Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: It will be the wish, I am sure, of hon. members of all parties that I should give some expression to the loss which our country has sustained in the passing of the Hon. Robert J. Manion. His very sudden death at a late hour on Friday evening last must have come as a great shock, not only to his many personal friends and admirers, but to all who have followed his notable career.
Although not a member of this house during the present session, Doctor Manion's long association with parliament-he was a member for some twenty years-and the high and important positions which he held in the public life of Canada, would cause it to be the natural wish of many who sat with him in previous parliaments to pay, in this place, some slight tribute to his memory, and to the many services he rendered Canada, both in and out of parliament.
Doctor Manion, I am sure, would have been the last to wish, or to expect, that any attempt should be made at this time to estimate the place which history may accord his many contributions to our public life. I, myself, am the first to recognize that, at any time, it would be for some other, rather than for me, of whom he was so strong a
political opponent, to perform that task. At the same time, I should like to say that, while differences in political opinion occas-sioned changes in our political affiliations, and open opposition in our political relationships, I shared throughout the course of many years an association in public affairs with Doctor Manion much more intimate than most political opponents enjoy, and a personal friendship correspondingly close.
A mere enumeration of the national services voluntarily performed by Doctor Manion, and of the positions of confidence and trust which he held, are in themselves sufficient to ensure that his name will hold a high place in the honour roll of Canadian statesmen who, throughout their lives, have sought to give to the service of their fellow-men and to their country the best that is in them, at home and abroad, in times of war, and in times of peace.
Doctor Manion began his career as a physician and surgeon, and to the end of his days he kept the touch of the physician in his desire to be of service to his fellow-men. The great war saw him ministering to the needs of soldiers on the field of battle. The present war saw him discharging, with his characteristic enthusiasm and vigour, the duties of national director of civilian air raid defence.
He entered the House of Commons in 1917 as a supporter of the Union government, and quickly made his mark as a parliamentarian. In the period of Mr. Meighen's brief administrations he held respectively for a few months the portfolios of Minister of Soldiers' Civil Reestablishment and of Postmaster General. Throughout Mr. Bennett's tenure of office, from 1930 to 1935, he was Minister of Railways and Canals. In these positions he was regarded as an able administrator.
Doctor Manion, in parliament and on the platform, was at all times, fearless and outspoken. His thoughts came with great rapidity to his mind and were as rapidly expressed. I am sure he wished sometimes that some of his utterances might have a little more caution. However, all of us in the heat of controversy are apt to go further than we would at other times. He had many of the qualities of the pioneer: a resolute courage, complete self-reliance, and a sturdy independence of character. He possessed a great love for Canada, and her interests and future were ever closest to his heart.
Although defeated at the general elections of 1935, such was the confidence he had won among the membership of his party that he
*328

The late Hon. R. J. Manion
was chosen its leader at the national Conservative Convention in 1938. He then became for the ensuing two years its leader in this house and also the leader of His Majesty's Loyal Opposition.
The failure of his party to gain office at the general elections of 1940, and his defeat in his own constituency, must have been, for Doctor Manion, a bitter disappointment. Without recrimination he accepted the verdict of the country, and sought to continue his service to it in other directions. Shortly after his resignation as leader of his party, he offered his services to the government and, as is known, they were promptly availed of. The house is fully aware of the devoted manner in which Doctor Manion's time and talents were subsequently given to the country's service up to, and including, the day of his death.
It was evidence of the energy Doctor Manion possessed and of his desire to impart something of his own spirit to others, that he should have found time in the course of his active life to have written one or two books, and thus to have added to his record of surgeon and soldier, parliamentarian and patriot, the distinction also of being an author. His autobiography published under the title: "Life is an Adventure," contains in its pages many of the thoughts he would have wished most to bequeath to his fellow-men. Its pages disclose his genial nature, his sense of humour, his fearless attitude, and above all, the spirit of service which was the underlying purpose of his life.
It was on the 5th of July, 1938, that Doctor Manion was chosen leader of his party. Today is the fifth anniversary of that memorable day in his career. The period of his leadership was brief. Brief indeed was the course of his life on earth, brought as it was to its close at the age of 61, when from him, had he been spared, so much more might have been expected. This morning, members of all parties accompanied his mortal remains to their last resting place. As we meet this afternoon, we pay common tribute to his memory.
Life, truly, is an adventure; an adventure far beyond our ken. In these halls of parliament, in which, in bygone years some of our political battles were fought, I take my leave of him, with the thought, that surely all is not over here, that-
Somewhere, surely, afar,
In the sounding labour-house vast Of being, is practised that strength, Zealous, beneficent, firm!


Mr. GORDON GRAYDON (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, following the well chosen remarks of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) I should like on behalf of the Progressive Conservative party to add a word to what he has said on this occasion.
It was truly and appropriately said in the House of Commons on an occasion similar to this that in the midst of life we are in death. The passing of the Hon. Robert J. Manion in the midst of his public duties serves, I think, to recall that thought. Doctor Manion died in harness. He had a full life, and a long heritage of accomplishments and friendships which all might properly envy. He was one of the many Canadians who have risen to high position by following relentlessly the royal road of honesty, integrity and hard work. For well over a quarter of a century he was intimately associated with the public life of Canada. Prior, to his entry into the House of Commons in 1917 he had reached a high peak in his chosen profession and had been decorated for gallantry in the service of his country in the first great war.
The contributions which Doctor Manion made as a surgeon, a soldier, an author, a member of parliament and a cabinet minister, and later as the leader of His Majesty's Loyal Opposition, will be long remembered by the people of this dominion who loved him as a fearless fighter, a warm-hearted friend and a brilliant parliamentarian. His deep attachment to the things that are best in Canadian life, both in peace and in war, prompted him to offer his services again in world war No. 2. As before, he acquitted himself in the discharge of his duties with high credit to himself and to his country. Great as was his record in public affairs, equally great was his exemplary life as a family man, one who loved his own home. He believed that the real bulwark of a nation must lie within the home and family relationships.
Doctor Manion's passing comes as a great shock and will be a cause for deep sorrow on the part of his widow and his three sons, two of whom, in pursuance of their father's example, are to-day to be found in the armed forces of our country. It is of them we think at this time, and to them we send our sympathy and our condolences. In the midst of their loss they may properly take consolation from the thought that this good husband and father discharged his high duties in a full life with great credit, both in the public and in the private domain. Doctor

The late General Sikorski
Manion's life is an inspiration to all of us. He has left the heritage of a good name and a life well lived.
Lives of great men all remind us We can make our lives sublime,
And departing, leave behind us Footprints on the sands of time.


Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, may I join with the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and the leader of the opposition (Mr. Graydon) in extending to Mrs. Manion and her family the deepest sympathy of the members of the party with which I am associated. As for myself and others who sit with me, we shared the atmosphere of this chamber with the late Doctor Manion. There is not much that one can say, except that when we disagreed with him we realized that here was a happy nature, a man typical of the race and people from which he sprang, and one whose quick retort and ready wit often enlivened this chamber.
He left this House of Commons in 1940 after defeat, the policy laid down by his party having found little popular support throughout the country. For that failure no doubt he himself grieved and to some extent suffered.
We wish to join with all members in the house in paying tribute to the memory of a man with whom we disagreed often, but whose many qualities were admired and whose work we respected.


Mr. J. H. BLACKMORE (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, when I heard that Doctor Manion had been called away I was asked to voice an expression for publication in the press. I issued these words:
Sincerely, energetically, honourably, Doctor Manion strove to build a better Canada, serving as a surgeon, a soldier, a statesman. Doing so he was actuated by those warm and noble feelings which former generations knew as patriotism. He deserved well.
I wish to join with those who have already spoken in expressing on behalf of this group our profound sympathy with the wife and children who by his death are bereaved. May I also congratulate them upon having had as a husband and father a worthy man.


Hon. P. J. ARTHUR CARDIN (Richelieu-Vercheres) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, the sad news of Hon. Doctor Manion's premature passing away recalls to the members of this house and, in fact, to all human beings, the implacable 'brevity of life and the vanity of most of the things that hold our attention during our rather fleeting stay in this world.
On this occasion, it is fitting to say that, in spite of differences of opinion and of the disagreements inherent to political struggles, the citizens of French descent always held in the most profound respect the personality, the works, the activities of the distinguished deceased whose loss we mourn to-day. In the thick of the contest and of the struggle, he always showed himself of unimpeachable loyalty and, because of his attitude, of the nobility of his character and of his radiant sympathy, he was always considered as a friend by the citizens of my province and by Canadians of French descent; no political discussions ever left a trace of the feelings or altered the friendly relations which existed between him and Canadian citizens of French descent.
Joining all other Canadians, we, the citizens of Quebec and Canadians of French descent, respectfully bow our thoughts over the grave which, far too soon, was sealed over a citizen who made his mark in Canada's political and social life. The memory of this distinguished Canadian and of his works will long be cherished by us, and this same memory will long be veiled by the sadness which his death has caused.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I assume that it is unnecessary for me to ask you, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of all the members of this House of Commons, to convey to Mrs. Manion and to her sons the expression of our very deep sympathy in their bereavement.



THE LATE GENERAL SIKORSKI

William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, it is with great regret that I have to inform the house that General Sikorski, prime minister of Poland and commander in chief of the Polish armed forces, was killed yesterday in an aeroplane accident at Gibraltar while returning to the United Kingdom from a visit to the Polish forces in the middle east. General Sikorski's daughter and the chief of staff, General Klimeeki, were also killed.
General Sikorski was an eminent statesman and soldier whose place in the councils of the united nations it will indeeed be hard to fill. He had faced with supreme courage, high intelligence and unshaken confidence the baffling problems that confronted a government which had been deprived of direct control of all of its national territory. He had also been foremost in the task of reorganizing units of a Polish army which have lately fought with great gallantry in north Africa and other theatres of war.
Privilege

General Sikorski visited Canada in 1941 and 1942, and again briefly early in the present year. Only on Friday last I read to the house a cable received from Cairo from General Sikorski extending his good wishes on the celebration of Canada's Dominion Day and an expression of his own and the Polish nation's admiration of Canada's contribution to the allied cause on the battlefields of this war. On the occasion of each of his visits to Canada, General Sikorski impressed all who met him as one of the ablest diplomats and bravest fighters in the common cause.
In my contacts with him during his visits to Canada, I felt that, if he were spared to survive the war, he would be destined to play a leading part in the reconstitution of a free and independent Poland and in the establishment of stability in eastern Europe. He has not been so spared, and his untimely death is an irreparable loss not only for the Polish government and people, to whom I extend sincerest sympathy in the name of the government and people of Canada, but also for all of the united nations.



PRIVATE BILLS COMMITTEE

[Stage Direction]
Third report of standing committee on miscellaneous private bills-Mr. Donnelly.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege. Speaking in Toronto on Friday last, Mr. John Bracken, leader of the Progressive Conservative party, is reported in the press of Canada as having said that the war policy of the dominion government had been "in too many of its aspects prompted by political cowardice."
Had Mr. Bracken, as leader of the Progressive Conservative party, been a member of this House of Commons, I should to-day at once have asked you, Mr. Speaker, to see that Mr. Bracken was obliged immediately to withdraw his charge of political cowardice. As one who himself has been a member of a legislative assembly, Mr. Bracken must know that these untrue and offensive words could not have been used in this house or in the legislature of any province without the house insisting upon their being withdrawn. As Mr. Bracken is not in the house, I suppose I must content myself by saying that a charge of "political cowardice" comes with ill grace from a leader of a political party who, throughout the whole of a session of parliament, following his appointment as
(Mr. Mackenzie King.]
leader of his party, has avoided attempting its leadership on the floor of the House of Commons.
I should like also to draw the attention of the house to Mr. Bracken's further reported reference, in speaking of that part of the Canadian army called up for service in the western hemisphere, to his "judgment that this home draftee army is not only an injustice to the men who are in it, but it is the biggest hoax ever perpetrated on the nation." I think the use of the word "hoax", which in existing circumstances is equally uncalled for and equally untrue and offensive, is something which the leader of the Progressive Conservative party himself will come greatly to regret ever having used.


Mr. POULIOT:: Isaac Laquedem.



MR. GIBSON-REFERENCE TO STATEMENT IN GLOBE AND MAIL OF FRIDAY, JULY 2

Hon. C. W. G. GIBSON (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, as a matter of privilege I should like to refer to an article appearing in the Globe and Mail on Friday, July 2, under the heading "Did Abitibi bondholders follow wrong policies?" This refers to an article written by James F. Clark, statistician, Toronto, which contains the following statement:
In the last two years Abitibi has paid out to bondholders the substantial sum of $20,272,140, equal to forty-two per ceht on the $48,267,000 stated amount of the bonds. These moneys have, with the approval of the dominion income tax authorities, been applied on the principal, an unheard of practice in the writer's knowledge, and accordingly bondholders are not required to pay income tax on these receipts. Here again the reason advanced for the payment to apply against principal instead of unpaid interest is the possibility that final settlement .would find insufficent assets to repay bondholders' claims for principal and interest in full. If these payments came from liquidation of the properties of the company there might be some validity to this reasoning. The writer believes that these payments would probably not have been made at all had the income tax authorities refused to consider them free from income tax.
I wish to take exception to the statement that I have read, as it by no means represents the facts. The writer refers to "an unheardi of practice," whereas I would point out that it is a common practice for the payor of a debt to direct on what account the payments should be applied. But in this case the courts, by various orders, directed that payments be made on account of the principal. The question whether such payments were to be considered on account of the principal or interest was decided by the court, not by the income tax department.

