No. It is true that as far as Manitoba and British Columbia were concerned they were on a different footing. As far as Alberta and Saskatchewan were concerned this parliament had the right to vary that representation. They did more than that. If you will read the amendment of 1915, as I imagine most hon. members have done, you will find that parliament not only settled the representation in the senate of the provinces which then existed in Canada, but went farther and actually provided for representation in the senate of a new province which might come into Canada, specifically mentioning Newfoundland, and laying it down that in the event of admission to the union Newfoundland would have an additional six members of the upper house. I do not think those who argue as my hon. friend argues have, in the light of what has been done, a leg to stand on. The whole history of this country since confederation surely points to the fact

Redistribution

that this parliament has the right to deal with representation in this parliament. We do it when we redistribute the seats; we have done it in connection with the senate, and now we propose to do the same thing again in connection with representation in this house. It is, I take it, our right to do it.

May I quote from Sir Robert Borden's remarks of June 11, 1914, at page 5278 of Hansard? Hon. members who have read this debate will recollect that it took place right at the end of the session. There were certain amendments suggested by the senate, and the following year the address came before the house again. There was a short debate and the address was adopted. This is what Sir Robert Borden said in connection with it:

My_ right hon. friend, the leader of the opposition, in the course of the debate upon these bills, suggested-what had occurred I daresay to some of us before-that a fourth division should be constituted, which should comprise the four western provinces of the dominion, namely, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia. He suggested to me-

That is, Sir Wilfrid Laurier.

-that the better course would be this: that we should not proceed with the bill at this session; but that, inasmuch as legislation was necessary for the purpose of increasing the representation of the province of British Columbia in the senate, we should accomplish that result as to all the provinces in that way; and that, further than that, we should constitute a fourth division and ask for the necessary amendment to the British North America Act for that purpose. My right hon. friend also suggested to me that he thought that, in case of the future constitution of any additional province in Canada, it was desirable that that province should be represented by not less than six members in the senate. We have the power to deal with that under our constitution at the present time.

That is the statement made by Sir Robert Borden. Let us now turn to the same debate and see what Sir Wilfrid Laurier said. I shall quote from page 5280 of Hansard in the same debate on. June 11, 1914. Sir Wilfrid Laurier said this:

There can be no doubt that this parliament as constituted has the power to increase the representation of those two provinces.

That is the senatorial representation of Alberta and Saskatchewan. Therefore I am at a loss to understand why in 1946 we should go back to a position which was not held by the leaders of the two great parties in 1914, or why we should reverse the practice which has been in effect throughout the years, of this parliament passing a humble address to His Majesty from time to time, praying for amendments to the B.N.A. Act when this house felt they were needed, namely, amendments in the interests of all the people of Canada.

I think I have said pretty well all that I wish to say on this matter at this time. But before taking my seat I should like to say that surely if this country is to be regarded as a nation, matters which are assigned to this parliament by our constitution must be within the right of this parliament to deal with. We have no right to interfere with something that has been assigned to one of the provinces without that province's consent. That I readily grant, and with that I agree, But I maintain that we would stifle this parliament completely if we accepted the position that my hon. friends are accepting and agree that, before we do something which, according to Borden and Laurier, in the important debate to which I have deferred, the last time that change in representation was made in one of the two house of parliament, lies within our rights, we should for one moment do other than exercise that right of our own volition, and appeal to the people of Canada when the times comes to validate the action that we have taken.

Mr. FREDERIC DORION (Charlevoix-

Saguenay): I must state at first that I find myself in a peculiar situation regarding this resolution. In fact I am strongly in favour of the principle which is at the basis of it and I believe that it will be supported by the great majority of the population of the country; but I cannot agree with everything that the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent) said when he introduced the resolution. I am further convinced that any amendment of our constitution should be discussed with and by the provincial governments before it is acted upon, especially when it deals with the representation which, according to the terms of the resolution, must be calculated on a provincial basis. If it had been possible to settle the redistribution without being obliged to amend our constitution I would have more heartily supported the resolution; but when I notice that the result of the amendment will be the disappearance of the grave injustice created by paragraph 4 of section 51 of the British North America Act I cannot do otherwise than admit that, notwithstanding the defects of procedure, the resolution carries with it the remedy to a serious condition for the people of the country.

I wish, however, to take this opportunity to make some remarks on the question of the procedure of amending our constitution. I have listened with great interest to the speech delivered by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker), and I deeply regret that he did not make a similar speech in 1943, when the constitution was amended in spite

Redistribution

of the opposition of a very few members in this house. We based our objections on the very same grounds raised this afternoon by the hon. member for Lake Centre. At the time he was in favour of amending the constitution.

We have read and heard1 many suggestions regarding the procedure to be adopted for the amending of our constitution. Different points of view have been expressed by experts, politicians and laymen. But there is one point on which I believe everyone agrees at the present time, namely, that the time has come for our country to adopt, once and for all, a procedure which would enable us to amend our constitution, when necessary, without being obliged to have recourse to another country; provided, however, that this procedure does not come into contradiction with the principle which was at the basis of confederation, namely, a compact between the two races, the French and the English.

The history of the confederation movement, together with the Quebec and London resolutions, indicates clearly that the provinces of Canada could not have united in 1867 except on the basis of a federal constitution, and also on the basis of effective guarantees for the interests of the French minority, especially in respect of language, civil law and religion.

At this time I should like to cite some declarations of persons in authority. As early as 1920 in this very chamber, the then leader of the opposition, now the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), said, as reported at page 468 of Hansard:

But I would like to submit to my hon. friends opposite that perhaps it would be more in accord with the status which Canada has as a self-governing dominion or nation within the British empire if, instead of presenting an address to His Majesty to ask His Majesty's consent to the parliament of the United Kingdom amending the British North America Act in the two particulars mentioned, the government shoul consider the advisability of an address being presented to His Majesty to have powers given to the parliament of Canada, subject to the concurrence of the several provinces of the dominion, to amend the constitution of Canada in such particulars as may be agreed upon as a result of conference between the provincial and federal authorities and approved by this parliament and the legislatures of the different provinces.

I have here a copy of the constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia and of the Dominion of New Zealand. Both Australia and New Zealand have the right to amend their own constitutions in the particulars mentioned therein. Why should this parliament not have the same powers to amend its own constitution, subject to the safeguards that are necessary to comply with the spirit of the act of confederation, as have these other nations within the British empire?

In the course of the same debate, Hon. Mr. Doherty, Minister of Justice, speaking for the then Conservative government, said at page 479:

Now nobody has ever disputed that legally the legislative power is supreme in the parliament of the United Kingdom and it follows that the British North America Act-though in reality and in substance a compact between the provinces is in form an act of the parliament of the United Kingdom. Such being the case when that act has to be modified we have to go through the form of addressing ourselves to that parliament of the United Kingdom. But to suggest that that throws any doubt upon our constitutional status as a nation within this empire I think only implies a confusion between what may be the requirements of the law and what, side by side with those requirements of law, may be the constitutional rights of the nations or peoples within the empire. We have the two things, we have the law and the constitution, and they do not always agree

sometimes they are in absolute contradiction.

He went on to say:

The hon. gentleman went on to say apropos of this condition, that what we ought to have, instead of what we are asking in these resolutions, is a power in this parliament, subject to the concurrence of the provinces, to amend our own constitution. In that I am most heartily at one with the hon. gentleman.

Since then, many other debates have taken place in this house, and I believe I can state without fear of contradiction that every time this question was raised the official policy of the Liberal as well as of the Conservative party remained the same; that is to say, that to complete our status as a sovereign nation within the British commonwealth we should not suffer the humiliation of being obliged to humbly request another country to amend our own constitution. I did not deem it necessary to report any declarations by members of the C.C.F. party, because it is a well known fact throughout the country that since its foundation the leaders of that party have expressed their views on this matter on many occasions. The late Mr. Woodsworth, first leader of the C.C.F., and also its present leader have not only seized the opportunity but grasped eveiy occasion to claim for our country this element of soverignty.

I deem it proper to recall a principle which is at the basis of our constitution and which has been clearly stated by jurists as well as by political leaders on many occasions. This constitution, like that of all countries connected with the British empire, is partly written and partly unwritten. In the course of the 1926 electoral campaign the Prime Minister took advantage of several occasions to emphasize the soundness of the confedera-tive pact. In Le Soleil, mouthpiece of the

Redistribution

Liberal party in Quebec, we find in the edition of August 24, 1926, the following declaration made by the Prime Minister at Sherbrooke:

We stand for the rights and freedom of the people and I hope that the Conservatives will follow me.

Our opponents talk about annexation and accuse me of such intention. . . . We have but one aim, the defence of the constitution. We desire to be one nation among the self-governing nations of the British empire, no more no less. This British constitution for which we fight is the most precious heritage won by centuries of fighting. The tie uniting Canada to the British empire has been strengthened by the means of war sacrifices and British immigration. . . .

