared and a new one will have been elected, and all that will take place before there can be another redistribution. I feel quite strongly that the duties already imposed on this committee are serious enough, and that the committee should not be embarrassed by having this further subject thrust upon it. It is a different matter altogether; there is no occasion for haste in dealing with it, and I submit for the consideration of the minister and of the government that they should not add this new

Questions

subject to the duties of the committee. If they desire to have it discussed, that can be done in the years to come, with plenty of time to spare. I feel quite strongly that it is a mistake to add this subject as an afterthought, to the committee's duties, which are already of very great importance, embracing two very difficult questions.

Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice):

Mr. Speaker, may I say in answer

to my right hon. friend who has just spoken (Sir George Perley) that consideration of the matter referred to in this motion is certainly germane to the two other matters which have been referred to this committee. Indeed, proportional representation is mentioned specifically in the reference to the committee for consideration. Any scheme of proportional representation would involve, of necessity, a redistribution of the seats as they are now constituted. Apart from all this, the resolution is general in its character. What is proposed is that the committee shall consider the methods which might be used to effect a redistribution of the electoral districts in Canada and other countries and make suggestions to the house. That does not necessarily mean that there will be an immediate redistribution, it will be a suggestion of what such redistribution should be when the time comes.

I do not agree with my right hon. friend' the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) when he says that parliament cannot at this time, or prior to a new census being taken, deal with the redistribution of seats. Section 51 of the British North America Act-provides that after the completion of a census "the representation of the four provinces shall be readjusted by such authority, in such manner, and from such time, as the parliament of Canada from time to time provides," subject to Quebec having sixty-five members and the other provinces a proportionate number according to what their population may be as compared with the population of Quebec. This section of the British North America Act requires that after every census there shall be an allocation of the number of members for each province, but it does not mean that parliament is prevented from changing the limits of the constituencies provided the number of members allocated is retained. I have not the book before me. but I remember having studied this matter two or three years ago. Lefroy. an authority on the Canadian constitution, states what I have just stated, that while parliament cannot change the number of members allocated to each province, after a

12739-50}

census, parliament has authority to change the lines of the constituencies at any time provided the number of members is not changed. However, as I have said, while that may be done, this motion will not necessarily lead to that procedure. This is merely suggesting that consideration be given to the best methods of having a fair and just redistribution when the time comes that it should be made.

With regard to the last words of my right hon. friend the leader of the opposition, and following the same trend of argument, may I say that possibly the results of the election were not due to the redistribution but were in spite of it.