Questions
Mr. Clark states that "the reason advanced for the payment to apply against principal instead of unpaid interest is the possibility that final settlement would find insufficient assets to repay bondholders' claims for principal and interest in full." No such reason has been advanced by my department. It may be that the court used this reasoning in directing that the moneys be paid on account of the principal debt, but when a creditor takes payment in the manner directed by the payor, the reasons for the action are immaterial. The fact remains that the money was paid by direction of the court in liquidation of the principal.
The suggestion by Mr. Clark that the method of applying the moneys owing by the company was subject to the approval of the income tax department and that the income tax department had power to direct how such moneys should be applied, is entirely unfounded.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 110, for the relief of Jean Sylvia Murley.-Mr. Boucher.
Bill No. 114, for the relief of Margaret Anne Richards Johnstone.-Mr. Whitman.
Bill No. 117, for the relief of Marion Mathilda Heversage Jost Hooper.-Mr. Whitman.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. CRUICKSHANK:: 1.	Will salmon be released and distributed for Canadian consumption on a per capita basis to each province?
2.	If so, in what manner?
3.	Will canned herring be released for distribution to the several provinces?
4.	If so, on what basis?
5.	Will eastern herring be shipped to British Columbia?
6.	Will British Columbia canned herring be released on the Pacific coast?


Mr. ILSLEY:: 1.	Approximately 200,000 cases of canned salmon will be released for Canadian consumption but the basis of distribution has not been determined.
2.	Discussions are now in progress for the purpose of determining the basis of allocation and equitable distribution.
3.	Certain quantities of canned herring are being considered for Canadian consumption but the basis of distribution cannot be determined until the quantity to be available is known.
4.	See answer to question 3.
5.	See answer to question 3.
6.	See answer to question 3.


SUGAR RATIONING-WINE AND SOFT DRINKS
Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: 1.	What is the expenditure or liability incurred to date in connection with the rationing
or distribution of canning sugar for, (a) advertising; (b) salaries and allowances to personnel connected -with the administration thereof; (c) travelling expenses?
2.	(i) What quantity of sugar for the current year has been allotted by the ration administrator of the wartime prices and trade board to, (a) manufacturers of wine; (b) manufacturers of soft drinks? (ii) What quantity was used by each group of manufacturers during the year 1942?


Mr. ILSLEY:: 1.	(a) Advertising, $20,300.
(b)	Salaries and allowances to personnel, nil. The rationing and distribution of canning sugar was carried out by the regular personnel and no additional salaries or allowances were involved.
(c)	Travelling expenses, nil.
2.	(i) 1943-(a) manufacturers of wine,
9,100,000	pounds; (b) manufacturers of soft drinks, 66,000,000 pounds.
(ii) 1942-manufacturers of wine, 12,077,274 pounds (raw sugar); manufacturers of soft drinks, 73,075,217 pounds (refined sugar).

Mr. SHAW.:
1.	What was the total production of beet sugar in Canada for each of the calendar years 1940, 1941 and 1942?
2.	What was the total volume of raw sugar imported into Canada during each of the above three years?
3.	Was any refined sugar imported into Canada during the years 1940, 1941 and 1942? If so, what was the total of such imports for each year?
4. What percentage of the total available quantity of sugar on hand during the above three years (by years) was procurable for home consumption? What was the actual home consumption for each year?
5. What proportion of the total available sugar was sold, (a) to manufacturers of foodstuffs; (b) to manufacturers of beverages; (c) to other manufacturers, during each of the years 1940, 1941 and 1942?
6.	What wrere the total sugar supplies in storage in Canada as at December 31, 1940, 1941 and 1942?
Questions

7.	By provinces, what is the actual average per capita allowance of sugar for the canning of fruits and jams during the 1943 canning season?


Mr. ILSLEY:: 1.	1940, 197,770.000 pounds; 1941, 197,365,000 pounds; 1942, 184,495,000 pounds.
2.	1940, 957,032,000 pounds; 1941, 954,423,000 pounds; 1942, 633,962,000 pounds.
3.	No.
4.	Approximately 65 per cent. Actual household consumption was as follows: 1940, 716689,152 pounds; 1941, 749,009,810 pounds; 1942, 584,233,651 pounds.
5.	No statistics are available regarding the distribution of sugar to manufacturers during 1940. The estimated industrial usage (other than household) during 1941 and 1942 was approximately 35 per cent of total distribution.
Foodstuffs
Pounds
Bread and cake____
Confectionery	
Biscuits	
Ice cream	
Condensed milk.... Canning and
preserving	
Meat curing	
233,135,541
Miscellaneous *Pharmaceuticals *Tobacco, etc.
Beverages	 104,687,598
(including wines)
Candy	 65,489,836
Pounds
178,212,513
85,152,492
51,222,345
403,312,975 314,587,350
*Separate figures not available for these items, but the amount is small. "
6.	Total sugar supplies in storage in Canada as at December 31: 1940, 439,830,028 pounds; 1941, 460,061,642 pounds; 1942, 284,363,952 pounds.
7.	The actual average per capita allowance throughout Canada was 11-3 pounds. The distribution was left to the discretion of the local ration boards.


WARTIME HOUSING-HULL, QUE.
Mr. NICHOLSON:: 1.	How many two-bedroom houses were built in Hull at a cost of, (a) $1,889.13; (b) $2,939.87?
2.	How many four-bedroom houses were built in Hull at a cost of, (a) $1,889.13; (b) $2,939.87?
3.	What was the total number built?
4.	What _ were the other costs paid by Wartime Housing Limited in connection with the building of these houses?

5.	What was the total expenditure as at February 28, 1943?
6.	Was the cost for providing land, sewers, roads, street lights, etc., $760 per house, as reported on page 3854 of Hansard, June 21, 1943, or $995.48 for the 100 houses and $828.68
for the fifty houses, as reported on page 3876, June 29?


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	(a) H-l type 2-bedroom house, 24' x 24':
4	houses, bevelled siding finish, at $1,889.13;
10 houses, wood shingle	finish,	at	$1,893.02;5	houses,	weatherboard	finish,	at	$1,890.49;6	houses, asbestos shingle finish, at $1,897.78.(a)	11-21 type 2-bedroom house, 24' x 28':8 houses, bevelled siding finish, at $2,065.56; 8	houses,	weatherboard	finish,	at	$2,066.60;2	houses,	wood shingle	finish,	at	$2,069.81;7	houses, asbestos shingle finish, at $2,073.76.(b)	None.2.	(a) None; (b) 100 houses.3.	150 houses.4.	$140,983.21.5.	As allready explained on page 3876 in Hansard, June 22, 1943, the total was $577,604.06, which sum included an item of $43,593.82 which had not, as of that date, been transferred to the Ottawa project.6.	The sums of $995.48 for 100 houses, and $S28.68 for the 50 houses as reported on page 3876, June 22, for providing lands, sewers, roads, street lights, etc., is correct.
The $760 per house, which was referred to on June 21 had reference to the return of Votes and Proceedings No. 19, page ii, in answer to the question by Mr. Nicholson, M.P., question 3 ("What was the average cost of providing sewers, service, etc., for each of the houses built in Hull?"), "The average cost per house for providing sewers, watermains, roads and walks was $760.66." This is still correct. The difference in the amounts is explained by the fact that the $760.66 covers only 4 items, whereas the returns of $995.48 and $828.68 include grading, street lighting, house heaters, cooking ranges, supervising architect, and many similar items.


CANADIAN FLAG
[Stage Direction]
Mr. LaCROIX (Quebec-Montmorency):
1.	In the event of a victory for the united nations in Europe, will the Canadian forces take part in the victory parade?
2.	If so, what flag will be used to show their nationality?
1.	Have the United States forces now in England a national flag?
2.	Have the Australian, New Zealand and South African forces now serving outside of their respective territories a national flag?

Questions
3.	Have the British forces now serving outside of England a national flag?
4.	Have the Canadian forces now serving outside of Canadian territory a national flag?
5.	If so, what flag is it? If not, why?
1.	Is the red ensign, in which the union jack appears at the top left quarter, near the pole, and the arms of Canada at the fly end, the official flag of Canada?
2.	If so, why is this flag not displayed on the main tower of the parliament buildings?
3.	If not, has Canada a national flag?
William Lyon Mackenzie King: I must say, Mr. Speaker, that in reading over these questions I have asked myself several times whether the hon. member who has asked them does appreciate that at the present time the world is engaged in a war in which the whole future of civilization and freedom itself is at stake. The questions are not asked for the purpose of securing information, because I have already answered questions with regard to a Canadian flag.' They are asked to add fuel to a possible flame of controversy with respect to the flag in a time of war. I refuse to make any further answer to the hon. member with respect to the questions which he has asked in regard to the flag.
At this time surely hon. members of parliament must realize that there is a condition existing in the world that is more serious ' than any that has ever existed heretofore. They must further, if they are at all appreciative of what is reported in the press from day to day, realize that events the like of which none of us is able to contemplate are likely to take place in the course of a very few days, if I may go that far. In these circumstances, Mr. Speaker, is this country to have a flag controversy to be added to the other factors that may make for disunion a* a time when above all else unity is required? I speak with feeling, Mr. Speaker, because I believe that before this summer is over this house will have strong reason to see the wisdom of not permitting anything in the nature of controversy to arise at this time when there is need for the greatest possible unity on all sides.


STORAGE OF WESTERN WHEAT AND COARSE GRAINS
Mr. CASTLEDEN:: What arrangements are being made to provide advance payments or loans to the farmers of western Canada in order to assist in the storage of over 600,000,000 bushels of wheat and coarse grains?


Mr. MacKINNON (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, this is a matter of government policy and will be considered by the government in the light of the final results obtained from the present crop year and in the light of the extent and distribution of the 1943 crops.


LABOUR CONDITIONS-TORONTO SHIPBUILDING COMPANY
Mr. ADAMSON:: 1.	Has the Minister of Munitions and Supply, or any official in his department, received any communications from L. Sefton of the United Steel Workers of America relating to conditions in the Toronto Shipbuilding Company's yard?
2.	If so, what was the date or dates of such communications ?
3.	Upon what dates -were the said communications received in the said department?


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	Yes.
2 and 3. Two communications were received as follows: (a) An undated report over the signature of L. Sefton, representative of the United Steelworkers of America, entitled "Factors Entering into the Toronto Shipyards Dispute."-received June 21, 1943; (b) A letter from L. Sefton to the Minister of Munitions and Supply, dated June 25, 1943, and received June 27, 1943, enclosing a further copy of the report mentioned in (a).
Note: L. Sefton is not an employee of the Toronto Shipbuilding Company Limited.


LIEUTENANT-COLONEL F. W. CLARKE
Mr. ROSS (Souris):: 1.	Has Lt.-Colonel F. W. Clarke received an
appointment in the adjutant-general's branch of the Department of National Defence?
2.	If so, what are his duties?
3.	What does he receive by way of, (a) remuneration; (b) expenses and allowances?
4.	What w'as his military experience prior to this war?
Mr. MACDONALD (Halifax);
1.	Yes.
2.	Special assistant to the adjutant-general on mattters pertaining to Canadian prisoners of war in enemy hands, and head of the section in the adjutant-general's branch having to do with such prisoners of war.
3.	(a) Nil; (b) Nil.
4.	Honorary Lieutenant-Colonel, Royal Rifles of Canada. He is 56 years of age.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. MAYBANK:: 1.	Since the commencement of the war, and including personnel in the permanent army, navy and air force when the war began, what is the total number of men taken on the strength for active full time duties in, (a) the army; (b) the navy; (c) the air force?
2.	How many of the same have been struck off the strength or ceased from any cause to be members of the same forces?
4334	COMMONS
Questions as Orders jor Returns


Mr. MACDONALD (Halifax):: Order for
return, but with the reservation that is always made that the exact strength is not to be shown.


UKRAINIAN FARMER LABOR TEMPLE ASSOCIATION
Mrs. NIELSEN:: 1.	Were a Mr. Wenspir and a Mr. Hamilton representatives of the custodian of enemy alien property in the city of Edmonton, Alberta, in 1941?
2.	If so, (a) did they order the destruction of the library of roughly a thousand books belonging to the Ukrainian Farmer Labor Temple Association at 10628-96th street, Edmonton, in or about the month of April, 1941;
(b)	what volumes were destroyed, and how;
(c)	for what reason were such books destroyed;
(d)	was an auction or other sale of furniture and equipment also made on or about the same time under the direction of Messrs. Wenspir and Hamilton, belonging to the same association?
3.	Were books comprising the library of the Ukrainian Farmer Labor Temple Association at 300 Bathurst street, Toronto, taken to the premises of the Pullan Paper Stock, Ltd., at Trinity and Parliament streets, Toronto, for destruction, in the early part of 1941? If so, how many volumes were destroyed, and why?
4.	Were furniture, effects, or books of this association sold, destroyed or otherwise disposed of in other places in Canada? If so, where?
5.	Since such properties cannot be restored, how will restitution or compensation be made?



RADIO BROADCASTING-MILK, PEPSI-OOLA AND COCA-COLA

[Stage Direction]
Mr. LaCROIX (Quebec-Montmorency):
1.	Was Dr. DelVecchio, of Montreal, refused permission by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to speak in favour of raw milk in 1942?
2.	If so, for w'hat reason?
3.	Why does the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation permit the Pepsi-Cola and Coca-Cola companies to speak in favour of the sale of their products?
4.	Why does the government permit trusts of pasteurized milk to speak over the radio?
5.	What is the amount invested in the milk industry in Canada by Borden Milk Company?
6.	Have chemical analyses of Coca-Cola been made? If so, does the Department of National Health recommend these beverages?
7.	Why does the federal government permit the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to advertise such product, and to use gasoline for its transport?
8.	Are farmers denied the same prhilege for the transport of raw milk?
9.	If so, why?

Mr. BRUCE:: 1. What amount of ground is available for patients for recreation purposes, exclusive of the buildings, on the property of the Christie street hospital?