The constitution is something sacred, partially written and partially unwritten. It has its source in a far off past and tangibly shaped itself in our traditions. It is founded on the customary right and is moulded by means of precedents, of grand charters and peoples' rights. Nobody has seen it and nobody can wholly define it; but one can feel its presence whenever peoples' freedom and rights are threatened, because it is the result and the deed of the best British tie born out of secular struggles. Throughout the dominions, it constitutes a component part of loyalty. It is a pendulum against any tendency of severance or annexation.

Mr. SMITH (Calgary West):

Who was that?

Mr. DORION:

The present Prime Minister, in 1926. I believe it is an indisputable fact that our constitution is founded not only upon the British North America Act but also upon precedents which have Ijecome, so to speak, part of the constitution. It goes without saying that these precedents cannot be in contradiction with written text, but they have been accepted as an explanation of the letter of the text. This is why they have come to be accepted as the written law itself. It is in the light of this principle that I intend to show that the procedure of amending our constitution must be carefully studied so as to protect the rights of minorities and of the provinces.

I do not need to recall that our country is the only one in the world that cannot amend its constitution in its own way. Many reasons can be given to explain this anomaly, but the fact is that this situation does exist at the present time. That is why on so many previous occasions the Canadian government has thought fit to study the question. The first occasion this question was discussed was, I think, in October, 1887, when a conference was held of all the provinces except Prince Edward Island and British Columbia. In the course of this conference special consideration was given to some proposed amendments of the British North America Act. The representatives of the provinces made many suggestions as to the amendments they wished adopted; yet they flid not touch the main

question of the procedure to be followed for the amending of the constitution. They seem to have taken it for granted that the only W'ay to amend it was by imperial enactment. Later, in 1927, a dominion-provincial conference was held in Ottawa from November 3 to November 10. According to official reports, the question of "procedure in amending the British North America Act" was the subject of discussion during an entire session of the conference.

This dominion-provincial conference was held shortly after the imperial conference at which the status of the British dominions was finally established according to* the terms of the Statute of Westminster. It was then clearly stated that the present method was not consistent with dominion status, and the question was asked whether Canada should not have the same powers over its constitution as had the sister self-governing dominions. It was then admitted that the constitution could not be regarded as rigid and inflexible and must be subject to change with the changing times. It was therefore only a question of the best procedure to be adopted under the circumstances. At the conclusion of this debate it was stated that the government would carefully consider all opinions on the subject.

In April, 1931, before the passing of the Statute of Westminster, the provinces were consulted through the medium of a conference with the dominion, for two reasons: first, because a question arose whether the removal of the barrier of the Colonial Laws Validity Act should extend to provincial legislation as well as to dominion legislation. The dominion was having that barrier removed and the provinces stated they also wanted it removed.

The other reason was that the report of the 1930 imperial conference which was to be the basis of the statute of Westminster, was figuring to preserve the status quo with regard to the distribution of powers between federal and provincial governments and to the way in which the British North America Act was to be amended. No resolution was adopted at this conference with the provinces as to the method of amending the constitution, because it was announced at that time that a conference would be held between the dominion and the provinces at a later date when the whole question would be taken up. All that was sought to do in 1931 was to ensure that, for the time being, the status quo was not altered by the statute of Westminster, as regards constitutional amendment.

The fourth time this question was considered by the authorities was in 1935 when,

Redistribution

at the session of that year, a special committee on the British North America Act was set up. This committee held many sessions from January, 1935, to June of the same year. Many experts in constitutional law were heard as witnesses, and finally a report was made to the House of Commons on the 19th of June, 1935. I wish to quote two paragraphs of this report, which will show that, even if they did not come to a final conclusion on the question, it was considered as very important, and it was thought advisable that the question should be finally settled as soon as possible.

I quote from the report:

The committee recognizes that there is a divergence of opinion with respect to the question of whether or not the British North America Act is a statutory recognition of a compact among the four original provinces of the dominion and as to the necessity or otherwise of provincial concurrence in amendments. Without expressing any opinion upon that question, the committee feels that in the present case, and at the present time, it is advisable in the interest of harmony and unity that there should be no consultation with the provinces with respect to the adoption of a definite mode of amendment or the enactment of amending legislation which might seriously alter the legislative jurisdiction of the provinces and the dominion.

The last part of the report reads as follows:

In view of the fact that the several provinces did not feel it advisable to give the committee the benefit of their views with respect to the method of procedure to be followed in amending the constitution, the committee is of the opinion that before any decision upon the subject matter of the resolution is finally made, that the opinions of the provinces should be obtained otherwise if at all possible and for that reason recommends that a dominion-provincial conference be held as early as possible in the present year to study the subject matter of the resolution. The proposed conference should have ample time in which to study every phase of the question.

In view of the above recommendation the committee expressly refrains from recommending any form of procedure for amendment so as to leave the proposed conference entirely free in its study of the question, except that the committee is definitely of the opinion that minority rights agreed upon and granted under the provisions of the British North America Act should not be interfered with.

One may ask himself why the fathers of confederation did not provide in their project of constitution the ways and means of amending it. I do not think any explanation can be found anywhere for the lack of this provision. The most probable reason was that thpy believed the terms of the confederation were broad enough for the settlement of any problem that could arise in consequence of the establishment of Canadian confederation. They must have thought that the clause regarding the residuary powers would make all the problems very easy to settle. There

is one thing- certain: neither in the Quebec resolution nor in the London resolutions was there any question of adopting a procedure for the amending of the constitution.

It was not very long after the confederation that this question of amending the constitution arose. The first amendment took place in 1870 when the Manitoba Act was passed. Since some diversion of opinions had arisen on the question of constitutionality of section 146 of the British North America Act, the Canadian parliament in 1871 petitioned the imperial government to present to the parliament of the United Kingdom a law to dissipate any doubts.

In 1875, the imperial parliament adopted an amendment along the lines suggested by the governor general in council for the changing of section 18 of the British North America Act.

The third amendment was passed in 1886 when there was adopted a law intituled "an act respecting the representation of the parliament of Canada in territories which, for the time being, formed part of the Dominion of Canada, but are not included in any province." In other words, the object of the amendment was to empower parliament to provide for representation of territories in the Senate and-House of Commons.

In April, 1907, the House of Commons and the Senate adopted a joint resolution asking the imperial parliament to pass a fourth amendment to permit the increase and regulation of federal subsidies to the provinces.

In 1915, another amendment was passed to increase the number of the senators and to alter the divisions of Canada in relation to the constitution of the senate.

An amendment was passed in 1916 to extend for a year the duration of the parliament elected in 1911. In 1930, a new amendment was passed to return the national resources to the western provinces. In 1940, an amendment was adopted by the parliament of the United Kingdom (to institute unemployment insurance amongst the class of subjects enumerated in section 91 of the British North America Act).

Finally, the last amendment was passed in 1943 under the following title: "an act to provide for the readjustment of the representation of the provinces in the House of Commons of Canada consequent to decennial census taken in the year 1941." -

A few words of comment on these amendments will be, I think, worthy of interest. It must be noted, first, that the amendment of 1875 was passed by the imperial parliament at the request of the Canadian government, without any resolution of the parliament itself.

Redistribution

This was the only time that such a procedure-was adopted, but once is enough to show that the lack of procedure in such an important matter may lead to any sort of abuses.

On this occasion Sir John A. Macdonald declared that he deprecated any infringement upon the provisions of the British North America Act in a manner which would interfere with the rights of the different provinces of the dominion. He believed, however, that there were occasions when parliament might address Her Majesty in regard to bills, the validity of which were questioned, without referring to the provinces, but with the greatest of circumspection. In all the other instances, the amendments of the British North America Act were passed after a resolution of the Canadian parliament.

There is also, as regards these amendments, another aspect of the question that should be carefully considered. As I said a few minutes ago, there was an amendment in 1907 regarding the grants by the dominion government to the provinces. This was an amendment of section 118 of the British North America Act in which it is clearly stated that " such grants should be in full settlement of all future demands on Canada."

In 1906, there was held in Ottawa an interprovincial conference at which the provincial governments passed a resolution to the effect that a measure would be submitted to the parliament of Canada for an increase of subsidies and that an amendment is judged necessary.

Following this interprovincial conference, a resolution was passed by the Senate and House of Commons requesting from the imperial parliament an amendment of the above-mentioned section 118 of the British North America Act.

However, British Columbia opposed this resolution. Objections of this province were conveyed to the secretary of state for the colonies in London; but in spite of this opposition, the imperial parliament passed the act requested, with some minor changes. Therefore, in this instance, the imperial parliament adopted an amendment of our constitution, notwithstanding the opposition of one Canadian province.

Furthermore, in 1943, objection was raised by the leaders of the two political parties in the province of Quebec against the proposed amendment regarding the redistribution. Even then, in spite of these objections, the resolution was passed by the Canadian parliament and the amendment was granted by the British parliament.

We must admit, as demonstrated at the beginning of my remarks, that precedents form part of our constitution, and taking into

account what has taken place as regards the amendments to our constitution since 1867, we must conclude that the British parliament can amend our constitution, even when serious objections are raised by the provinces and even when the only request is made by the Canadian government.