2.	What is the distance between the northerly limit of the right-of-way of the railway and the nearest point of the Christie street hospital property?
3.	What factories or industries are located outside the Christie street hospital within a radius of half a mile, (a) to the west of the hospital; (b) to the south of the hospital; (c) to the north of the hospital?
4.	Do any of these factories operate continuously day and night?
5.	If so, how many?
6.	Does any factory work at night with the help of donkey engines and searchlights?
7.	Are the neurological wards of the hospital situated on the westerly side of the hospital?
8.	If so, what distance are these wards from the nearest factory or industry?
9.	Have any complaints been made of the patients in these neurological wards not being able to sleep at nights because of the noise from these factories or industries?
10.	If so, what have the authorities done or do they propose to do in the circumstances?
11.	Are casualties from the present war placed in the wards with chronic invalids from the last war?
12.	If so, does the Department of National Health consider this a satisfactory and proper arrangement?
13.	Is the dining-room still in the basement?
14.	What is the personnel of the wartime committee on hospitalization?



CANADIAN FORCES AND MERCHANT MARINE- HOSTELS

Mr. BLACK (Cumberland):: 1.	At what places in Nova Scotia have hostels been provided for persons in the armed services or in the merchant marine?
2.	Has a hostel been provided at Liverpool, Nova Scotia, with special reference to the needs of those in the naval services, or is such contemplated?
3.	What is the cost of each such property for, (a) construction; (to) purchase; (c) rental?
4.	What has been the cost of, also the estimate cost to complete each property for, (a) improvements; (b) equipment and furnishings?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. HANSON (Skeena):: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, memoranda, contracts and other documents exchanged between Wartime Housing Limited, or any official thereof, and the city of Prince Rupert, or any official thereof, dated since January 1, 1941.



HOUSING IN PRINCE RUPERT

Olof Hanson: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, memoranda, contracts and other documents exchanged between the Department of Munitions and Supply, or any official thereof, and the city of Prince Rupert, or any official thereof, relating to housing in the city of Prince Rupert, dated since January 1, 1941.

Redistribution



KELVINGTON, SASK., POST OFFICE BUILDING

Mr. NICHOLSON:: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, memoranda and other documents during 1942-43 in possession of the construction controller, in connection with the building of a post office at Kelvington, Saskatchewan.



ALLOTMENT OF GRAIN AT WESTERN DELIVERY POINTS

George Hugh Castleden: For a copy of all letters of instruction, circulars and other notices sent from June 1, 1940, up to and including April 30, 1943, to railway companies or their agents, grain companies or their agents, by the Canadian wheat board or its committees, respecting the allotment of grain cars at delivery points throughout western Canada.



REDISTRIBUTION


[Stage Direction]
Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Minister of Justice) moved:
That 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;
And whereas such readjustment involves in fact the determination of the number of members to represent each province and the number of electoral divisions within each province and the delimitation of such electoral divisions;
And whereas Canada has been at war since September 10, 1939, and hostilities may continue for an indefinite period;
And whereas the census of 1941 was taken during the progress of hostilities;
And whereas the effect of enlistment in the armed forces of Canada and of employment in the production of munitions of war has been to remove large numbers of the population from their homes to serve in and with such armed forces either in other parts of Canada or overseas or to reside temporarily in other parts of Canada;
And whereas experience has shown that such readjustment may give rise to sharp differences of opinion as to the appropriate delimitation of electoral divisions, which differences it is most desirable to avoid while Canada continues at war;
And whereas in these circumstances it does not now seem desirable that readjustment of representation on the basis of the census of 1941 should have to be made during the continuance of the hostilities in which Canada is now engaged,
A humble address be presented to His Majesty the King in the following words: -
To the King's Most Excellent Majesty:
Most Gracious Sovereign:
We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of Canada in parliament assembled, humbly approach Your Majesty, praying that You may graciously be pleased to cause a measure to be laid before the parliament of the United Kingdom to be expressed as follows:-
An act to provide for the readjustment of the representation of the provinces in the House of Commons of Canada consequent on the decennial census taken in the year one thousand nine hundred and forty-one.
Whereas the Senate and House of Commons of Canada in parliament assembled have submitted an address to His Majesty praying that His Majesty may graciously be pleased to cause a bill to be laid before the parliament of the United Kingdom for the enactment of the provisions hereinafter set forth,
Be it therefore enacted by the King's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present parliament assembled, and iby the authority of the same, as follows:-
1.	Notwithstanding anything in the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1940, 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 one thousand nine hundred and forty-one, 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.
2.	This act may be cited as the British North America Act, 1943, and the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1940, the British North America Act, 1907, and this act may be cited together as the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1943.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I wish to submit certain considerations to the house in support of the motion you have just read. Members will have noted that it provides that a humble address be presented to His Majesty the King praying that he may be graciously pleased to cause a measure to be laid before the parliament of the United Kingdom to provide that:
Notwithstanding anything in the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1940, 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 one thousand nine hundred and forty-one, 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.
The reasons for this procedure are of course obvious to all hon. members. They arise out
[Stage Direction]
Redistribution
of the terms of the statute of Westminster, 1931. Hon. members will remember that it is recited in the preamble to that statute that-
. . . it is in accord with the established constitutional position that no law hereafter made by the parliament of the United Kingdom shall extend to any of the dominions as part of the law of that dominion otherwise than at the request and with the consent of that dominion.
It is for that reason that the humble address provides for a recital that the act mentioned therein is to be laid before the parliament of the United Kingdom at the express request of the Senate and of the House of Commons of Canada.
The statute of Westminster also provides, in the enacting portion, that-
No act of parliament of the United Kingdom passed after the commencement of this act shall extend or be deemed to extend to a dominion as part of the law of that dominion unless it is expressly declared in that act that that dominion has requested, and consented to, the enactment thereof.
I may also call attention to one further provision of the statute of Westminster, section 7, subsection (1):
Nothing in this act shall be deemed, to apply to the repeal, amendment or alteration of the British North America Acts 1867 to 1930 or any order, rule or regulation made thereunder.
So that it is quite clear that if it is desirable in fact that readjustment of the representation of the provinces do not take place at the time normally provided by the British North America Act, the procedure to achieve that must be a request to the parliament of the United Kingdom to enact legislation to that effect.
I do not propose to labour that point. I wish to confine my remarks to the development of certain reasons why it may appear desirable that this readjustment should not be made at this time.
Under section 37 of the British North America Act, 1867, it was provided that the House of Commons of Canada should consist of 181 members, of whom 82 should be elected for Ontario, 65 for Quebec, 19 for Nova Scotia, and 15 for New Brunswick. Then it was provided under section 51 that after the completion of the census of 1871 and of each subsequent decennial census the representation of the four provinces should be readjusted by such authority in such manner and from such time as the parliament of Canada provided, subject to certain general rules, as follows:
Quebec was to have a fixed number of 65 members.
There was to be assigned to each other province such a number of members as would bear the same proportion to the number of its

population ascertained at that census as the number 65 bore to the number of the population of Quebec at the same census.
It was further provided that in the computation of the number of members for a province, a fractional part not exceeding one-half of the whole number requisite for entitling the province to a member would be disregarded. But a fractional part exceeding one-half of that number would be equivalent to the whole number.
Now, the census of 1941 established that the population of the province of Quebec was 3,328,815. Dividing this by 65 gives us the quotient 51,213. According to that general rule the representation of provinces according to population would be as follows:
Prince Edward Island.	Population . 95,047	Number of members 2Nova Scotia	. 577,962	uNew Brunswick	. 457,401	9Ontario 	. 3,787,655	74Manitoba	. 729,744	14Saskatchewan	. 895,992	17Alberta 	. 796,169	16British Columbia	. 817,861	16
But section 51 further provided 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. That is the text of the proviso of section 51. In 1915 an amendment of the British North America Act was passed by the imperial parliament at the request of this parliament providing that, "notwithstanding anything in the said act, a province shall always be entitled to a number of members in the House of Commons not less than the number of senators represent such province." Because of these provisions, the result, instead of being that which I gave a moment ago, would be as follows: Prince Edward Island would have 4 members instead of 2; Nova Scotia, 12 instead of 11, New Brunswick, 10 instead of 9; Ontario, 82 instead of 74; Alberta 17 instead of 16; Saskatchewan, with 99,823 people more than Alberta, would have the same representation; Manitoba, with only 66,425 less than Alberta, would have three less members; Ontario would have 17 members more than Quebec for a difference in population of 458,840; Saskatchewan would have only 17 members for 895,992 people.

Redistribution
This would be the result in spite of the fact that, since Ontario's representation was diminished in 1911, its proportion of the total population has diminished not by one-twentieth but by one-sixteenth; but because that diminution has not come about in one decade, and because the privy council in the Prince Edward Island case in 1904 held that when as a result of a census the representation of the provinces is reconsidered and the necessary changes therein made to bring it in harmony with the result of the census, it is a readjustment within the meaning of the proviso I read a moment ago, whether there be or be not any change in the case of any one province. Ontario would therefore, under that construction of subsection 4 made by the' privy council in the Prince Edward Island case, be entitled to retain its 82 members.
That particular question as to whether in order that it be considered the diminution of one-twentieth had to take place in one decade, was not before the privy council for decision. What was before them for decision was whether the aggregate population to be considered to make the required calculations was the aggregate of the four original provinces or the aggregate of all the provinces which had since been added to the four original ones; and secondly they had before them for decision the question whether there could be a readjustment downward before there had been at least one readjustment upward in the representation of a province. What was being argued on behalf of Prince Edward Island was that the one-twentieth diminution had to be a diminution since a prior readjustment, and if there had been no change in the original number of representatives of a province, it was argued, there had been no readjustment and therefore there was no ascertained period to provide figures for the comparison.
That contention of the province was set aside, but in setting it aside their lordships used the language above cited, which I am going to read again:
When as a result of a census the representation of the provinces is reconsidered and the necessary changes therein made to bring it in harmony with the result of the census, it is a readjustment within the meaning of subsection 4, whether there be or be not any change in the case of any one province.
Now it can hardly be contended that when the fathers of confederation were providing for representation by population they intended that cumulative diminutions would for all time remain ineffective if they did not all happen to come within the one decade. It is certainly arguable that if their lordships had had for decision a case in which it appeared that since any change in the representation
of a province there has occurred a diminution of that province's proportion of population amounting to more than one-twentieth, although that diminution was spread out over more than one decade, they might have been expected to hold that the proper construction of the act required that this diminution in proportion be taken into account in determining the province's future representation.
Now, however, only legislation or qualification by the privy council itself of the language which I have quoted could change that rule. Therefore to make a redistribution at this time would give Saskatchewan only 17 representatives instead of 21 for its population of 895,000, while Ontario retains 17 for a population of 458,840, more than the population which Quebec still has.
Gordon Graydon: Would the minister
repeat that?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: To make a redistribution at this time would give Saskatchewan only 17 representatives instead of 21 for its population of 895,992, while Ontario, because it has 458,840 more than Quebec, would have 17 members more than 65. That would not appear to be fair; nor would it appear to be fair to reduce Manitoba from 17 to 14 with a population of 729,744. It is argued on behalf of Manitoba and Saskatchewan that some of their population has been drained away as an effect of enlistments in the armed forces and of a drift from certain portions of those provinces to war plants in Ontario and Quebec or British Columbia. As to the men who enlisted, though efforts were made in taking the census to credit all these men to their own respective provinces, it undoubtedly did happen that some of them had changed their homes since enlistment, and there is no doubt that a great many had changed their homes to go to war plants in other centres. It can be argued that these provinces should not be penalized because of these facts, but to make a redistribution at this time and not to make it along the lines above indicated would require an amendment to the constitution.
Now, though it is admittedly unfair to Saskatchewan and Manitoba to make the unit of representation for them 51,213, while Ontario, for 17 of its members, has a unit of 27,000 each, it would be equally unfair to leave Quebec with a unit of 51,213 for each of its representatives, and if a measure was to be introduced to remove this unfairness from the constitution of Manitoba and Saskatchewan, the people of Quebec might be expected to insist that they be given the same consideration. And who would there be to
Redistribution

gainsay them if they said that British fair play meant fair play for all British subjects, whatever their race or religion.
Hon. members will readily appreciate what kind of situation would have arisen had any attempt been made at this time to amend the constitution for the purpose, among others, of allowing Quebec to have a greater proportion of representatives in the parliament of the nation. It would of course be a reasonable thing to do, and if the trend of population does not change, it is something which will have to be done some day. But it is like the question of a national flag, to which reference was made this afternoon. The applause which greeted the remarks of the right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) led me to believe that this house feels it is not the proper time to have a controversy of that kind. On the merits, no one can deny that it would be reasonable for the Canadian nation to signify its national status by a distinctive national flag and a distinctive national anthem. Who among us was not deeply moved when he heard Mr. Anthony Eden describe the landing in the British isles of our first expeditionary force in this war? I beg leave to quote from page 1746 of Hansard:
As dominions secretary in the opening months of the war it was my privilege to travel to a certain port, there to welcome the first contingent of your army to reach the shores of the old country. Sir, I could never forget that scene. It was a beautiful winter morning, such as we do have in Britain sometimes, at a famous port which I suppose must still remain anonymous; such are the rules of censorship. I was the spectator of the scene from the flagship of the commander-in-ehief of the home fleet. As the great armada of liners swung into sight under the escort of the Royal Navy, cheering Canadian troops lined the decks and the band of the flagship played "0 Canada." I suppose that seldom in human history have so many great transports and so many powerful ships of war been assembled together at one time. That was Canada making her contribution in the hour of need, and that was only the beginning.
May I be permitted to quote what the editor of Saturday Night had to say about this in the issue of April 24 last. It is under the title "A Hymn and a Flag," and reads in part as follows;
Speaking in the Canadian Commons at Ottawa a few weeks ago, Mr. Anthony Eden used for one of his most moving passages a description of the arrival in a British port of the first body of Canadian troops to reach England in the present war. He was not only a witness but a prominent participant, and the account lost nothing in the artistry of his telling. Its climax was a reference to the playing by the attendant bands of the hymn "0 Canada" and it occurred to us to reflect how completely that element of the scenario of the great drama would have failed of effect if there had been

no Canadian anthem for the bands to play. For the playing of God Save the King, an immensely profound and spiritual a piece of ritual in the proper circumstances, would have had absolutely no reference to the special qualities of that situation, the special significance of that drama. What made the situation dramatic was simply the fact that here were troops not raised by the fiat of the government of Great Britain, but raised by the fiat of another nation three thousand miles away from the European conflict, ancl yet ready to spend vast amounts of its treasures and much of the' best (blood of its young men in the same cause in which Great Britain already stood embattled.
Other self-governing dominions are equally fighting by the side of Britain, but if we are not mistaken, none of them can symbolize their unity and their distinct personality iby a song corresponding to that of Canada. Australia and South Africa are younger dominions than we are, and their troops land in Britain without being able to announce what they are in the notes of their band. And if it is valuable to Canada to have her special and characterizing song is there any reason to suppose it would not be valuable to have her special and distinctive flag?
Mr. GRAYDON; If I may interrupt my hon. friend, I do not want to destroy his argument, which perhaps has some relationship to the matters which it is understood are now under discussion, but I am not quite able to see the relevancy of the minister's present remarks to the question which is before the house. Perhaps he would be good enough to explain.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: If the hon. member will bear with me in patience for just a few moments, he will soon see their relevancy to the subject now under discussion.
If the strains of "0 Canada" announcing to [DOT] the British people that Canada was fighting by their side, were a noble and inspiring element in one of the great scenes of history, why should not a Canadian flag, proclaiming to all the world the same announcement even before the music broke, have been equally noble and inspiring?
But the applause that came from all sides of the house this afternoon has shown how necessary it has been to say that, desirable as it may be to have a distinctive flag and a distinctive anthem, the selection of the flag and the selection of the anthem would be apt to give rise to such differences of opinion and such debates that it seems the counsel of wisdom not to take our minds off the problems of the war in these critical days to devote the necessary time and attention to debates about matters which, though they are important, are nevertheless of concern only to ourselves.
I submit to you, sir, that the same must be said of any attempt to settle now the proper rules for a fair proportional representation of all the provinces in this house. Does

Redistribution
it require any vivid imagination to foresee the possibilities of serious racial and religious controversy over any proposal to decrease Ontario's representation in this house to the end that the voting strength of the representatives of Quebec might constitute a larger proportion and be capable of exercising greater influence on decisions? It is not always comfortable to be a realist, but it is not always wise to be an ostrich. Statistics do show that over the last two decades the population of Quebec has been increasing more rapidly than that of Ontario. Quebec's percentage of increase from 1921 to 1931 was 21-77 per cent against Ontario's 16-98 per cent. From 1931 to 1941 Quebec's increase was 15-90 against Ontario's 10-307.
Now it has been asserted more than once, not by very many, and wrongly I submit, but nevertheless asserted, that this is the result of a dark conspiracy of "that man" in the Vatican and "that cardinal" in Quebec to get control of the government of this country. We all know that the assertion has been made, not by very many, but by some, that Quebec did not supply its quota of men in the armed forces in the last war and refrained from doing so, by design, to save its men in order to father an increasing number of Canadian voters of the French race. We all know that that assertion has been made by some again this time. Well, I deny both the fact and the design. I do not wish to provoke controversy, but I merely wish to indicate the kind of controversy which it seems desirable to avoid.
As to what did in fact arise out of the last war, it may or may not be important, but it is of some interest to note that in 1941 Ontario had 584,740 men in the age group of 40 to 70, and in the same age group 559,944 women. Quebec had 390,064 men and 372,630 women. There is no very great disparity there. The difference favouring the male portion of the Canadian population is something which runs through the whole of these decennial censuses. In 1941 Ontario's total male population was 1,921,201, of which a little over thirty per cent were of the age group 40 to 70. Quebec had 1,672,982, of which 390,064, or 23-3 per cent, were in the age group 40 to 70. That does not indicate that Quebec saved more men out of the last war than Ontario did.
As to this war, I have been talking with men who have returned from overseas, who have had an opportunity of getting about and seeing the state of affairs over there, and according to their impression and the best estimate they could make, 35 per cent of the men in our Canadian army overseas are of the French race. I have cross-examined them about it, and they persist in the assertion that if it were desirable and workable to
have an individual census made it would confirm that estimate. That, would be a big job to have done accurately, and we all realize that the military heads over there have a lot more important things to do than to sort out the racial origins of Canadians who have gone there as Canadians, and who are prepared and ready to offer their lives for the victory of the united nations.
In the navy and in the air force the situation may be different. But it must not be forgotten that up to the .present time, because of the haste with which these services have been organized and have had to be expanded, it has been deemed necessary that all the men enlisting in them be able to take their full courses of instruction in English, and that these services have had to be looked upon as English-speaking services. I know that efforts are being made, and I know of the plans in the course of implementation to provide, if not French-speaking units, at least bilingual units in the navy and in the air force, to such extent, that even if commands and signals have to be given and understood in English, French-speaking members can get together and rub shoulders against each other and speak their own language in their respective groups and ward rooms without being looked upon as indulging in some antics that are not just good form. I know that certain books of instructions, elementary and incomplete if you will, so far, are being prepared to facilitate to the boys from French-speaking homes the acquisition of such knowledge of English as is considered to be indispensable for the performance of their respective duties.
It is difficult, it is inconvenient, but it is not impossible and it is not unreasonable. Some may say, "Well, why should they not learn Englsh if English is the prevalent language of the service in which they are engaged?" Did anyone ever pretend before the capitulation of France that it could not be one of the united nations because its language was not English? Does anyone pretend now that the French forces that are being reorganized in North Africa will have to learn English before they can do their part in this fight? Does anyone pretend that the men on the French ships now joining the naval forces of the united nations will have to learn English before they can confront our common enemy? Would anyone pretend that the government of the United States of America, before making available to the French committee of national liberation in North Africa over $75,000,000 worth of war equipment under lease-lend arrangements, as was reported by Mr. Stettinius a few days ago, should have inquired what language would be spoken by the troops who will be using this equipment against the same common enemy?
Redistribution


Gordon Graydon: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order. I have risen once before to make my point of order, and I hesitate to do so again. But I submit that on a question having to do with an amendment to the British North America Act we are going pretty far afield when we go to North Africa. My hon. friend should restrict his remarks to the point at issue. I have not yet been able to see the basis upon which he is making his argument. I know that the minister has something in mind, but I object to the circuitous route he is taking to reach the point. I believe this matter must be drawn to the attention of the house, because the minister should confine himself to the point at issue. Other hon. members are asked to do that.
Mr. ST. LAURENT:	I submit, Mr. Speaker, that what I have said is part of the argument I have to offer to the House of Commons. I am endeavouring to submit to the house definite information on certain things, and I believe that is the right thing to do at this time. I am pointing out that there is a time when it will be possible to have accomplished a few things which are to-day looked upon by all the people, or should be looked upon by all the people, as the right and reasonable things to do. And in seeking further to make that argument I am pointing out to you, Mr. Speaker, and to hon. members, that the assertion made from time to time-not here, fortunately, and not by a great many-that there is a sinister plan by members of this nation of French origin and of Roman Catholic religion to get control of the government of this country-


Gordon Graydon: Who ever suggested that?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: If my hon. friend has never heard it suggested, then he has not full knowledge of what has been going on in this country for the last quarter of a century.


Jean-François Pouliot: The hon. member for St. Boniface thought so, and said it in the House of Commons, but he was wrong.


Gordon Graydon: Who was?


Jean-François Pouliot: The hon. member for St. Boniface, but he was all wrong. He knows nothing about our problems.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: The leader of the opposition must realize that this proposal, for the time being, is a proposal which will not allow, until readjustments take place, Quebec to have the proper representation it would have by adhering strictly to the rules

I cited in the opening. of my argument. I do not know whether my hon. friend has compared the figures given, but that is the fact. Saskatchewan and Manitoba would, in a redistribution at this time, get, under the rules I cited, smaller representation. But that w'ould be an unfair situation. It would be a situation the unfairness of which they would see. I wish hon. members to realize that when there is an unfairness apparent in respect of Manitoba and Saskatchewan there is also an unfairness to Quebec apparent at least to those of us who represent Quebec, and that we feel when unfairness is to be removed there should be set a pattern which could be applied to all the provinces.
However, Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to bow to your ruling on the point of order raised by the leader of the opposition. If I am out of order, then certainly I do not wish to remain out of order.


Mr. SPEAKER:: The point raised by the leader of the opposition brings before the house the difficulty I might have in confining discussion to the issues of the resolution before the house. We have before us a resolution which is in concrete terms, and it is my view that hon. members should confine themselves to the arguments flowing from the resolution, and that they ought not to introduce matters extraneous to the resolution. I would prefer that the Minister of Justice confine himself to the resolution, making such arguments as he sees fit. I would point out to the house that the resolution before us deals with one subject, and I hope hon. members will confine themselves to that one subject.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: May I just add this, that confederation was accomplished on the basis of a Canadian nation of two races, two main races with two main languages. The provisions therein were adopted to the end that that condition might be perpetuated. And when I am asking members of parliament who are of my race and who speak my language to accept this resolution, I submit I also have the right to point out to them to what extent I realize their position, and to what extent I am asking them to forgo something for the time being, for the sake of avoiding controversy and disputes which would be disruptive of that national unity which we require to achieve in the war we are waging. It is in that sense that I bring these matters before them, so that they may give them their consideration and may, I hope, arrive at the same conclusion I have reached.
The leader of the opposition asked me to explain how I was making this relevant to

Redistribution
the discussion. Well, no one in Canada would pretend that we in Canada should make an inquiry in respect of language in pursuing the negotiations which are now under way for making available to those same fighting French forces a substantial share of the Canadian supplies to be provided under the United Nations Mutual Aid Act recently adopted by this parliament. I wish to instance, as evidence of the possibility of surmounting language difficulties where there is a will to serve and to fight in a common cause, the fact that a great many young French airmen from North Africa are already in or on their way to United States training camps to better fit themselves for their part in the continuation of the struggle.
In view of the traditional bonds of friendship which unite Canada and France, and the fact that these bonds could only be strengthened by the presence of young Frenchmen training with youth of our own country in the splendid establishments which have been set up by my colleague, the Minister of National Defence for Air (Mr. Power), can anyone doubt that it will not be long before French aircrew will be training in our Canadian air schools? Of course there are language difficulties, but difficulties in the way of accomplishing anything really worth while are things for resolute men to grapple with and to overcome.
This house is by the constitution a bilingual house. Does anyone pretend that every hon. member has to learn the two languages before he can take his seat in it? I do not wish to be provocative, but I am entitled to be a realist. The Canadian constitution, as I said a moment ago, was established on the basis of this recognition of the two races and the two languages. There may have been earlier days in our history when it was felt by some that it might be desirable and possible to have a one-language British dependency on the north American continent, but those who cherished such hopes had also to be realists, and the realities were crystallized in the achievement of confederation.
Section 133 of the constitutional act deals with the matter of languages. It provides for bilingualism in this house, in this parliament, in its journals, in its records and acts, and in the pleadings and processes of the courts of Canada established under the act, to the same extent and just as fully as it provides for bilingualism in the proceedings of the Quebec legislature and the Quebec courts:
I am satisfied that the day will come when, if not all those who sit in this house, at least its readers and those who grace the treasury
benches and those who sit immediately opposite, will find it to their advantage to be bilingual. I do not suggest that we from the province of Quebec are going to try to impose our language upon anybody, but I do suggest that the time will come when those whom I have indicated will find it to their advantage to learn and to understand and to use the French language as we from Quebec have found it to our advantage to learn and to understand and to use the language in which I am speaking at this moment. Not merely for the purpose of reciting a few lines prepared in advance by some helpful secretary-that is a token which we recognize and appreciate as such- but to make the kind of speech that Lord Halifax made at the last convocation of Laval university in Quebec; the kind of speech Mr. Churchill made in this house in December, 1941; the kind of speech Mr. Eden made as a part of his address when he spoke in this house a few weeks ago; the kind of speech the queen made at the laying of the cornerstone of the supreme court building, or that His Majesty makes on the proper occasions; the kind of speech that Mr. Roosevelt makes from time to time; the kind of speech that Princess Elizabeth will be able to make when she has completed her training for the great role which fate seems to have mapped out for her.
I hope neither Your Honour nor any hon. member will feel that I am forecasting a too onerous burden for you or your successors. It will not be any greater burden than we of the French race assume when we prepare to enter this house or after we get here, or any greater burden than Princess Elizabeth is assuming at the present time. But whether it is a burden or not, I do make the boast that up to the present time, whatever reproach may be levelled against the Canadians of French origin from my province, their contribution to implementing the bilingual provisions of the constitutional act has not been inferior to that of any other group. Perhaps the leader of the opposition may think that I should apologize for this digression, but it must be only-


Gordon Graydon: I did not ask for any apology. If the minister feels somewhat apologetic, that is all right, but I have not asked him for an apology. I was listening with a great deal of interest to what he said. I must confess that I might have risen to ask that he confine himself to the points at issue, but I thought perhaps my views on that subject might be misunderstood and I allowed him to go on without any interruption. But, Mr. Speaker, I think in all fairness you should ask the minister to try to confine himself to the resolution which is before the house.
Redistribution

These other things are matters which I think might well be left over for the moment. My understanding of this resolution was that it had to do with an amendment to the British North America Act which would not obviate the necessity of having a redistribution during this session of parliament or for a certain time afterward. Surely we have come now to a point where it will be most difficult for Your Honour to confine the speeches that will be made during the course of this debate. I do say with all kindness and with all courtesy to the very courteous gentleman who is making the speech that I hope he understands the motives behind my making this suggestion. I do not rise in any desire to be carpingly critical of what he is saying, or now to take any issue with him; I rise for the sole object of trying *to confine the argument, which Youir Honour has tried so often to do in days gone by, and I hope I shall have as much success as Your Honour has had. I would ask Your Honour to ask the minister to confine his argument to the points at issue. Surely he has arguments in his notes which do not cover such a wide field as he is now trying to cover.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I do not think the leader of the opposition will have much more reason, if ever he had any, to complain about the kind of speech I am making.