Therefore we have the right to contend that our constitution has become an ordinary law which can be changed at the request of any political party which happens to be in power. This is a serious situation, and that is the reason why we must see to it that some protection be given to this constitution of ours, because we have here in Canada provincial rights as well as minority rights that are the basis of confederation. These rights should be preserved at all costs.

I do not intend to discuss the procedure itself which should be adopted for the amending of our constitution, but I Should like to show the necessity of setting up a commission to study this procedure. One of the main reasons why the special committee set up in 1935 by the House of Commons could not arrive at a better conclusion was that the provinces had not been called to take part in the setting up and the proceedings of the committee. Messages were sent to all the provinces in the following terms:

The special committee of the House of Commons on the British North America Act desires to have the views of your government with respect to methods of securing amendments to said act. The resolution referred to the committee follows:

"Resolved that in the opinion of this house a special committee should be set up to study and report on the best method by which the British North America Act may be amended so that while safeguarding the existing rights of racial and religious minorities and legitimate provincial claims to autonomy, the dominion government may be given adequate power to deal effectively with urgent economic problems which are essentially national in scope."

While the committee does not object to the personal attendance of a representative of your government, it was thought less costly to ask for a written submission. Copies of proceedings have been sent you, please intimate when we may expect to receive your submission.

In the replies of all the provinces one may notice a similar point of view which can be summarized as follows: This matter should be approached by a conference of representatives of provinces and dominion. That is why my suggestion is that if a commission can be set up it should be with the concurrence of all the provincial governments.

I should like, however, to point out that special care should be taken to the effect that all the major political parties representing the people should collaborate with the provincial governments in each province in the appointing

Redistribution

of the provincial representatives to this conference. Special care .should also be taken to have on such a commission representatives of provincial minorities. I would also suggest that the deans of law faculties in the dominion be called to participate personally, or through representatives, in the work of this commission.

As regards the representation of the dominion government, I should think that some of our experts in constitutional law could be called upon to form part of the delegation. I should like to mention especially some of the outstanding experts like Professor Kennedy, Mr. P. C. Edwards, Doctor Beauchesne and Doctor Ollivier.

One may object to such a proposal on the ground that the personnel of this commission might be too numerous. After having given full consideration to this matter, I came to the conclusion that this objection would be counterweighed by the fact that such a commission would receive satisfactory appreciation by the people of the country. This would also be a way of expediting the business in organizing some sub-committees who could prepare the suggestions for the commission itself.

The last important point I should like to submit to the attention of this house is that the report of this commission should be adopted by each of all the provinces, as well as by the Canadian parliament. I sincerely believe that with the concurrence of all the interested parties there surely can be found a way of amending our constitution which would meet with the agreement of every province. .

Therefore, to summarize my contention, I should like to say, first, that the Canadian government must take, at the earliest opportunity, the initiative of setting up a commission to study the procedure of amending our constitution; second, that the provinces must be invited to collaborate in the setting up of this commission which could not be organized if any of the provinces objected to it; third, that the deans of law faculties throughout the dominion should be invited to collaborate in the work of this commission; fourth, that the report of this commission should be sent to the dominion government and to the governments of all the provinces at the same time and, fifth, that to come into force, this report should be adopted by the dominion parliament and by each one of the provincial legislatures.

In concluding, Mr. Speaker, I wish to state that in voting in favour of this resolution I sincerely hope it will be the last time we are called upon to discuss a resolution of this kind.

Mr. ROCH PINARD (Chambly-Rouville):

Mr. Speaker, at the outset of these remarks I wish to express the astonishment I experienced when I noted how some hon. members have decided to oppose the present resolution. I had thought-I trust my naivety will be excused-that this resolution would be adopted unanimously, that is to say without a single dissenting voice. As a matter of fact it appeared to me strange that any of the people's representatives in this chamber could oppose the principle laid down in the measure we are considering, a principle by virtue of which the very one who fights it has the right to speak in this house.

This principle constitutes the very basis of our system of government. When I heard certain of our opponents state their intention of voting against the resolution I could not keep from thinking of the injustice of their attitude. By their opposition to this measure they wish to deny to others the right they at present enjoy of speaking in the name of the population after having been chosen by a certain number of citizens who have the right to demand a representative who will be their spokesman in this parliament.

I know that several of those who have opposed the resolution have stated that they are not fighting its underlying principle or spirit, and I will go so far as to say that nobody in this house can take exception to the essential feature and purpose of this measure. But I firmly believe that all those who have taken upon themselves to join battle with us by raising objections on the score of delay or for the sake of appearances perform nevertheless the same job and seek the same result, which is to prevent each of the provinces making up this country of ours from having in the House of Commons the number of representatives to which its population entitles it.

There are several ways of combating legislation which one does not wa"nt to see adopted or approved. Exception can be taken to its spirit, or one can attack its substance and its form; one can bring forward amendments thereto, or again one can suggest postponements -or formalities before it is adopted. When legislation involves the enunciation of a principle which it would be dangerous to deny or to ignore, such as is the case here, they go about it more skilfully. Opponents insinuate that they unhesitatingly accept the principle laid down; they even go so far as to pretend that they are its only true champions. Then some parliamentary means or expedient of procedure is contrived to combat the measure and one often obtains the result sought after. In certain cases it is even

R edistribution

claimed that the principle at stake is not vigorously enough defended, but the result nevertheless is to prevent its application in a practical form.

Such really seems to be the attitude, of most of those who oppose in this house the adoption of the present measure for the redistribution of electoral ridings. All opponents declare themselves in favour of the principle but they devise means of preventing the adoption of the resolution.

The principal means our opponents resort to consists in stating that the Canadian parliament has no right to ask for an amendment of the constitution without having previously secured the consent of the provinces. In the present resolution the Canadian parliament asks the imperial parliament to amend the constitution by changing the terms of section 51 of the British North America Act, which relates to the representation in the House of Commons, and making therein the modifications set out in the resolution.

Utilizing this makeshift means with that much skill our opponents, among whom we even number, strange to say, the premier of Quebec, who thus is a party to their attitude, once again wave the flag of provincial autonomy and shout about the spoliation of provincial rights.

In the first place, I venture to declare that the attitude of the premier of Quebec is all the more singular since it is not supported by the few friends he has in this house. He knows the provisions of the resolution we are now considering; he knows that its purpose is to increase the number of the representatives of the province he directs; he knows that the measure would increase the number of federal members of the province of Quebec from sixty-five to seventy-three; he also knows, I presume, that this resolution is the one and only means of increasing Quebec's representation in Canada's parliament. He must conclude, as I do, that, failing this resolution, the figure of Quebec's deputation would remain unchanged.

Finally and especially he must know the injustice that, would ensue if, notwithstanding the increase in its population since the census of 1931, the province of Quebec retained the same number of members at Ottawa and consequently suffered1 a real injustice by comparison with the other provinces of this country.

It is all one to him; what seems to count with him is that he resorts to the cry to which we have become accustomed over a span of several years, namely, that he claims once again that Ottawa is attacking Quebec's

autonomy. He states in open letter to the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent) that the provinces must be consulted and yield their consent before the Canadian parliament seeks the proposed amendment from the imperial parliament.

In other words, the premier of Quebec exacts that Ontario, British Columbia and the other provinces should agree and give their assent before the Canadian parliament does justice to the province of Quebec. He wills and requires that the other provinces say yes before the parliament sitting at Ottawa is authorized to increase from sixty-five to seventy-three the number of federal members from the province of Quebec.

If that is the premier of Quebec's way of defending his province and the French minority it constitutes in Canada, if it is by surrendering its destinies to the decision of the other provinces that the premier of Quebec wants to protect his own province, I prefer the stand I shall adopt by defending with all my strength in this house the resolution now under consideration and the principle it sanctions.

I shall better defend the minority to which I belong; I shall better understand the spirit of the constitution and of the Canadian confederation; I shall better protect my compatriots, and I shall better do them justice by enabling them to secure the additional representatives it is their right and their duty to demand. Facing' my conscience and mindful of my oath of office, I shall thus better understand my duties toward my province and toward the other provinces.

As for the attitude of the other opponents of the resolution, of those who in this house combat it by also resorting to the same means, I believe such an attitude is unjust and illogical. When they ask that the provinces be consulted and their assent secured, I say to them that the House of Commons is master of its own destinies. I claim that the Canadian parliament alone must decide who shall represent the population of this country at Ottawa. I believe that it is not incumbent on Canada's parliament to consult the provinces in order to alter the electoral districts.

Finally, I declare that the parliament of Canada is no more required to have recourse to a consultation or to seek consent any more than the provincial legislatures have done so or are bound to do so when it is a question of altering their representation in the provincial assemblies. I acknowledge, however- and I want my attitude in this respect to be clearly understood-that the provincial parliaments are also sole masters of their destinies. I declare that the central parliament has no

Redistribution

right to do anything or enact any legislation that could interfere with their true autonomy. If ever the parliament of Canada manifested its intention of amending the Canadian constitution to the detriment of certain rights, privileges or prerogatives of the provinces, and if it decided to take such action without their explicit consent, I would be the first to rise against such an attitude.