Gordon Graydon: It is not the kind of speech the minister is making; it is the fact that he is covering ground that has nothing to do with this measure.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I am not covering ground that has nothing to do with the measure. This is a proposal to make a modification to the act of 1867. Whenever there is any change to be made in that act it must deal with the situation which had to be dealt with by the fathers of confederation, something that might serve to weld into one nation two groups of different origin, of different language, of different religion. Whenever modifications are being made that may be looked upon as infringing upon the privileges secured to one group in favour of another group, it is something which is of broad consequence and must be envisaged in that light. But I have dealt with what I wished to deal with in that respect.
While it is reasonable and proper and appropriate at all times to give full recognition in this parliament to the equality of the races and of those who speak the two prevailing languages, in respect of rights as well as in respect of obligations, there are times when the obligations are such that the whole of our time and our attention and our efforts must be given to properly discharging them. While this war

continues our obligation is to prosecute it and to win it, and that requires the united and concerted efforts of the whole of our population. This is not the time to bring up for determination matters which can probably not be determined without debates apt to give rise to aspersions and denials, recriminations and aspirations, to words hotly spoken and perhaps susceptible of being deeply resented. I sincerely feel that because of the predominance of French in Quebec and English elsewhere any attempt to settle at this time a permanent pattern for the proper representation of the provinces in this house might well be such an occasion.
I wish to mention one other reason for postponing this redistribution. Redistribution will not only mean the determining of the appropriate number of representatives in this house for each province; it will mean the redistribution of this representation within each province according to territorial divisions. Now in the past there have been redistributions when the members of the party now led by my chief felt there were deliberate attempts to "hive the grits" and to make "safe seats" for members of the party commanding the majority in the house at the time those redistributions were effected. Of course like charges, absolutely unfounded in fact I am sure, have been made about redistribution statutes passed at times when this party was in power. Unfounded as those charges must necessarily have been, there were probably some people who believed, and there are probably some who still believe, that redistribution committees are apt to keep one eye on the possibilities of future elections. I submit that that is wrong; that should not be. Redistribution should, of course, be based upon the convenience of the public and with a view to secure proper representation for the different localities. But it should also be made with a view to interfering as little as possible with established1 territorial divisions to which the public has become accustomed.
When I was elected to represent the division of Quebec East in this house I was not unmindful of the fact that for sixty-three years Quebec East had been represented in this house by Sir Wilfrid Laurier and by my own immediate predecessor, the right hon. Ernest Lapointe. During those sixty-three years Quebec East had come to mean something to a great many people, not only to people in the constituency itself but to others. What is true of Quebec East must be true of most of the constituencies in this dominion. The lives of the men who have been associated with them have taken something from them, but in return

Redistribution
have added something to them which it is worth while to conserve. They should not lightly be the subject of decennial changes for any passing advantage of any party or any partisan. They should be established in such manner that they can remain the territorial setting of groups of Canadian citizens towards whom the men sitting in this house have, and feel that they have, specific responsibilities; citizens whom they can get to know not only as individuals but as members of a group capable of common ideals and aspirations and local traditions and even a local pride in the kind of contribution they have made in the past and are making and hope to make in the future, to the welfare of the nation, by and with their chosen representative.
At this time the unit of representation derived from the population of the province of Quebec is 51,213. In that province there are no less than seventeen constituencies with a population of less than 40,000; in Ontario, there are thirty-seven; in Nova Scotia, four; five in New Brunswick; one in Alberta; five in British Columbia. These are practically all rural constituencies, and it may with plausibility be asserted that their population at the taking of the census was affected by the movement of some of their people to urban centres to engage in war industries. Many of them are also actually represented by members of this house now engaged in the glorious task of securing its safety against the onslaughts of foreign enemies. Some of those constituencies might have to disappear, and that would be a matter of serious concern and one which should have serious consideration. Should these men now serving with our armed forces and those who have moved from rural to urban centres to engage in war activities be distured in their present duties by any anxieties as to what might be done to their home constituenecies during their absence?
It is for these reasons that I recommend this resolution to the sympathetic consideration of the house, trusting that in other not too distant days a redistribution may be arrived at that will be fair to the respective provinces, fair to the men who are carrying on our fight, fair to those who feel that the historical significance attached to stable constituencies is something which has more than merely sentimental value.


Gordon Graydon: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a word or two with respect to the remarks of the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent), who has sponsored this resolution.
May I say first of all to my hon. friend that it was with the greatest hesitation that
72537-275	1



REVISED

[Stage Direction]
I undertook to inject into the debate any suggestion that he might perhaps better confine his remarks to the subject under discussion. I did so not simply because it was a matter of interest to myself or to the party which I have the honour to lead in this house, but because I felt it was essential that the resolution be adhered to in its present form, so far as the argument of the minister was concerned, from the point of view of the national interest in the larger sense.
I have no idea yet what the real motive was behind the lengthy argument which the minister made. A large part of his remarks seemed to be far afield from the problem to be discussed on this resolution. With every courtesy to the minister may I say in all fairness that I felt that he had presupposed some divisions in the house and in the country with respect to this measure which I believe do not exist. I have felt that it is improper at this time of war, as it is improper even in time of peace, to be even hesitantly provocative, shall I say, with respect to many matters which are dangerous so far as our national life is concerned, and I was sorry to see the minister this afternoon introduce into his argument some questions which I think could more properly have been left out. I do not believe in time of war or in time of peace in presupposing differences between our population or in creating unnecessary difficulties between the ministry and parliament or between different sections of our people. The minister's mention of the national anthem and the national flag I think might properly have been left to another time. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) took a stand on that this afternoon, as he did on a previous occasion in this house; he said this was not the time to indulge in . discussions with respect to matters which might easily become inflammatory in a nation at war. With those sentiments I think most hon. members on this side are in agreement, because there are more urgent problems facing this country in time of war than questions respecting the union jack or the national anthem. I can only assume that the minister in his remarks-I am not saying this offensively, because it is a term generally accepted-was bringing in through the back door some propaganda which in his opinion was essential to his argument. But as I listened to it I was unable to agree that it was of very much help to him in support of his resolution.
I have always felt, Mr. Speaker, that in the final analysis we can rely on the people of this country, regardless of their racial origins, to be Canadians, and having regard to that fact it seems to me that all of us should at all

[Stage Direction]
Redistribution
[Stage Direction]
times exercise the utmost tolerance towards those who do not always think as we do. I should like to see this question approached, as I am sure it will be, in a spirit of tolerance, which is becoming not only in time of war but to us as a great people in time of peace as well. I make this plea to the House of Commons because it is my heartfelt view that if there is one thing we need more than another at this time, it is not the presupposition of differences but emphasis laid upon tolerance and upon the fact that all of us are Canadians.
And so I come to this point. We have not won this war yet. The spirit of optimism which seems to have gripped the united nations may become a dangerous optimism unless we as a people understand how to deal with the present situation. While there is every reason perhaps to feel optimistic, nevertheless the fiercest challenge, so far as bloody hostilities are concerned, still lies before us. I have this feeling, and it has become more pronounced since I have sat in this seat as leader of the opposition during this session. I feel that the less we deal in national differences, in partisan differences and all those things that might perhaps divide us and divert our attention from the great object of winning the war the better, and we should frown upon them as members of parliament no matter to what party we may belong. There should be no narrow views and no narrow partisanship in time of war. I do not say that lightly, because, Mr. Speaker, and this house must recognize it, in the performance of its duty as a critic of the government His Majesty's Loyal Opposition sometimes finds it difficult, as an opposition in war time does, to know when to praise and when to strike. But whether it be praise or whether it be criticism, so far as His Majesty's Loyal Opposition is concerned, the praise is praise in the national interest and the criticism is criticism in the national interest, and no other factor must be involved. That is carrying out, as I see it, our duties as members of a war-time parliament. True, we are all prone to err. As someone has said, to err is human, to forgive divine. But it does seem to me that in a war-time period such as this we have a bounden duty to the Canadian people to make sure that whatever utterances we make and whatever action we take in this house shall be directed to the one supreme objective of the better and more comprehensive prosecution of our part in winning this war. So I say to the government and to Your Honour that there have been many times when criticism from these benches has been

severe. It has been severe for the purpose of trying to effect necessary reforms in the government's policy. We have endeavoured as much as possible not to criticize for criticism's sake alone.
Having stated our position in this regard, it seems to me that despite the arguments of the minister in developing his reasons for bringing forward this amendment of the British North America Act, we must keep one thing closely in mind in connection with a matter of this kind, namely that we are experiencing war-time conditions of a strange and abnormal character. The resolution includes these paragraphs:
And whereas the effect of enlistment in the armed forces of Canada and of employment in the production of munitions of war has been to remove large numbers of the population from their homes to serve in and with such armed forces either in other parts of Canada or overseas or to reside temporarily in other parts of Canada;
And whereas experience has shown that such readjustment may give rise to sharp differences of opinion as to the appropriate delimitation of electoral divisions, which differences it is most desirable to avoid while Canada continues at war;
And whereas in these circumstances it does not now seem desirable that readjustment of representation on the basis of the census of 1941 should have to be made during the continuance of the hostilities in which Canada is now engaged, . . .
Herein is contained, I think, the main argument for the measure which is proposed. Had it not been that the minister has inserted in his remarks matters which I regard as totally irrelevant, I would have made my remarks on behalf of the Progressive Conservative party very much briefer than I have been able to do. We recognize the vast changes which have taken place and the abnormal movements of population throughout Canada. 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.
Major James William Coldwell: I rise to support the resolution of the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent). It is a time when every attempt should be made to prevent the raising of questions which may lead to bitter controversies between various parts of Canada. The Minister of Justice in his first remarks made what I thought to be an accurate and able analysis of the situation

Redistribution
which has developed as a consequence of the working out of the basis laid down by confederation and by subsequent interpretation by the courts. But in my opinion the position in which this house is placed by a resolution of this description in the year 1943 is, to say the very least, undignified. "We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled, humbly approach Your Majesty, praying that You may graciously be pleased to cause a measure to be laid before the Parliament of the United Kingdom", and so forth. The time has come when this country, as a free, independent, self-governing nation within the British commonwealth, where we wish to remain, under one head, to whom we believe this country should be loyal, His Majesty the King, should nevertheless assume the right to decide the destiny of this country and to amend its own constitution in its own way and in its own forms. I know that this it not the time when such could be undertaken. I know that the Minister of Justice in his remarks this afternoon had in view the safeguarding of certain rights which were the basis of the confederation pact. But let me say to him and those who believe with him that, from conversations again and again with members of the British House of Commons, some of them within the last few days, I am convinced that whenever Canada asks for an amendment of the British North America Act -which is, in effect, our constitution-no matter what amendment we may ask, the parliament of Great Britain will accede to the request and adopt the proposed amendment.


Mr. BLACK (Cumberland):: Would not that involve the consent of each of the provinces as well?


Major James William Coldwell: That is the compact theory. The British North America Act is an act of the British parliament. The constitution of this country or any country ought not to be an act of parliament of any other country or any other parliament; it should be an act of the people of the country which is adopting the constitution. Hence I say that I agree with the Clerk of the House of Commons Doctor Arthur Beauchesne when he gave evidence before the committee on the British North America Act, some time ago, I think it was, in 1935, and with that most distinguished civil servant, who passed away a year or so ago, Doctor Skelton, when they both suggested to the committee that preparation should be made for the calling in Canada of a constituent assembly representative of all parts of this dominion with a view to arriving at an amicable, reasonable 72537-2751
and fair settlement regarding the constitution or a constitution for Canada. These suggestions at the time were sound and good, and to-day, when we have before us a resolution of this description, in which we humbly pray that the king may cause to be laid before another parliament a measure amending the constitution of our country, we should think over these matters though we may not propose to act upon them during the period of the war. I know, of course, that at present the real power of amendment of our constitution, which is in the British North America Act, is in reality in the hands of this parliament. As I have just indicated, anything we may ask regarding amendment will be granted by the imperial parliament at Westminster. But this is a roundabout and dilatory way of doing something which we ought to be able to do in a direct way. The procedure of passing a resolution by this house and then by the senate praying His Majesty to do something is now outmoded and entirely out of date.
I was looking for what Doctor Skelton actually said in 1935. I happened to have it on my office desk and found it when I returned to the city at noon to-day. Giving evidence before the special committee which this house set up to look into the British North America Act in 1935, he was asked whether the United Kingdom should be retained as an instrument for making amendments to our constitution. He answered:
I cannot see any reason for such a solution. No other country in the world looks to the-parliament of another country for the shaping; of its constitution. This solution could only be' supported if we believed that Canadians were the only people so incompetent that they cannot work out a solution of their own constitutional problem and so biased that they alone among the peoples of the world cannot be trusted to deal fairly with the various domestic interests concerned.
I think we should face the problems raised by the Minister of Justice this afternoon. I believe we shall have to face them. Perhaps it might have been better had they not been raised this afternoon; nevertheless the time is coming when we must face them, and I hope I shall live to see the day when our two great peoples who have laid the foundations of this country can, by statute, if you will, which I think is saner than the present method, safeguard each other's rights; for we have to recognize that there are rights, and they should be safeguarded in such a manner that they will be safe in reality, and will provide a solution to make this country a more united nation than it is.
Redistribution

As an English-speaking member of this house who has a boy who was taught French by an English teacher, I regret most sincerely that I am unable to express myself in the language of such a large proportion of the members of this House of Commons. I should like to see my own children able to express themselves in that language, and in the last few days I have had the privilege of hearing English members of the British parliament at Westminster rise before a French-speaking audience.in Quebec and express themselves beautifully, with ease, and at great length in the language of our French-speaking compatriots. It seems to me that we ought to face these problems, but one problem that we must face soon is that of amending this act ourselves.
For years * social legislation could not be passed because we had not the power within the British North America Act to do certain things; and even to-day the provinces, and sometimes this parliament, take shelter behind the terms of the British North America Act, [DOT]declaring that we cannot do this, that or the other thing which is vitally necessary. Our social legislation is in a disgraceful condition because we have not been able to formulate plans for national social services such as New Zealand and the similar federation of Australia have been able to do within their own countries. With the developing situation in this country, with the outlook for the post-war period, we ought now to be finding ways and means of making it possible to go forward with social and economic proposals. The amendment to the constitution in the present manner is something which no self-respecting member of this house ought to accept without making some sort of effective protest.
Perhaps I have strayed to some extent from the resolution. The Minister of Justice shakes his head. Well, perhaps there is something to be said in my defence in that regard, but I do say before I sit down that we who come from Saskatchewan appreciate the broad-minded manner in which the minister approached the special case of that province and of Manitoba, although I come from Saskatchewan and speak especially for Saskatchewan at the moment. The facts which the minister put on the record this afternoon relating to the surplus of representation of Ontario over Quebec, on the basis indicated, was something, I must say, to which I had not given consideration before. The minister thus makes a very strong case for the province of Saskatchewan at the moment and I was very glad to hear the case made.
We have lost from the prairies a large number of young people and older people as well

who have moved away to the east and to the Pacific coast to work or serve in the war. I believe they will return to us, at any rate a large number of them. When that time comes there will be another census, and we can discuss this matter further at that time. What the minister has said this afternoon strengthens the position I have put before the house regarding our constitutional status, and the contention that we should have the right to decide our representation. This house should have the right to amend the constitution of the country in order to do anything that may be of vital necessity at any given time.
May I add one more word. I think there was a great deal in what the minister said about constituencies and the recollections they have of members who have represented them from time to time. At the moment l am thinking of Great Britain. When one thinks of William Ewart Gladstone, the great leader of British Liberalism, one automatically thinks of Midlothian, the Scottish constituency which he represented for so long. Even to those of us who would move forward more rapidly than some others in this house, there is something well worth while in associations of the past. The Minister of Justice mentioned his own constituency of Quebec East, so long represented by the distinguished Canadian who preceded him in the office he now holds; yet we have seen in other parts of Canada constituencies which had been held by men who have made a name in this house wiped out under redistribution. I am glad, therefore, to have the opportunity this afternoon of supporting the resolution introduced, although, as I say, it is rather jarring on my feelings that I have to support a resolution humbly praying another parliament to do the thing which we as a self-respecting, self-governing people ought to have the right to do ourselves.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I wish at once to express my thanks to the leader of the opposition (Mr. Graydon) and the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation (Mr. Coldwell) for the indication they have given, that in their view the argument which has been presented for deferring redistribution at this time is one which not only commends itself to them but will, they believe, commend itself to the members of their following.


Gordon Graydon: Not all the arguments.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Well, the argument that it is not desirable to have a political controversy arise at this time, because of any attempt at redistribution in the present session of parliament, if it is possible to avoid it.

Redistribution
I gather that they are in agreement with the government on that particular point, and I believe that they are also in agreement .with the government in the view that at a time when several members of this House of Commons are on active service and consequently would not be in a position to attend here or to serve on the committee which would have to do with the work of redistribution, this would not be an opportune time for the house to attempt redistribution.
I rise at the moment, however, more particularly to call the attention of hon. members to certain rules which govern procedure in the house. The reference made by the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation party to the desirability of amending the British North America Act in a way which would do away with the act altogether and allow this country to have its own constitution indicates how many subjects it might be possible to discuss at this time on a motion brought forward in reference to the amending of the British North America Act in only one particular. I have received an intimation that it is possible amendments may be moved to the motion which is now before the house with a view to discussing other matters which are not immediately related to the question now before the Chair. I believe that members of the house generally would not wish to have a discussion on matters that are not immediately relevant. We have had a long session, there is still a very considerable programme to be overtaken; and it is, I believe, in every way advisable that we should proceed as expeditiously as possible with the measures that are on the order paper. I have no desire to restrict or narrow discussion on the question before the house, but I do feel it is desirable to avoid unnecessary discussion or discussion related to subjects other than that which is immediately set forth in the motion before us. For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I intend to move at once that this question be now put. Standing order 48, under the heading "Privileged Motions", reads:
When a question is under debate no motion is received unless to amend it; to postpone it to a day certain; for the previous question; for reading the orders of the day; for proceeding to another order; to adjourn the debate; or for the adjournment of the house.
My motion is for the previous question.
Standing order 55, which refers particularly to the previous question, reads as follows:
The previous question, until it is decided, shall preclude all amendment of the main question, and shall be in the following words "that this question be now put". If the previous question be resolved in the affirmative, the original question is to be put forthwith without any amendment or debate.
Hon. members will see that my motion does not preclude full debate on the motion before the house; it does preclude the consideration of any amendment to that motion. I submit it is in the interest of hon. members of the house and of the country at' this time of war that the debate should be confined to the one motion before the house, and I move accordingly.


Thomas Vien: The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) moves, seconded by the Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Crerar) that the question be now put.


Mr. E. G. HANSELL (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, before the question is put, may I say I am sorry the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) did not give this group an opportunity to express itself upon the resolution.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend is not deprived of doing so. Every member in the house has the fullest opportunity to discuss the motion, on the order paper, but no member is at liberty to move an amendment to the motion.


Mr. NEILL:: But the very terms of the proposed amendment of the Prime Minister preclude any further discussion in the house. If the question be now put, then no one can debate the original motion.


Thomas Vien: I refer hon. members to Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, third edition, in which standing order 55 provides:
The previous question, until it is decided, shall preclude all amendment of the main question, and shall be in the following words, "that this question be now put". If the previous question be resolved in the affirmative, the original question is to be put forthwith without any amendment or debate.
The previous question is moved when the original question is under debate. Paragraph 327 of the third edition states:
The previous question is moved w-hen the original question is under debate, in order to force a direct vote on the original question before an amendment is proposed. The form of the motion is "that the question be now put". Once it is proposed, the debate may continue on the original question. The previous question cannot be amended but it may itself be superseded by a motion for adjournment. The previous question cannot be moved upon an amendment though, after an amendment has been agreed to, the previous question can be put on the original motion as amended.
Therefore a discussion can take place now on the original motion. Then the question is put, and if carried in the affirmative the original motion must then be moved, without debate.
Redistribution

I would point out to the house that the motion is a concrete, specific motion, and that the debate must be confined within the four walls of the resolution. I ask hon. members who address themselves to the question to keep within the terms of the resolution.


Major James William Coldwell: Who seconded the
Prime Minister's motion?


Thomas Vien: The Minister of Mines
and Resources (Mr. Crerar).


Ernest George Hansell: May I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for elucidating the point of order, and also the Prime Minister for pointing out that his motion does not preclude discussion on the main motion. However, I still regret that the Prime Minister spoke before this group had an opportunity to express itself, if for no other reason than that the Prime Minister indicated his pleasure that the leader of the opposition (Mr. Graydon) and the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation (Mr. Coldwell) had agreed to support the motion. Had he waited, he could have said the same thing about this group.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I had intended following immediately after the leader of the opposition, and it was only because I noticed another hon. member was on his feet that I desisted. But I do thank the hon. member for what he has just said.


Ernest George Hansell: Now that the coast is
clear, may we express ourselves on the resolution itself? I think this group is of unanimous opinion that there should be no redistribution at this time, and that the exigencies of war and the unsettled state of affairs in the country, brought about by the movement of people from one province to another, do not tend to the best interests of such a redistribution. I do not think I need debate that point particularly.
In expressing myself with respect to the resolution, may I point out that I do not commit the party to which I belong to the views I express. It does occur to me that if Canada is what we have been led to believe it is, since the enactment of the statute of Westminster, namely, that we are now a nation capable of running our own affairs, we should not therefore have to go to the parliament of the United Kingdom to change our constitution. That is my own view. I am not the first one who has said that there should be the closest possible relationship between the United Kingdom and Canada. I was born in England; my mother and father were born there, and our family has been

English for generations. I came to this country as a young lad and, with the exception of a few years in the United States, finishing my education, I have lived here ever since. I am therefore a Britisher, and absolutely loyal to the British crown.
However, I am not a constitutionalist. I know very little about constitutional law. And if there may be some little constitutional technicality which causes us to go to the parliament of the United Kingdom when we want to change our constitution, I am afraid I shall have to leave that technical point for the lawyers to fight about. I am not prepared to do it. But I am quite certain of this, that the spirit of the statute of Westminster is that we are masters within our own household. Therefore I do not see the propriety of having to go to the parliament of the United Kingdom when we desire to change our constitution. That is particularly obvious at this time because, so far as I am concerned, the postponement of a redistribution is a very small thing. It may come next year or the year after; we do not know. We recognize that it must come from time to time. Certainly it is a meagre thing in the general progression of events. It has to be done some time; and yet simply because we now find ourselves in a war, and believe it desirable to postpone the redistribution until some other time, we have to trot over to the United Kingdom and ask the parliament over there to enact a special piece of legislation in order that we in Canada might defer the redistribution. It has been said that His Majesty is King of Canada. But it would appear to me that we must appeal to His Majesty as King of the United Kingdom.
There is another point I would make here. I have always felt that the will of the people must foe the constitution of the nation. I could never see where the will of the people must therefore automatically become the business of another parliament. I quite agree that the foundation of our constitution must be based upon great principles such as the principle of justice, the principle of freedom of action., and the principle of the freedom of religion. I realize that constitutions must be founded upon those great principles. But I still believe that there are times in our history when constitutions must be changed, because we are living in a rapidly progressive age. We read from our libraries scientific textbooks written only ten years ago, but we find that to-day they are out of date. We are not living in the days when our present constitution was enacted. In these days communications are different, and methods of

Redistribution
transportation change rapidly. Who would have said ten years ago that the transportation system of the nation would have grown and changed as rapidly as it has? All these things must be taken into consideration when we desire that a constitution should reflect the will of the people.
If I might venture a neiw idea or a new suggestion, I would advocate that a con-federational conference be held, say every ten years, to which every province would send representatives. If it were desired, I would have no objection to the British government being represented at such a conference. The provinces could come together to reflect the will of the people in this rapidly changing age. We must recognize that many things are changing. Even our present government are doing things to-day-it may be said that they are doing them under the stress and strain of war-which they never would have countenanced even three or four years ago. It is a foregone conclusion that some of the things they are doing now will continue to be done even after the cessation of hostilities.
I am not going into a debate on monetary policies, but we know that monetary policies are changing. I believe that if such a con-federational conference could be held, the provinces could talk over their constitutional position as related one to another and as related to this dominion parliament. Resolutions could be passed which should receive the widest publicity, and1 perhaps the following year this parliament could act upon those resolutions after the people had been able to register their reactions to the recommendations. I believe that something of this kind would keep the constitution up to date and still retain within it those great and vital and basic principles of peace, law, order, justice and freedom.
In conclusion, I just want to say again that we support this measure, not because it calls upon His Majesty to have the parliament of the Unitad Kingdom enact a bill, but because we believe that in this day redistribution should be postponed until a more appropriate time.


Mr. FREDERIC DORION (Charlevoix-Saguenay) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, in
taking part in this debate, I wish to discuss the question strictly on its own merits, that is by keeping to the resolution which is before the house; and I will do so, not so much as a citizen of the province of Quebec, but rather as a Canadian citizen; just as, since I have been in this house, I have always tried to discuss the questions which were submitted to us.
Before going into the merits of the subject, I think it is my duty to congratulate the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent) on the last part of the declaration he made this afternoon. Far too seldom are clarifying statements of such character heard in this house. On the other hand, far too often are incomplete statistics used to support the claim that the citizens of the province of Quebec do not contribute to the war effort as much as they should.
Mr. Speaker, the resolution before the house is very important because it concerns the constitutional act of our country. This constitution of ours ought to be the object of the greatest care, for, to my mind, since 1867, we have changed the constitution far too often for no reason at all. I consider that, for the most part, the amendments brought about since 1867 were not justified. This constitution has become neither more nor less than a municipal regulation which is amended to suit all sorts of so-called purposes, to provide for any opportunity which might arise. The present proposed amendment is all the more important since it directly concerns the very essence of our democratic system, the representation of the people in this house. That is why it is of such capital importance.
I am somewhat surprised to find that this resolution is brought before the house by the Liberal party actually in power, for it seems to me that in the not too distant past, the Liberal party championed and defended the constitution of the country. I remember right well that in 1926 it was used as a cheval de bataille, and very successfully at that. If I am not mistaken, the Liberal party fought the 1926 election by claiming that we were in the midst of a constitutional crisis and they appointed themselves the guardians and protectors of our constitution. That is why I am somewhat surprised to see that now, for a reason that is worthless-as I shall prove in a moment - still another amendment to our constitution is proposed.
This resolution is so important that it will be no news to anyone if I recall that in 1935 a special committee of this house was appointed to study what procedure should be followed to amend or revise our constitution, the British North America Act.
I have on my desk the report of that committee. I notice that authorities on the subject
Redistribution