I was not elected to this house to have a hand in sabotaging the constitution. I never want to become the opponent and the enemy of the rights of minorities and of the provinces. I shall never be a party to a measure the purpose of which is to take away from my province or from the other provinces their respective privileges and rights. On the other hand, when it shall rest in my power within this parliament and on the floor of this house to have a hand by my attitude, by my words, or by my vote in correcting an injustice done to a minority or to a province; when it shall be given to me to defend the weak and the oppressed in this Canadian democracy, I shall not shrink from my responsibilities and I shall record my vote in support of the measure that shall seek that end.

If, as in the present instance, it is once again my party that takes this initiative of righting a wrong or correcting an injustice; if it is my party that constitutes itself the defender of minority rights or of the true prerogatives of the provinces; if it is my group that takes upon itself to be the real champion of true autonomy I shall be proud and happy to belong to it. Such is, I believe, the stand which every Canadian should take in respect of the present measure, and here is a true means of defending Canadian democracy in this chamber.

When opponents of this proposed redistribution had occasion before to discuss the problem, they did not always take the same stand. That is why certain facts connected with the position taken by our opponents of the Progressive Conservative party should be pointed out. They clearly show how inconsistent are some of their present statements.

The present measure is not new. It has been discussed every time there has been a question of redistributing the electoral districts. After each census, the government of the day, in order to abide by the constitution, was required to introduce a redistribution bill, and on every occasion such a bill was the subject of discussion in the House of Commons. On the occasion of each of those discussions or debates when it was Canada's good fortune to have a government directed by the party to which I belong, that government always took the same stand. It always

strived to have redistribution carried out with all necessary dispatch and in the same spirit of justice and equity.

It really seems that on this occasion, too, it will fall to the Tory group which has so often changed its name and its leaders, but which has not often changed its policy, to be the first to combat a measure the principle of which is the very keystone of our political institutions and of our system of government. But it is m the attitude our opponents have adopted since the census of 1941 with reference to the very question we are now discussing that their inconsistency appears to us in full light.

In the course of the year 1943, especially, the Minister of Justice had to introduce in this house a resolution asking that the adjustment of the representation from the provinces be postponed and redistribution deferred until the war against our enemies, Germany, Italy and Japan, had been brought to a close. As in the present case, the resolution proposed a change in the provisions of the British North America Act. I think it will serve a useful purpose to refer thereto and to read that part of the resolution so that we may fully grasp the change' then sought in our constitution. This is the text of the preamble of the resolution introduced on July 5, 1943, which I shall now read:

Whereas provisions of the British North *America Act require that, on the completion of each decennial census, the representation of the provinces in the House of Commons shall be readjusted . . .

Then, further on, at the conclusion of the petition itself, I read this:

Notwithstanding anything in the British North America Acts ... it shall not be necessary that the representation of the provinces in the House of Commons be readjusted, in consequence of the completion of the decennial census taken in the year 1941, until the first session of the parliament of Canada commencing after the cessation of hostilities between Canada and the German Reich, the Kingdom of Italy and the Empire of Japan.

So, Mr. Speaker, I contend, by that resolution the provisions of our constitution were directly affected, as is the case in the present resolution. In fact the Minister of Justice was then seeking much more than he now seeks by the resolution under consideration. He asked for something more than an amendment of the British North America Act! He was asking the imperial parliament to allow the Canadian parliament not to carry out the terms of that constitution. He asked that parliament ignore the provisions of section 51 for a period of time which it was then impossible to determine. He asked that the application of our constitution to the then existing

Redistribution

situation be suspended and that one of its essential provisions be set aside at least for a time.

The question gave rise to a long debate, a debate in which several hon. members who are to-day opposing the resolution under consideration took part. What was the attitude of the official opposition? What was the attitude of our opponents then led by the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) ? All without exception voted in support of the measure and consequently went on record in favour of this essential modification of our constitution. Did none of them feel the scruples that seem to beset them to-day? Did none of those members of the opposition who to-day object to the resolution protest at that time because the provinces were not consulted? Did any of them raise the objection that the provinces had to consent to a suspension of the application of the terms of our constitution?

What was the attitude of the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) who to-day claims to be the champion of the rights of the provinces? What did the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) say, who to-day will claim to want to prevent the provinces from suffering an injustice? What were the views expressed by the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol), whom the autonomy of the provinces, especially that of Ontario, I suppose, seems to concern so deeply to-day? Silence. Not one word from them was heard during the debate in July, 1943.

What stand did the house leader of the opposition, the hon. member for Peel, take in the matter? Speaking for his party, he then went on record in support of the resolution and we did not hear him voice a single word of protest over the failure to consult the provinces or the provincial parliaments.

Was it because at that time the resolution asked that the constitution be altered but on that occasion so as to defer redistribution? Was it because, when that first resolution was introduced, certain aggrieved provinces were prevented from securing justice and others were allowed to avail themselves of a situation contrary to equity and to the very text of the constitution? Was it planned in 1943 to deny for a time to democracy its sovereign rights, only to refuse again in 1946 to acknowledge them? Was it planned at that moment to postpone redistribution because of a state of war, or was it simply because the sponsors of the resolution preferred to take delight in illegality and injustice? I believe there is cause to be astonished at the attitude of our opponents who to-day adopt a course

from which they refrained yesterday when the situation was the same but the goal sought was different.

Amidst these contradictory, attitudes, these dilatory tactics, these fiery speeches on the autonomy of the provinces, what becomes of the great principle on which the resolution now under consideration is founded? All seem to recognize the truth it holds; all want to see the provinces treated justly, but the attitude of several runs counter to their statements and to their so-called wishes.

I revert for a moment to the position taken by our opponents in 1943. Not only did none of them then declare that the provinces should be consulted as a preliminary step; not even one objected against the application of section 51 being postponed. On the contrary, all those who took part in the debate at the time declared themselves in favour of redistribution. This often happens elsewhere; one subscribes readily to a fundamental truth when one knows beforehand that it will not be put into practice. Redistribution and an equitable division of representation in each province were supported at the time with great emphasis. But this was no doubt owing to the fact that it was known at the time that the government could not put the measure into effect.

Here is what the hon. member for Peel stated on July 5, 1943, on behalf of the party which he then led in the house. I find his words at page 4343 of Hansard for that year:

We are anxious as a party that no provinces shall have any just grievance in respect to redistribution. Having that in mind, we base our support of this resolution upon the one ground that this is a war-time period when abnormal conditions exist. Because of the war and because of these conditions we feel that it is part of our duty to the nation at large to support the present resolution.

The hon. member-and I underline 'his words-stated that the one ground on which he agreed to delay redistribution was the existence of a state of war. He then agreed to delay redistribution, notwithstanding the constitution and notwithstanding the assent of the provinces. He did not want the provinces to suffer any injustice in j;his respect, he said, and the existence of a state of war was the one ground why he agreed to defer redistribution. To-day, if he finds himself called upon to express his views in line with his statement, he will reaffirm his attitude but this time he will find a way of putting off that which he claims to be his wish.

For my part, I understand differently the importance of the principle the government asks us to sanction by the present resolution. This principle, as I have already said, is basic to our parliamentary system. That parlia-

Redistribution

mentary system was not given to us on a silver platter, with no effort on our part. We had to labour and strive to establish it in this country. To vouchsafe this system to us, our forebears fought with the pen, by word of mouth and even with the sword. They waged notable battles to enable the Canadian people to possess this system and enjoy it. It was in order to guarantee to us the privileges and rights of self-government that men of courage in bygone days did not quail before exile and even death itself. Is it not by reason of that fact that the names of Mackenzie and Papineau and, yes, of other pioneering spirits in the cause of responsible, representative government are inscribed in golden letters in the history of this country and that they will forever remain engraven in the minds of those who love Canada?

At six o'clock the house took recess.

After Recess

The house resumed at eight o'clock.

Mr. PINARD:

Before the house rose at six o'clock I was expressing the opinion that a vote against this resolution is in reality a vote against our system of government. It was in defence of our system of government that we had to wage war against those who claimed to derive their power and authority from themselves and not from the people. The allied nations undoubtedly jointed battle with the totalitarian powers for preservation of that very idea. Hence, it is not without cause, I am sure, that we declare to-day that those who died have shed their blood for the defence of democracy and sovereign rights. Again at this very hour, when anxiety grips the minds of peoples throughout the world, at a time when powerful forces seem intent on jeopardizing a peace we have just won, we must realize more deeply than ever the necessity of guarding, protecting and defending those concepts of life we wish to continue to love and respect. It is in that spirit that I shall support the present measure and also because I want to remain a true democrat. I shall vote in favour of the resolution to enable the Canadian people to be heard by all parts of the country equally and with justice within the precincts of this parliament.

I shall lend my support to the Minister of Justice who once again has understood his task and his duties admirably and who wishes to exemplify equity and justice.