appeared before the committee and I should like to give their names. They were Mr. Edwards, K.C., deputy minister of justice; Mr. Skelton, under secretary of state for external affairs; Mr. Maurice Ollivier, K.C., joint law clerk of the House of Commons; Mr. W. P. M. Kennedy, professor of law at the University of Toronto; Mr. F. R. Scott, professor of law at McGill university; Mr. McL. Rogers, professor of political science at Queen's university, and Mr. Arthur Beauchesne, clerk of the House of Commons. That committee inquired into the advisability of amending the existing rules and especially they investigated the procedure that should be followed with a view to amending or revising, as I said a few moments ago, the British North America Act. What is most important is that the members of that committee, of this house, deemed it proper, before taking any decision on that serious matter, to consult all the provinces of this country in order to ascertain what they thought of the plan.
I find here, in the report of April 2, 1935, the telegram sent by that committee to the various provincial attorneys general. It reads as follows:
"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.
Now, the provinces replied to those telegrams. And what amazes me to-day, Mr. Speaker, is that some hon. members from all those provinces apparently deem it their duty' to support the passing of this resolution. I wonder whether the feeling that was voiced in this house to-day is really entertained by the electors to whom reference has just been made in such lofty terms. I have here the replies of the various provincial governments. They deserve to be put in Hansard,

because the matter is important. Here is the answer given by Prince Edward Island:
Prince Edward Island.-"Your wire March twenty-seventh government of Prince Edward Island is of opinion that dominion government should formulate its plan and policy for the purposes intended and that this should be submitted to the provincial governments and afterwards discussed at a conference of representative of the provinces and the dominion. Signed by II. F. MacPhee, Attorney-General."
New Brunswick.-"Will wire views as soon as available. Delay unavoidable. Signed by W. H. Harrison, Attorney-General."
Nova Scotia.-"Our legislature now in session and most difficult to attend to matter of this kind now in way you suggest. We feel matter should be approached by conference between representatives of provinces and dominion, where each would have the views of the other and ample time to discuss the matter. Signed by J. H. MacQuarrie, Attorney-General."
Quebec.-"Your telegram received. Surely the committee cannot expect that the views of the province of Quebec will be discussed by an exchange of telegrams or letters. In a matter of such importance I suggest that a conference of the dominion and the provinces should be held. Signed by L. A. Taschereau, Attorney-General."
Ontario.-"Province of Ontario does not desire to make any representation before your committee re British North America Act amendment, as no good purpose will be served by attempting to advise dominion government at this time. Signed by A. W. Roebuck, Attorney-General."
Manitoba.-"With further reference to your telegram of the 27th March to the Attorney-General and to his reply of the 5th instant, the government have now had an opportunity of giving consideration to the suggestion that it should make a written submission regarding the subject matter that is before your committee.
"The government of Manitoba is of the opinion that the subject matter referred to in the resolution is one of such importance that no written submission, setting out our views in reference to it, should be made without a conference with the other provinces and the dominion government. We woura be willing to attend such a conference at any time, with a view to arriving at a definite method of procedure for making amendments in the British North America Act. Signed by John Bracken."
Saskatchewan.-"Referring to your telegram of the 27th day of March wherein you request the government of the province to make representations either orally or by written memoranda as to the methods of procedure which this province would suggest in connection with amendments to the Canadian constitution, I would say that I have been following with intense interest the proceeding of your committee. The question of what, if any, provision is to be made for amendment of the Canadian constitution from time to time in a question which

Redistribution
ultimately must be decided by conferences between the governments of the provinces and the government of Canada with the possibility of a previous preliminary interprovincial conference. In view of this fact it would appear to be unwise for the provinces to be giving their views before a committee of the House of Commons. With due deference, might I be permitted to suggest that the proper procedure is for your committee to pursue its present inquiry and to make a report to the House of Commons, which I presume will either be accepted or amended or merely received without binding the government to accept the proposals of the committee and with this report available the provinces could then give consideration as to what attitude they desired to take and perhaps discuss the matter amongst themselves, and thereafter join with the federal government in a general conference. The report of your committee would serve as a basis of discussion around which would take place the ultimate solution of this problem. We realize that the question is one of great national importance and should be decided in the welfare of Canada free of all political considerations, and we are certainly prepared- to do our share towards the facilitating of a solution, but we feel that we must look after the interests of the province and think that the procedure I have outlined would be the proper course for us to adopt at this time. Signed by T. C. Davis, Attorney-General."
Alberta.-"Re amendment British North America Act. Alberta government appreciates desire of committee to have views of all provinces before it on this very vital question but considers approach to question should be through interchange of views at interprovincial conference. Signed by Mr. Lymburn."
British Columbia.-"Reference your wire twenty-seventh to Attorney-General requesting written submission from the government of this province to your committee it is the opinion of the government that amendment of the constitution is too important a matter to be dealt with in manner suggested. It is not thought that satisfactory conclusions can be reached either federally or provincially until a conference of the provinces and the dominion is held when full discussion may be had and matters properly debated. Other than stating that the right should be secured to amend our constitution in Canada this province respectfully declines to make submission to your committee, neither will it feel bound by any report which may be made by your committee. Signed by T. D. Pattullo."
And there you have testimonies from the various provinces of the country, given after they had been requested to express their opinion on the proposed amendments to the British North America Act.
After having proven that this question is of paramount importance, to use an expression often found in resolutions of this nature, let me point out that the only reason brought
forward and alluded to in this house this afternoon, for the postponement of the redistribution, is one that is mentioned in the resolution itself, that is the movement of the population brought about by enlistment in the armed forces of Canada and the employment of large numbers of our citizens in war industries. For how long is it proposed to postpone this readjustment? Until the coming of the session following the signing of peace with Germany, Italy and Japan. Mr. Speaker, the following question comes to our minds:	Is the
government of our country convinced that the present state of war is going to last until 1952 or 1953?
As we all know, the last census was taken in -1941. This resolution does not request that the constitution be amended so as to allow the taking of a new census after the war; no, it requests that the readjustment be postponed under the pretext that a displacement of the population of the country has taken place. However, if the readjustment takes effect in two or three years from now, I would ask the Hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent) on what census it will be based if not on that of 1941? The reason put forward is worthless. I repeat it, to be logical, the resolution should request that the taking of a new census be authorized immediately after the war. However, if the readjustment should, take place in two or three years from now, if the war should end this year or next year, as we all hope, if the readjustment is proceeded with in 1944 or 1945, of necessity the 1941 census will be used for the purpose. And what difference would there be during the session that will follow the end of the war?
Mr. Speaker, another proof that this reason is worthless lies in the fact that in 1941, as every one ought to admit, we were merely remedying unemployment, which had been extensive in our country for over ten years. New industries were then in course of development but not to the extent of causing a displacement of population. In fact, the increase in industrial production did not become apparent much before 1942. Here is a publication from the department of Munitions and Supply which illustrates the state of our industrial production in the years 1941 and 1942. If it be advanced that, at that time, there was a displacement of population, due to war industries, I say that this statement is unwarranted. From this report

Redistribution

published by the Department of Munitions and Supply, I quote the following statement appearing on page 24:
Before the war the Canadian aircraft industry employed less than 1,000 people and made only a few single-engined planes and flying boats each year. In the 1939-40 period1, Canadian aircraft production was just beginning its war programme which reached a value of $42 million. The following year it jumped to $102 million. In 1942, despite a radical changeover to new types and a general expansion and stabilization of the programme, aircraft production jumped to $235 million from a coast to coast chain of strategically located plants.
In the 1939-40 period the value of the dominion's mechanical transport production was $119 million. In the following year it was $206 million. Last year the output was almost doubled at $404 million.
A vast small arms industry has been created. November production of these weapons was 90 per cent greater than the output for all of 1941.
The manufacture of filling for Canadian ammunition is another huge industry in itself part of a chemicals and explosives output on a colossal scale. In 1941 it climbed to $50 million. That production was more than doubled in 1942 to a total of $121 million.
Armoured fighting vehicles were produced to a value of $160 million in 1942, an output eight times that of the previous year.
Which means, if I correctly read and understand the reports of the Department of Munitions and Supply, that industrial production, the war production of this country, was carried on in 1942 and, as I was saying a moment ago, the country was barely able, in 1941 to offset the effects of the unemployment which had prevailed for so many years. That is why, when the government claims, in the resolution, that there was a movement of population at the time of the last census or since the start of the war, I say it is not altogether true, because of the statistics I have just qupted. I say there has been no movement of population prior to 1941, before the census taken in June.
And now, Mr. Speaker, as a final point, I should like to submit to the house that if it is desired to amend the constitution in regard to the redistribution of constituencies, we should avail ourselves of this opportunity to restore, in a full spirit of justice and equity, the true representation of the provinces in this house. This is what I mean:	In 1865.
those who have been called the Fathers of Confederation started to hold meetings in various localities, first in Charlottetown and then at Quebec, to propound resolutions which
IMr. Dorion.]
were to give birth to the British North America Act. Those resolutions were recorded in our archives. The same statesmen met in London in 1867 to propose new resolutions based on the resolutions formulated at Quebec in 1865. Now when the British North America Act was adopted by the Imperial government, one clause which has been included in the Quebec Resolutions and in the London Resolutions was overlooked and ignored; and it was then that subsection 4 of section 51 was enacted.
In 1865, the Quebec Resolutions established in the first place resolution 17, which reads as follows:
The basis of representation in the House of Commons shall be population, as determined by the official census every ten years; and the number of members at first shall be 194, distributed as follows:
Upper Canada	 82
Lower Canada	 65
Nova Scotia	 19
New Brunswick	   15
Newfoundland	 8
Prince Edward Island	 5
Resolution 18 reads as follows:
Until the official census of 1871 has been made up, there shall be no change in the number of representatives from the several sections.
Resolution 19 reads as follows:
Immediately after the completion of the census of 1871, and immediately after every decennial census thereafter, the representation from each section in the House of Commons shall be readjusted on the basis of population.
20.	For the purpose of such readjustments, Lower Canada shall always be assigned sixty-five members, and each of the other sections shall at each readjustment receive, for the ten years then next succeeding, the number of members to which it will be entitled on the same ratio of representation to population as Lower Canada will enjoy according to the census last taken by having sixty-five members.
21.	No reduction shall be made in the number of members returned by any section, unless its population shall have decreased, relatively to the population of the whole union, to the extent of five per centum.
Later, in 1867, there were the London Resolutions which correspond to sections 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21 which I just read. These are sections 18, 19, 20 and 21 of the London Resolutions. And section 22 of the London Resolutions reads as follows:
No reduction shall be made in the number of members returned by any province unless its population shall have decreased, relatively to the population of the whole union, to the extent of 5 per centum.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I wonder how we happened to have subsection 4 of section 51 which was, as I just stated, contrary to that agreement. I am not for the moment interested

Redistribution
in the question as to whether the British North America Act is a statute, a contract or a pact, but on the other hand there is one thing which nobody can deny, namely, that that pact of the British North America Act is based on an agreement, an agreement which is found in the Quebec Resolutions and the London Resolutions, and I say that that agreement, so far as representation is concerned, has not been complied with in the British North America Act. That is the reason why I say that since our constitution has to be amended with respect to representation, we should do so in a spirit of justice and equity, in the spirit of the eonfederative pact, a true pact if there ever was one, which gave birth to the Quebec Resolutions and to the London Resolutions, and that the government should have subsection 4 of section 51 struck out, or at least amended within the meaning of the Quebec Resolutions and of the London Resolutions. Then we could say that we have a resolution based on a spirit of understanding and equity, based on that spirit which actuated the fathers of confederation to whom the Minister of Justice so eloquently referred this afternoon.
One last point, Mr. Speaker. As other speakers have pointed out before me, our behaviour is again that of a colony. We are applying to another legislative body to have our constitution amended. On this point, many criticisms have been expressed by competent authorities and I only wish to say a few words on this matter and point to the fact that we have to apply to another parliament, to the British parliament for the amendment of our own constitution.
First allow me to quote the words spoken in this house by the Prime Minister on the 1st of July, 1943. Like many other Canadians, I was proud to hear the Prime Minister say the following, as reported at page 4226 of Hansard:
In the course of the last great war, we saw general recognition given to Canada's status as a nation; a status later accorded full recognition at the imperial conference of 1926, and still later confirmed by the parliament of the United Kingdom in the statute of Westminster. In the course of the present war, we have seen Canada emerge from nationhood into a position generally recognized as that of a world power.
In the greetings which have come to the government from many parts of the British commonwealth, and from foreign countries, this note has been predominant. The consensus is summed up, I believe, in the following paragraphs, which, according to a Canadian Press cable, appeared to-day in a leading London newspaper:
Britain and the empire join in a salutation on the dominion's 76th birthday.
They hail her not only as a member of our group of peoples, but as a world power in her own right.
Such is the energy of her people that industrially, and by measure of armed power, Canada ranks fourth in all the company of the united nations.
And to-day, a few days only after the utterance of such a statement which, as I said a few moments ago, could inspire many Canadians with pride, a bill is brought down in this parliament, by which we are requested to ask another parliament, supposedly of the same rank, to be kind enough to amend our constitution. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that this is such an abnormality that, to be logical, we should not be content with denouncing it, but rather we should take a strong stand against it and oppose this resolution.
And that is not all, Mr. Speaker. A short while ago, I called your attention to steps taken by various provinces, but something of greater importance still has happened in the country and this fact should appeal to the spirit of justice and fairness which should guide us in proceeding with any proposed amendments to the British North America Act. One province protests officially against this amendment. Here is a Quebec newspaper, Le Soleil-and I might say in passing that Le Soleil is, according to its own word, the Liberal mouthpiece and consequently friendly to the Prime Minister and Mr. Godbout. I quote the following from the third page of Le Soleil, of June 23, 1943:
Godbout Sends to Ottawa a Protest Against a Breach of the Constitution
Hon. Adelard Godbout, prime minister of the province of Quebec officially protested yesterday against the desire on the part of the dominion government to override the Canadian constitution in order to postpone until the end of the war the redistribution of Canadian constituencies. The prime minister made that important announcement yesterday afternoon, in the course of a discussion raised on that matter by the leader of the opposition, Hon. Maurice Duplessis.
The leader of the opposition stated in the house that the dominion government have decided to request the Westminster parliament to override the Canadian constitution so that the dominion government may not be compelled at this time to redistribute the constituencies according to the 1941 federal census.
Mr. Duplessis said that such a precedent would be detrimental to the province of Quebec and that it was an infringement upon the confederation agreement. According to the leader of the opposition, the Westminster parliament does not attach enough importance to provincial rights, and the confederation agreement, is a
Redistribution