Before concluding, I should like to say a few words with reference to the obligation resting upon us to have recourse to the imperial

parliament in order to secure the remedy proposed by the terms of the resolution before us. Every time the occasion arose we proudly proclaimed our complete independence within the commonwealth of British nations. We wish to believe, and we have a right to insist, since our country is now of adult age, that the statute of Westminster be not a dead letter and was not adopted in vain. The most serious obstacle to the proclamation and the recognition of our sovereignty and of our complete autonomy lies in the fact that we do not yet possess our own constitution. Our constitution is embodied in an imperial statute; it does not even constitute a Canadian statute. That is why we must on every occasion undertake, perforce, that pilgrimage to London to ask others to decide upon our own destinies. So long as this anomaly has not disappeared from our national life, we shall not have the right to claim that Canada is a sovereign country.

In 1935, when a committee of this house inquired into the British North America Act, it was suggested that we should at long last give ourselves a constitution that was essentially our own, a truly Canadian constitution. One of those who sponsored this suggestion is none other than Mr. Maurice Ollivier, one of the brilliant legal officers of the House of Commons. In that respect I entirely agree with what was said this afternoon by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker).

In Mr. Ollivier's often quoted volume, "Problems of Canadian Sovereignty", we find the following at page 394:

I suggested, too, that the committee should recommend the establishment of a commission charged with redrafting a new constitution based on the British North America Act. The first step -would be to consider the sections in the act which were temporary and now spent, which therefore should be left out.

The new Constitution Act would then be divided into seven parts, as follows:-

1. Preamble and preliminary;

2. Those provisions which affect the federal power alone and where the consent of the provinces would not be required for the purpose of amendment;

3. Provisions affecting the internal constitution of the provinces and which could be amended by the provinces without the consent of the federal parliament;

4. Ordinary sections requiring for purposes of amendment the consent of a majority of the provinces;

5. Certain sections which would require the consent of all the provinces before they could be amended;

6. A section providing that in case amendments relate to only one or to a restricted number of provinces the consent of that province or those provinces alone would be sufficient;

7. A section providing, in the manner before described, for a mode of amendment to the constitution. After a new constitution has been devised and agreed upon, it should then be

Redistribution

adopted as a Canadian act, that is, as a dominion statute, and we should then obtain from the imperial parliament their consent to repealing the British North America Act.

I believe, that such a suggestion was essentially progressive, and I would have supported it unhesitatingly. Our country now has the right to proclaim to the world its complete sovereignty. It owes to itself, by reason of the reputation it has acquired, alike at home and in international councils, to have that document which characterizes most the sovereignty and the independence of a nation, its own constitution. We have witnessed what is occurring at the present time in European countries that bore the yoke of foreign occupation during the war that has just ended. Their first impulse and their first action on recovering freedom were to bestow upon themselves a new constitution to reaffirm to the world their sovereignty and their greats ness. Let us do likewise; for it is also our right and our duty to proclaim our faith in the future and in the greatness of our destinies. We have just enacted the bill that makes us Canadian citizens. I hope that we - shall soon be given a really distinctive Canadian flag.

Let us ever march forward. Let us sanction our rights, our privileges and our national entity by giving ourselves this time a really Canadian constitution.

Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview):

I wish to register my protest against the cause and effect brought about by this resolution. We of this country have had a fixed policy on representation in the House of Commons brought about, first, by written law and, second, by unwritten, law the unwritten law being, one, agreements, conventions, usages, customs, made by the two original provinces which came together on the Act of Union of 1841, and the other two, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, which joined at confederation.

There were certain definite principles laid down on representation in the written law, in the constitution and in the unwritten law consisting of customs, subventions, agreements and all these things that go to make up the written law at the time the common law was adopted in this country by the constitution.

I have great respect and admiration for the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent), and I am surprised that he has brought forward this resolution. Who is asking for it? What mandate has the government of the day to bring in a resolution such as this, upsetting all the electoral law we have had since confederation?

I have always been in favour of the principle of confederation, "Each for all and all for each", the old Cornish battle-cry, which I believe is good enough for all the provinces and was so written by the founders of the act of confederation. They were not all of one party fortunately in 1867.

The proposed resolution grows out of what? It grows out of a private member's resolution which was presented in this house last year, and which was not adopted. It never had a chance to be adopted. The government put up certain speakers and the motion was talked out at eleven o'clock. Fortunately it did not come up again.

The people of this country have been very much alarmed at what has been going on in this house ever since the session began. Like so many other matters, this resolution will cause widespread disunity in Canada.

The visit of Their Majesties to this country in 1939, when they were accorded such a tremendous reception by people all over the country, and nowhere more so than in the province of Quebec, showed the tremendous popularity of the monarchy. It also showed the decay of parliament and the decline of the House of Commons. That is a fact. We are talking about representation in the House of Commons, but what does it amount to? It does not amount to very much in the government of Canada. We have handed1 over our rights, franchises, privileges and customs to a whole crowd of people in various central boards, so much so that at the present time we need a. John Hampden in this country. When King Charles walked into the House of Commons and said he was looking for certain birds, only to find that the birds had flown, the Speaker told him, "I have neither eyes to see nor ears to hear but as the house gives me utterance."

We have heard some strange doctrines preached in this house since parliament convened after the last election. I call your attention, Mr. Speaker, to a remarkable fact in connection with this motion. In 1927 I proposed in this house a resolution concerning parliamentary, constitutional, cabinet and law reforms, and those were the main questions in this country from that year on. The Liberal party calls itself the reform, party. Well, all the reforms for the benefit of the people that have been brought down this session do not amount to the snap of the fingers as far as they go to help the working classes get any relief. What representation have we had in the last number of years? Shortly after my resolution came up in 1927 and before it after

Redistribution

came in an effort to get something for the soldiers, andi to secure federal assistance for the cheap light and power movement.

With regard to this particular form of representation, while one province may be treated in one way, and another province treated in another way, the people will not stand1 for it. This whole doctrine in this resolution is a mistake. Despite all that has been said in this chamber since the opening of the session, not one word has been said with respect to the taking of the census. The government had no policy back in 1M3 regarding census and redistribution.

What did they do? They went overseas and begged the mother of parliaments to be good and kind enough to pass an amendment to the British North America Act, and all that kind of thing, to postpone redistribution until after the war. The minister has referred to section 51 and a case which came before the courts involving Prince Edward Island, which had overrepresentation.

We were promised at the time of the last two elections that there would be senate reform, and we notice in the minister's speech, when introducing the resolution, a further reference to senate reform, and the number from each province. It is, I admit, badly needed. They are here to-day and gone to-morrow, and are always criticizing this chamber. I am referring to the people in another place, to whom the minister has referred. I have to refer to it as "another place"-because it is another place, and has been all the time. However, I am not criticizing them. Indeed, on ten or twelve occasions in this chamber during the war I urged that more work be sent to that other place because there are a large number of men there of great ability, and the Prime Minister promised consideration for my suggestion.

I will admit they do a good deal of work in connection with divorce bills. I am a believer in the second chamber; I want it to be given real work, but I want a real, up-to-date second chamber, one which will do some work, and not always be criticizing this house. The Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada is the keeper of the king's conscience. I know the minister has some conscience, and as a leader at the bar he has given special pleading for this bill, as have others who have spoken.

I have listened to two addresses to-day, two essays which were read, both of which pleaded somewhat the legal situation. The public in this country want real parliamentary reform. First of all, we must rid ourselves of these controls, restore the rights and privileges of

parliament, and have some system of electing members other than we have at the present time.

Let us for a moment look at the election returns since confederation. Have we representation by population? We shall see that some of the ridings were formerly rural, but now they are completely suburban. One can get into a bus or motor car, and within an hour's time or less be at points within a radius of fifty miles of the city. With good roads, electric buses, to which the city of Toronto has contributed greatly, and with the sewers and other public utilities, in light, power and radials, which that great city has given to the working centres, many of the outlying areas have come' closer to the city. Guelph, Hamilton, Barrie, Owen Sound and London are in a similar position. They are not in rural ridings as in the olden sense.

The whole situation has been changed, because nature is changing all the time. This is not a static world. Times change; conditions change; labour conditions throughout the world are changing. "Change and decay in all around I see"-in the house and out of it. Labour is cheap in some places and dear in others. Some new invention may come along and change the whole situation. That has been the case with the last two or three censuses. Great economic changes have come about in that time.

They presented a petition to His Majesty and to the parliament of Great Britain. The government said that it is not the government that controls redistribution, but you find out about that around election time. You soon find out that it is the government of the day that controls the authorities. As I said yesterday, the government are continually trying to keep themselves in office under the present antiquated, dilapidated and outworn representation system which was set up years ago. The best Conservatives that I know of are to be found on the government benches; you will find there some of the best Tories that were ever known. I know a great many of them and I have a great regard for them. I do not take my duties too seriously and I do not like to say anything to hurt a man's feelings.

Where are we going? After all, the mother country saved our shores from the awful horrors of war. But for her the enemy would have come over here and taken the best of our men to work in the mines of Czechoslovakia and other places. After all that was said in this house about the mother country and Great Britain, where are we going now? I was very glad to see the Attorney General of Canada receive the honour he did. He

Redistribution

works very hard and he is a gentleman of considerable courtesy and ability. He may have seen somebody with regard to this legislation when he was over in Great Britain;

I do not know. Let me tell him, however, that Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick will have something to say about this proposed resolution, and it cannot be passed by the parliament of Great Britain without their consent.

After all is said and done, the British North America Act as it has been used in connection with this parliamentary reform resolution is full of inconsistencies, contradictions, duplication, provisos, exceptions and qualifications. Every means have been taken to secure federal authority. Federal power in Canada is at its lowest ebb since confederation. Federal power is being administered from the provincial capitals, 'not from Ottawa. That is what they tried to do in 1927 and at that time they were in power in nearly all the provincial capitals. We want a British North America Act for the living, not for the dead. There were no so-called experts in those days. The drafters were only ordinary lawyers.

I wonder who drafted this resolution and the proposed bill? I remember a parliament, called the unlearned parliament in history, that met at Coventry in 1344 to discuss parliamentary reform. They decided that there should.be no lawyers or sheriffs in it; they did not want any lawyers there, and the sheriffs were too busy executing their people. It was said in 1344 the lawyers were not wanted because they were too busy with the idea of getting some customers or clients. However, no doubt they do it for nothing. The Minister of Justice and the law society of to-day know more about that than I do, or than they did in 1344. I have never been before the law society, although I have been a member of the bar for a good many years.

The people in the constituencies back home will not be satisfied with the view that has been given. The Minister of Justice mentioned the senate several times. Representation there was changed so that one province had four senators, another province had a few more and so on. The representation was arranged in geometrical and arithmetical progression. Each province has so many more than the others. When they get over to England, what is the government going to do? I think the mother country has enough to do to look after conditions over there without being bothered by us.

First, let us do something primary. Let us regain our real representation; let us recover the rights, privileges and functions which we . 63260-142

used to have in olden days. Let us go farther and see to it that there is equality of treatment and that we have a real system of representation. The last census caught Ontario napping. Thousands of its citizens were out of the province. There were two regiments in Bermuda and Jamaica. I have looked over the census list and have found a great many mistakes. This resolution should be held over for at least a year.

I believe the system is all wrong. It is not electoral reform. If the government want a reaF electoral reform, let them bring it down instead of bringing down electoral reform for some constituencies and not for others. We should have real representation by population in parliament. Let us put a fair construction on section 51, not the construction put on it in the Prince Edward Island case by the law courts. After all, this is the high court of parliament. The courts of this country are subservient to the legislature. That is one of the cardinal principles of our constitution. If we do not like what the courts do, we can change it. The court that gives substantial justice is the privy council. I believe a litigant can get justice over there. Had it not been for the decisions of that great body, we would not have had the great publicly owned power system in Ontario, nor would there be so many privileges enjoyed by urban workers and farmers and the public generally throughout the province.

I want to see the province of Quebec have justice. It is a great province. It stood by the mother country in other days. As Sir Eugene Tache said, "In defence of Canada the last shot will be fired by a French Canadian." I do not believe it was the view of the fathers of confederation that we should have a makeshift system that would be under the control of the government of the day which has only a slim majority. It has to advocate a great socialist programme in order to keep itself in office.

I urge that this whole matter be shelved for another year. We should not bother the mother country at the present time about our domestic affairs because she is so busy with many local problems. I did not wish to take part in this debate but I believed it was my duty as a representative of the people to do so. Ontario has not sufficient representation in the cabinet and yet she pays 29 per cent of the taxes. That is not real representation by population, at all. There is no such thing as a pure Grit on the government benches. I admire a pure Grit. I remember the other day seeing the grave of Robert Baldwin in the cemetery. He was a clear Grit and for representation by population.

Redistribution

When Baldwin was beaten in York, the great grandfather of the member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) gave up his seat in Rimouski to Robert Baldwin, who sat for it instead. I am sorry that the present member for Temiscouata does not speak for real electoral reform. This is not a system of reform; it is a scheme. Perhaps I should not even call it a scheme; it is a resolution. They are going over to beg at the foot of the throne for some further legislation to save the government. After all they said about the authorities over there, they are going back again. This is not the first time; this is not the second time; this is the third time we have sought British North America Act amendments-three strikes and they are going to be out, as it was in the ball game they played out here last night. They have had three trips over there for British North America Act amendments to beg at the foot of the throne for some other system of reform. No doubt this will please some of the newspapers. You do not read much about it in some of them because no doubt they have been putting the soft pedal on this debate and favour this resolution.

The people in the county of York and other counties of Ontario are going to object to this resolution. The province of Ontario is willing and ready to do its duty to confederation, and it wants no favours that other provinces do not get. It wants the system of confederation continued as the fathers of confederation framed it-all for each and each for all-and a fair and just representation.

Mr. SOLON E. LOW (Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I think I should place on record the stand of: the Social Credit group with regard to the re&blution that is now before the house. I would have spoken this afternoon but I yielded my place to the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay (Mr. Dorion), who wished to make his contribution before six o'clock, at which time I understand he had to leave the city.

I have given earnest consideration to the resolution and, generally speaking, I find its provisions are not at all unfair or unjust. I have debated in my own mind, of course, the wisdom of using the 1941 census as the basis for redistribution because of the dislocated population which Canada had in that year, but after careful consideration of all the facts I am convinced that we cannot use that as a successful argument for not proceeding with the redistribution. It would be better in my judgment, if it were possible, for us to withhold action until after the 1951 census, but I recognize that the constitution provides

TMr. Chureh.]

for redistribution after each decennial census. Hence we cannot, perhaps I should say we should not, attempt to hold another election without complying with the terms of the British North America Act.

My studies have convinced me that the proposed change in the British North America Act envisaged in this resolution will remove a number of the anomalies that have existed for some years in Canada with respect to our electoral distribution. I have never favoured any province having any more members in the House of Commons than its just and proportionate share. Everyone knows, of course, that under section 51 as it has stood for some years some of the provinces have had more than their just and proportionate share. But I must criticize the arrangements set out in the resolution on the ground that they are not consistent..

It seems to me that when we set out in any action of this house to remove injustice and anomalies from our present way of allocating members to the provinces of Canada, we should do a complete job of it and not leave any province with more members than her population would entitle her to. By the proposed changes provided for in this resolution to section 51 of the British North America Act we do not do a complete job.

It is pleaded, of course, that we must not reduce the House of Commons representation for any province below the number of senators-that the province enjoys at the present time. My answer to that is this. Let us then reduce the number of senators to the rightful level while we are at it. Or perhaps, on the other hand, representation by population should not be the only factor in the formula that is applied to determine representation in this house. If not, then I say, let us weigh the whole matter most carefully and it may be possible to find some other factors to be used along with representation by population in a formula, the application of which will yield fair and just results in every province. But as long as exceptions to the general rule exist we shall continue to have a source of discontent and disunity within this Canada of ours.

I am anxious to find a way to give the other provinces a more even voice in the affairs of this country with the central provinces of Ontario and Quebec. There has always been under the British North America Act as it now stands, a preponderance of voice on the part of these two central provinces, and a great many injustices have continued for many years chiefly because of that uneven distribution of voice. If it is at all possible to find a way of evening things up, then I certainly would like to find it.

Redistribution

The debate thus far, to which I have listened with great care, has revealed the fact that the Liberal party and its spokesmen through the years have been anything but consistent in matters affecting amendments of the British North America Act. They have shifted their ground to suit special occasions as 'they arose. That is quite evident from the information given by a number of speakers this afternoon. However, it seems to me that the constitutional issue has arisen as the battleground in this debate and therefore I should like to state just where I stand with respect to that issue.

Social Crediters have always been known as decentralizers. They have always been consistent in arguing for, speaking for and pleading for decentralization, and they have had good reasons for that. It has not been for lack of vision-not at all; in fact it has been the contrary. However changeable has been their past, it now appears that the' C.C.F. and the Liberals are centralizers, and in saying that I do not believe I am saying anything they would disagree with.

Not only that, but Social Crediters have always been consistent in their stand with regard to the British North America Act. We have fought to prevent hasty and radical changes to that act. We have fought constantly to preserve every safeguard that we had against hasty and radical changes to our constitution. We have not fought change, for we know that there is no more inexorable law than the law of change and the need for change and progress. I remind you, Mr. Speaker, that when the Rowell-Sirois commission was planned, the Alberta government, the only Social Credit government in the world, headed by the late Premier Aberhart, requested the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mackenzie King) to set up for that commission an agenda which would include more than just financial references. He went so far as to suggest that there be added to the agenda for full discussion amongst the provinces and the dominion the matter of amendments of the British North America Act and that a procedure be arrived at by which those amendments would safely be made. But that was refused. The Prime Minister insisted upon the reference of the commission being purely a financial reference. Later, Premier Manning of Alberta wrote to the Prime Minister suggesting that the agenda for the coming dominion-provincial conference provide for a discussion of amendments of the British North America Act. He felt that any proposals for changes in the act should be brought before the provinces while they were in conference.

Social Crediters have always held the view that confederation was a matter which arose, or was supposed to have arisen, out of the 63260-142i

action of the provinces and that whatever powers were given to the central government were conferred upon it by the provinces. Therefore we have contended that there should be no material alteration in the British North America Act without consultation with the provinces.

I have always considered it to be the greatest responsibility of the members of the House of Commons to confirm every Canadian in his own rights. This can best be accomplished by decentralization. Centralization of power will in time destroy any possibility of so confirming every man in his rights, whether it be in Quebec, Alberta, British Columbia or any other province. There has been for some years a strong movement for centralization of power in this country and, I might say, also elsewhere throughout the world. In fact, some elements have spread throughout the land the doctrine of the inevitability of centralization. Social Crediters have done their best to combat that doctrine, which we contend is inimical to the interests of the individual citizens of Canada. The best guarantee we have against complete centralization of power in Canada is the constitution, the British North America Act. The best guarantee that the rights of minorities will always be respected is the spirit of that same constitution. The best assurance that the constitution will remain a safeguard of the rights of minorities would be to lay down, once and for all, a procedure for amending the constitution, a procedure which breathes the very spirit in which the constitution was originally framed. The foundation of that procedure, ought, in my judgment, to be consultation with the provinces.

Mr. BRIDGES:

May I ask the hon. member a question? What is the next procedU'i* if the provinces dio not agree?

Mr. LOW:

I do not see how we couitf possibly argue that measures brought before this house should be passed by a majority vote unless we were also prepared to arrange that at such times as consultation on the part of the provinces is sought, the same should be had.

Mr. BRIDGES:

May I ask the hon. member one more question? I promise that I will not ask another. Is it his view that no amendment of any kind of any section of the British North America Act should be made without the unanimous consent of the provinces?

Mr. LOW:

I have not said anything of the sort. I did say before that no material amendments of the British North America Act should be sought without consultation with the

Redistribution

provinces. I said nothing about unanimous consent. The provinces in consultation would agree upon whatever procedure they thought best.

Mr. MICHAUD:

Who is to determine what is material?

Apparently you are.

Mr. LOW:

That is the responsibility of the members of this house, and that is what, I take it, we are now doing. I submit that it -would be a simple matter to refer to subject of the present resolution to the provinces before the next election is held; that is, of course, unless the government has some secret plans to hold an election earlier than some of us think. We all hope that the dominion-provincial conference will reconvene at an early date; -certainly it should reconvene before another election takes place. The whole matter of the procedure for -making any change in the British North America Act should then be referred to the provinces an-d the dominion in their conference for their agreement, rather than that their agenda should be confined to financial references only.

I must emphasize that I do not wish to delay redistribution. Neither I nor the members of my group in this house have any such intention. I think this parliament will have to deal with it; I am speaking now of the twentieth parliament. But I am opposed to any frenzied haste in doing the job, -haste such as we saw here in connection with the Dominion day resolution and the Bretton Woods arrangements, amongst others. There is time, I submit, to refer this whol-e matter to the provinces in session with the dominion before any election needs to be held. Let me suggest also, in fact let me emphasize that we cannot hope to bring about unity in Canada by allowing the federal government to go over the heads of the provinces and to do that consistently and constantly. No one can argue successfully that there is not need for unifying influences in the country, influences which will improve the relationships amongst the provinces so as to achieve something like unity of our people.

Before I close, let me say one word through you, Mr. Speaker, to my friends from the province of Quebec. Your province, it is true, stands to gain most as a result of the bill which will be brought in as the result of this resolution. That being the case, it seems to me that you are in the best position to give a real object lesson to the Dominion of Canada. You are in a position, by supporting a request to have this whole matter referred to the dominion-provincial confer-

ence for consultation, to assist in bringing about real unity in this dominion, rather than hasten into something about which some of you may later -have time to feel somewhat badly. There will come a time, I am sure, when, if we now lay down one more good argument for parliament to use in future, an argument based upon precedent, you will be faced with' something which may cause you to rue the* day when you passed this resolution without giving due thought to consultation with the provinces. Members from the province of Quebec have an opportunity now to strike a blow for unity and good feeling amongst the people of this country.

May I just add that I am not supporting the Conservative party in supporting their amendment, or, indeed, any party; I am trying to be consistent with the beliefs which I have always held and with the principles for which social credit stands. I find myself under the necessity of supporting the amendment which was proposed by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker), solely because it coincides with my belief, but in doing so I vrould make it abundantly clear that should we be unable to convince hon. members from the province of Quebec that it is their duty not to rush into this thing with undue haste, and therefore the amendment be defeated, I shall have to give support to the resolution of the Minister of Justice (Mr. S't. Laurent).

Mr. LIGUORI LACOMBE (Laval-Two

Mountains) (Translation): Mr. Speaker, the proposal nowr submitted to parliament for approval evinces consummate skill. Its sponsor has forestalled any possible opposition to the measure. He has assuaged the feelings of the people from all parts of this country. This proposal provides for an increase from 245 to 255 in the number of representatives in the House of Commons. For that purpose, he requests that section 51 of the British North America Act. 1867, be repealed and that the following be substituted therefor:

1. Section fifty-one of the British North America Act, 1867, is hereby repealed and the following substituted therefor:

51. (1) The number of members of the House of Commons shall be two hundred and fifty-five and the representation of the provinces therein shall forthwith upon the coming into force of this section and thereafter on the completion of each decennial census 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. Subject as hereinafter provided, there shall be assigned to each of the provinces a number of members computed by dividing the total population of the provinces by two hundred and fifty-four and by dividing the population of each

Redistribution

province by the quotient so obtained, disregarding, except as hereinafter in this section provided, the remainder, if any, after the said process of division.

I would be the last one in this house to oppose the carrying out of an act of justice toward each of the Canadian provinces. The latter are entitled to their respective representation in this parliament. This redistribution should have come long ago. If there is a province which has not been treated with fairness, as far as its representation is concerned, it is certainly the province of Quebec. Under this measure, Quebec would have eight more members. This should not be considered as a concession. It means the recognition of a right. Each province has the duty to assert the rights that have been guaranteed to her by the constitution. The dominion government, in turn, has the duty to respect the jurisdiction and the rights of the provinces. Since 1867, the constitution has often been infringed upon for the benefit of the central authority. To-day, we are asked to change a contract without the contracting parties having been consulted. It would have been easy to grant each of the Canadian provinces her full influence in the dominion parliament without any change in the constitution. My view in this respect is confirmed by the third paragraph in the preamble of the resolution which we are now considering.

It reads:

And whereas the said act provides for the readjustment of representation on the completion of each decennial census, and that 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;

I was right in saying, at the beginning of my remarks, that the government have shown consummate skill in drafting the present resolution. They manoeuvred in such a way as to quench the least opposition on the part of provinces losing members in parliament. They lessened the reduction in the representation of two provinces to a minimum and at the same time abated any opposition to their scheme. They could have achieved the same ends by sticking to the letter of the constitution. But Ontario would lose eight members and the other provinces a total of ten, while Quebec's representation would not change. The total number of federal members would fall from 245 to 227.

But the population of Canada has increased greatly since Confederation and I think it

would be unreasonable and unfair to work on this basis of representation. I am in favour of the bill, provided that provincial rights, are protected. Their constitutional prerogatives must be fully respected. But I refuse-to believe that we. shall never see the day. when the dominion government will give back to the provinces their respective rights, guaranteed by the British North America Act. The time has come when provincial jurisdiction over taxes, education, -civil rights and legislation must be respected. The time has come also to restore parliament to its supremacy, encroached upon by all kinds of boards not answerable to the people. It is no use increasing the membership of this -house if our mandate is taken over by a bureaucracy which has substituted itself to the representatives of the people.

The plan before parliament reminds us of a very humiliating condition. We have never ceased to be a colony. As a matter of fact, the London parliament will decide whether or not we shall amend our constitution. I submit that it is a shame, in view of Canada's heiavy share of sacrifice and all the help we are still contributing to the United Kingdom. But who governs here? Is it London or is it Ottawa? What a shame for a country that has shed its best blood and shaken its economic structure for the sake of United Nations victory to apply to the British parliament because we lack the power to amend our own constitution ! How disgraceful and humiliating for a nation!

But I know of some who will gloat at the thought of our begging on bended knees from the British house of commons the right to amend the British North America Act. They are the selfsame people who, for five weeks, opposed Canadian citizenship; who, in another place, opposed Canada Day, and who tomorrow will fight to the last ditch against the adoption of a Canadian flag.

Why does not the government put an end, once and for all, to this antiquated colonialism, so that Canada may never again suffer such humiliation? Why not ask the provinces, rather than the British house, their consent on the right and opportunity to amend the constitution? Paltry interests and ulterior motives rear their head's in this matter of national concern. Infringements of the constitution have become innumerable. And those infringements have been committed without the consent of the provinces. Breaches of contract invariably stem from an essentially evil prin-

Redistribution

ciple. The government should not have to apply to London. London was not a party to the confederation. The contracting parties are the provinces which signed the British North America Act. Why were they not approached beforehand? Why are they not consulted? There are people who never stop advocating good understanding and national unity; but when the time comes to act they always act in the sense of misunderstanding and disunity. I ask the government what are you seeking in London? A concession? The exercise of a right? As for the Right Honourable Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), where is he now ? His ministers are doubtless anxiously awaiting his return, I had hoped, with so many others, that, his long stay in London, would have spared us this humiliating request to the British house, and that he would bring back with him the original draft of our constitution, which is kept over there.

We shall not be our true selves until we abolish appeals to the Privy Council, until we *can amend our constitution without currying favour from anyone and until we can hoist a truly distinctive flag. But since it is so difficult in Canada to exercise the right of selfgovernment, I feel it my duty to support the government on this measure, provided it manages our affairs without the interference of foreign countries. As all human laws, this one is imperfect. However, I wish to avoid that at some future time, it may be said that I did anything to decrease the influence of my province in this house. Time will improve this project. I endorse it as far as it is fair and beneficial for Quebec and all other provinces of the confederation. I also endorse it because if minorities were to forsake their rights, they would lose them irretrievably. In 1943, I opposed the delay in redistribution for the sake of the very principles on which our constitution is based. I foresaw a grave injustice to my province. I felt that our rights were infringed upon by such a delay. True, at that time, as at present, an amendment to the confederation act was contemplated. Ever since, we have suffered a real handicap because we did not have in this parliament, the full representation to which we were entitled. We are not overly surprised by the fact that, in this house, a group of politicians, ever the same, lead the fight against the claims of minorities. For over twenty years, I have been here a witness to this pitiable exhibition. However, this very same group of politicians claim to be the champions of right. I know them for having seen them at work. Champions of right they are not; rather pillars of the

empire. I shall carefully avoid the path that leads directly to the forsaking of our rights to the advantage of those very men who never miss a chance of reproving, by gesture and word alike, any measure leading to a slightly fairer treatment of minorities or to a loosening of our colonial bonds. Although consultation with the provinces, on this matter, would have been preferable, I shall support the motion in the interest of the province of Quebec, whose influence should increase in every part of Canada and more particularly in the House of Commons. I want justice for all, with true respect for provincial autonomy and representation. All should be treated alike. The number of members elected to parliament should be according to the population of the country, I also want all Canadians to possess those qualities of fair-mindedness and patriotism without which we can never be a great nation.

The hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) made a masterly speech. But although he opened to our view some splendid vistas, he kept in the dark others even more imposing. He recalled for our benefit the solemn statements of men who made Canada famous both nationally and internationally; but even though they were builders in many spheres of our political and social life, they failed to achieve that which has eluded us since confederation, that is, to make Canada free and independent with' regard to both her foreign and domestic policies and create a Canadian mentality capable of withstanding the assaults of colonialism and imperialism. During my lengthy career, I have fought on so many constitutional issues that, looking back into the past, considering the present and peering into the future, I wonder whether we shall ever be able to proclaim ourselves a nation. How difficult it is to call ourselves Canadians in this country! Shall we always follow in the wake of the empire? A few days ago I heard in this house invidious words during the debate on Canadian citizenship. A few moments ago I heard similar utterances in connection with our constitution. When shall we be able to hold up our heads and assert ourselves? When shall we be in a. position to amend our own constitution without requesting any permission from London? Everywhere our actions stamp us as an immature nation. We are a country Vithout a flag and I would even say without ' a constitution, since our constitution does not belong to us. It cannot be called ours. We have no right to use it as we see fit. London has the first say in regard to Canada's constitution. The British House of Commons may say to Canada: "Hands off this docu-

Redistribution

ment. You have no right to amend, modify or change it. We are the masters." Do you realize how dependent we are? This unspeakable situation must be remedied without delay. Let us free our Canadian constitution from all parasitic influences. Let us abolish appeals to the British Privy Council. Let us hoist a Canadian flag. Then and then only shall we rightfully claim that Canada is a nation.

Mr. JOHN R. MacNICOL (Davenport) (Text): First, Mr. Speaker, I want to pay tribute to the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) who this afternoon demonstrated that he is a big man. He could have easily taken the view that was taken by the hon. member for Chambly-Rouville (Mr. Pinard), who made me think of a small boy looking in the window of a candy store; if he could only get at the bullseyes and chocolates in there he would be thoroughly satisfied. The hon. member sees, as he imagines, eight more seats for the province of Quebec if redistribution goes through on the basis of the present resolution. But the hon. member for Lake Centre gave a studied, reasoned argument as to why the resolution should not be adopted. It would have been more to his advantage to have the resolution pass in its present form than to the advantage of the hon. member for Chambly-Rouville, because Saskatchewan is due to lose four seats if redistribution is carried out as proposed. I like a man who will stand up and argue a point of view. He realized that this form of redistribution would make it much easier for him, but he was fighting for a principle. So that I say the hon. member for Lake Centre is a big man. As I see it, the house has before it only two choices: (a) to pass the resolution and (b) to accept the amendment, and to consult the provinces as the government should do. If I can judge from what I read in the press I should think some of the provinces, particularly the province of Quebec, will not likely give much support to the resolution. I should expect that, if the premier of Quebec expresses the attitude of those he represents.

Then we would come back to the other position. I would presume we would have to pass through the house quickly a measure asking the British government to postpone redistribution until after the census in 1951. I am going to do my best this evening to set forth an argument as to why the resolution should-not be passed, and why there should be no redistribution until after 1951, a matter of only five years more.

I said that the British North America Act could easily be amended to permit postponement of redistribution until after the next

census. What is behind this resolution? Why is the government not proceeding with redistribution in the regular way? This is the first time in seventy-nine years any government in Canada has attempted to violate the British North America Act, as this government proposes to do at this time. What is the reason for changing the basis upon which seats are now established?

That basis is set forth in section 51 of the British North America Act, a section which is the foundation and copestone of the whole British North America Act. If that can be violated, then, later on, a majority can violate any section in that act.

I say it is unfair to have a redistribution on the basis of the present census. I see the minister-

Of fisheries.

Mr. MacNICOL:

No; I was not looking at the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Bridges). He has not been here long enough to know much about these matters. Rather, I was looking at the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Abbott) who was smiling.

Mr. ABBOTT:

Oh, I always smile when my hon. friend speaks, because I enjoy his speeches so much.

Mr. MacNICOL:

Thank you very much.

Mr. BRIDGES:

I think we all do.

Mr. MacNICOL:

I shall try to show that redistribution should not proceed on the basis of the 1941 census. In 1941 this country had been two years at war. We had fought during the remainder of 1939 and throughout the whole of 1940. When the census was taken in the middle of the summer we had been two years at war.

I shall try to show that redistribution should not proceed on the basis of the 1941 census. In 1941 this country had been two years at war. We had fought during the remainder of 1939 and throughout the whole of 1940. When the census was taken in the middle of the summer we had been two years at war.

Referring specially to the publication "Canada at War", for 1945, I shall place on record the number of enlisted men in 1941 in the armed~forces. First, I shall take the total number for 1945, shown here as 992,103, of whom Ontario contributed 390,007, or 40 per cent. Then I go back to the number who were in the armed services in 1941 and, in the same issue I find that the number of enlistments stood at 364,000. Ontario's portion of that, at a rate of 40 per cent, stood at 145,000 men in the armed services in 1941.

Redistribution

Although I cannot say I have personal knowledge of each of the persons in question, I can say definitely that from my own constituency there were thousands who had gone to Nova Scotia or to other points, possibly Goose Bay, although perhaps they would not take their wives to that point. I do know for certain, however, that from Ontario many of them went to the maritime provinces and did take their wives and their children with them. Those people were not in Ontario at the time of the census enumeration in 1941. I know I am safe in saying that, counting those who went to the Pacific coast and those who went to the maritime provinces and overseas, there were thousands who were dislocated. So that I say the dislocation of population in Canada in 1941 was substantial. The census enumeration of that year was a most unfair basis upon which to establish parliamentary representation.

Not only that, I know of many who came to my constituency from the western provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. I have in mind-and I shall not mention names -three ladies whose husbands had come to the east to work in war industry in the city of Toronto. These three ladies lived in the constituency of Davenport. One of them had a family of three children, or a total of five in the family. Another brought her mother with her and, counting her child, made up a family of four. The third was of a family of three. There were hundreds, perhaps thousands, of similar cases.

Later, I shall place on record figures showing-the numbers who left Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. Many of them went to British Columbia and many others came to Ontario. Those enlistments materially affected the balance of population in the three western provinces.

I mention that because I do not believe the government would have attempted to bring in the resolution if two of the western provinces were not going to lose seats as a result of that census. But the government saw that the provinces of Saskatchewan and Manitoba would lose seven seats. The government anticipated support from members from Saskatchewan and Alberta, with the exception of course of the brave member who represents Lake Centre-

Brave?