contract which cannot be amended without the consent of the parties involved. The leader of the opposition said that the French Canadians intend to respect the rights of others hut that they want their rights to be similarly upheld.
Hon. Mr. Godbout stated that the leader of the opposition was justified in asserting the rights of his compatriots in that connection. He added that the provincial government had already drafted a protest which will be forwarded to Ottawa at once.
By now, that protest must be in the hands of the government of this country and that is why I say that this resolution should not have been moved at this time. Reference is often made to national unity; under that pretext of national unity a group of the citizens of this country are sometimes asked not to demand self-evident rights, but in the last analysis we must always ascertain whether the principles of justice and equity are observed in such matters. In conclusion, as I said at the outset, I believe that I have discussed this matter, not in a partisan spirit, but on its merits. As long as the government do not advance better reasons than those stated in their resolution for amending the British North America Act, I believe every man who is fully aware of the importance of his mandate in this house is in duty bound to oppose that resolution.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. J. SASSEVILLE ROY (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, after it had been announced in the speech from the throne that the government would proceed with the redistribution bill, the introduction of this resolution in the house, and the way in which it is worded, greatly astonishes me. I am also greatly disturbed by this proposed breach in the constitution.
Before I proceed with my remarks on the resolution itself, I should like to join with the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay (Mr. Dorion) in extending congratulations to the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent) upon the last part of his speech this afternoon. Attractive as it seemed, and in spite of all its effectiveness from an electoral point of view, it remains only a fine speech. I do not think it will do anything to heal the breach which we now see being attempted.
May I recall to my hon. friend that we have had fine speeches in the past. I remember very well the speeches we used to hear in the province of Quebec, the promises and pledges that were given, simply for the purpose of
(Mr. Dorion.]
winning an election, as was admitted by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) in his speech on the plebiscite on January 26, 1942. We know exactly what resulted from those fine speeches and promises. A little later, in 1942, we had a plebiscite asking Baptiste to forgive the Prime Minister and the government or the Liberal party for those fine speeches and promises that had been made in the province of Quebec, but at the same time John was asked to overlook the Prime Minister's promises. Well, Baptiste refused to overlook them and John forgot them, and the Prime Minister took advantage of that situation to forget all the fine speeches and promises which had been made in the province of Quebec in the past. This very recent experience is a good lesson to us all.
That is the value of fine speeches. I will not go over again what has been said about this pretence to the effect that there has been a demographic movement in the population from certain provinces since the census was taken in 1941. I think that has been fully covered by the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay, and what he has said should convince us that the situation will be precisely the same after the war, which I suppose will be in 1944 or 1945.
We shall proceed then on the very same figures and the same census, and I do not see what difference it can make.
There is another paragraph, however, to which I would call Your Honour's attention. It reads:
Whereas experience has shown that such a readjustment may give rise to sharp differences of opinion as to the appropriate delimitation of electoral divisions, which differences it is most desirable to avoid while Canada continues at war. . . .
I suggest that this pretence is even weaker than the one I mentioned before. The government has not shown very great wisdom in this statement; it has not proved that its psychology is sound. I am amazed that the government and so many hon. members should fear some bitter differences of opinion over redistribution. Should we have proceeded with redistribution, such an action would not have imposed injustice on anyone. But the manner in which we are proceeding does imply great injustice to one province, and the government is not at all afraid, it seems, that some discussion will arise over it. That is one thing I cannot understand.
I was amazed to listen to all these gentlemen this afternoon all speaking very well, offering to support this resolution and concurring in the Prime Minister's argument that we should not raise this question on the floor of the house in this time of stress during the war.

Redistribution
It is easy, when certain political groups are not concerned with the province of Quebec, seeing that none of them have any representatives from that province to praise this resolution as something beneficial to us. It is also quite easy for such hon. gentlemen to display generosity in appealing to others to remain calm and to refrain from discussing these matters, on the ground that we are at war. Like the Prime Minister himself and the Minister of Justice, these hon. gentlemen fail to realize that, by the very fact that, in so doing, they bring the evidence that, should the matter of redistribution have been brought before the house, they would themselves have been the cause of a discussion they want to prevent. They do not seem to realize that it implies the admission that, should the matter be brought before the house, there would be some discussion about it. They are simply asking others who do suffer the injustice involved in this resolution to remain quiet, and they are trying to be as agreeable as possible in doing this.
It is difficult to make me believe and to make the rest of the province of Quebec believe that it would be a crime to proceed with the redistribution. If unity, peace and harmony are to reign in this country, they will reign in the exact measure that contracts and pledged words are honoured. The faith of the people in the constitution and in the grandeur of the ideal which it embodies will be but equal to the respect, the worth and the dignity of our constitutional system; and if we do not want to have any trouble; if we do not want to expose ourselves to the danger which already threatens in Quebec, in the movement which is called separatism; if we do not want that movement to spread to such an extent as to jeopardize the constitution, as breeches of the principle of the constitution such as this would bring about; if we do not want to jeopardize the confederation, then we should not support any resolution or move of this kind.
It is really curious to listen to everyone making eloquent speeches, trying to give proof of good intentions, and a friendly spirit toward Quebec. It is curious to see that in different localities, when it has been desired to make some changes in the constitution, the province of Quebec has always been sacrificed. We can understand why Quebec, with sixty-five constituencies, as was explained this afternoon by the Minister of Justice, from the British North America Act, has had to suffer many times in the past. This agreement has been detrimental to that province as far as influence in the house and in Canada is concerned. But that is the constitution to-day. As it stands, there are no fewer than twenty-one seats in
Canada in excess of the number there should be, in consequence of this provision of the constitution. In other words, Quebec actually has proportionately six members fewer to exercise some influence with the rest of Canada. That is one of the reasons why we oppose this resolution.
There is another reason more important than one, namely, a breach of principle. In the eyes of some it may be difficult to understand why we adhere so strictly to the principle of the contract and the constitution itself. Well, there are many reasons for that. I shall give some of those reasons which may serve to explain /to hon. members why we have reason to oppose the resolution. For this I must go back a piece into history.
First, we feel that we must maintain provincial autonomy as it is, and that we must safeguard all the rights extended to us by treaties and by the constitution itself, in order that we may achieve the maintenance of French culture and French traditions in Canada. Canada was first discovered by Jacques Cartier, and afterwards was settled to some extent by Champlain. Following that, our missionaries and explorers had walked over and watered with their sweat, tears and blood every foot of land between Louisiana in the south to the Mackenzie river in the north; afterwards the territory was all surveyed and mapped and all civilized; thus we have been conquered by force. Force was the only way to make conquest, of course; and that is still true to-day.
At the conclusion of that war we were given by the highest authority in England what ini those times was considered fair treatment. Despite the fact that in 1787 and 1812 our forefathers fought side by side with the forefathers of the majority in this country to keep the country under the control of the British crown, there has always been a small group in Canada inspired by bigotry which has caused trouble through the years. So much so that in 1837 we saw a revolution in Lower Canada. Matters went from bad to worse until 1840, the time of the Act of Union, a measure which imposed on Lower Canada the obligation to pay $100,000,000. Might I point out that in those times a sum of that magnitude, having in mind the small population in Quebec, would have compared with a sum of not less than ten billions of dollars to-day. Imagine the burden an amount of that size imposed on the colony of Lower Canada!
Since confederation there have been many breaches made to the confederation pact. If these breaches continue, it is our fear that step by step we shall have lost all the rights granted to us by the British authorities and by confederation. That is why we protest against

Redistribution
this resolution. That is the reason why we ask the majority why it has not presented a resolution or made a suggestion of the kind I am about to submit. If it is not deemed proper under present circumstances to make this redistribution, then why might we not suggest an amendment to the constitution by a process which would not have been a breach of principle, and which would have ensured that Quebec be given a number of seats sufficient to equalize her representation with that of other provinces. That would have satisfied all those who do not want to lose representation; it would have protected the rights of all, and it would have meant an equal distribution of representation for Quebec. This would have been fair, but no one has thought of such a means to adjust the situation, a process which would have been fair to all.
Before concluding my remarks, may I make an appeal to all hon. members asking them to consider carefully the dangers contained in this measure to the constitution and unity of Canada. In the past we have seen some bigotry, and there are still some behind the scenes who take a narrow view. Yet, in the past there have been men who at the proper time would raise their voices-I think of Baldwin, MacNab and Macdonald. There have been men in times past, men whose names are famous and glorious to-day. And it is my hope that there will be men in this House of Commons to-day who will seek to show the injustice contained within this resolution, and who will be careful and prudent enough to see that the unity of Canada is not threatened by this injustice.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Mr. Speaker, the resolution now being considered by the house contains in my humble judgment a dangerous procedure to which the House of Commons should give serious consideration before adopting it in the form in which it has been couched on the order paper. For a number of years it has been admitted in all branches of public opinion that no serious change should be made in the British North America Act without the consent and approval of the parties to the contract. I admit that in the past the federal parliament has been dealing from the point of view of its own authority, and has been amending the British North America Act without consulting the provinces which are a party to that contract. But I repeat that that at least within the last few years the opinion has developed throughout Canada that the British North America Act should be considered as a sacred contract among associates, those associates

being the provinces, and that nothing should be done to modify it without the approval of the contracting parties.
We have had1 that experience when we have dealt with the necessary amendments to permit the federal authority to deal with unemployment insurance legislation. There are many other instances in which, before making any move, we have consulted the different provinces composing the Dominion of Canada. To-day we are going to touch upon one of the fundamentals of the British North America Act without consulting the provinces, and despite the protests made by at least one province.
I claim that it is a breach of our promise, and that not only are we not dealing properly with Quebec, but also with regard to other small English-speaking provinces. I make that statement because some small English-speaking provinces will be affected by the result of the application of the principle embodied in this resolution.
English-speaking provinces in Canada have been suffering in their representation in the House of Commons by the application of the principles laid down in the British North America Act. They stood it; they accepted it, because they w'anted to respect the principle that was the corner-stone of our understanding and of our existence as a dominion. Ontario, herself, accepted a reduction in her representation in the House of Commons when, following a census, the number of her representatives was reduced. The maritime provinces, more than any other of the provinces of Canada, have suffered. They accepted the reduction until such time as it was quite apparent that the reduction being imposed upon them was too great and would interfere with the proper representation of those provinces in the House of Commons. There was a limit fixed in order to prevent the representation of those provinces in the House of Commons from going below a certain number. That is to their advantage now. Now. other provinces, fearing the application of the principle laid down in the British North America Act, are trying to preserve their representation in the House of Commons when the maritime provinces have lost theirs.
This is not fair to Quebec or to the other provinces whose representation has been fixed or which has been reduced by the application of the British North America Act. This should not be done.
I have no patience with the reasons given in the resolution. They do not appeal to me at all. They should not appeal to any assembly of responsible men, of men capable

Redistribution
of facing their responsibilities and dealing with them as true representatives of the Canadian people, even under the difficult circumstances which are facing us to-day. This resolution really states that the representatives of the people in the House of Commons are incapable of dealing properly with an important problem in the troubled days through which we are passing. It is to the discredit of members of parliament to have it asserted and established in a resolution of this kind that we in this parliament cannot, without fighting like wildcats, adjust our representation as reasonable men who are ready to understand each other. I cannot subscribe to such a theory.
What are the reasons given? First, the war. Have we not since the beginning of the war been dealing with problems just as important as this one? We had the plebiscite which was capable of upsetting the friendly relations and good understanding among all citizens of Canada. We went through that without any trouble; we went through that like men capable of understanding each other's point of view. But too often we are postponing and postponing such questions until the war is over. Why are we here? Why do we not go home if we cannot deal properly with this problem? Othei^ dominions, such as South Africa, are facing even general elections. It is much more dangerous to fight a general election, as they are doing in South Africa and as they have done in Ireland, than to adjust our representation in the House of Commons. It is ten times more difficult. That is not the reason.
Then it is said that because of enlistments the population of certain provinces has been reduced. But, sir, men who have enlisted have been registered as being in their constituencies in 1941. They have not been registered in England or in any other part of Canada, but only at the place of their residence. Then changes on account of employment is given as a reason. Most men who have left one province to work temporarily in another were registered before they made their move. They will not be handicapped. We would not proceed as conditions are in 1943, but on the situation existing in June, 1941. At that time very few men had migrated to other provinces to obtain work.
All that was known on January 28, when this session began. We were at war when the speech from the throne announced that we were to have redistribution. On two occasions in May last we were told by the Prime Minister, and even later on, on May 31, by the Minister of Mines and Resources
(Mr. Crerar), that we were to have redistribution. Were we not at war then? We were at war then, and the arguments that are being advanced now were just as strong in January and in May as they are to-day. I say that those arguments are of no value.
Then it is said that it would delay the session. Why did we not start in January? Why did we not appoint a committee to deal with redistribution in the first days of February? The report would have been before us long ago, and we would now be in position to deal properly with redistribution without doing any injustice to any province or to any division. But no, we delayed and we delayed and we delayed until the argument could be advanced that it was too late to proceed.
It is said also that there would be at this time strongly divergent views. When we have a redistribution after the war, as it has been pointed out this afternoon, it will be based upon the decennial census of 1941; it will not be based upon the situation that will exist after the war or after those who may have temporarily migrated, return to their former places of residence. The resolution says in so many words that the redistribution will be based upon the decennial census of 1941, and those provinces which are likely to lose seats by redistribution will be faced with the same situation. That is what will happen unless-I do not use this phrase in an offensive way-there is a nigger in the woodpile; unless there is a general election before the end of the war.
If there is a general election before the end of the war, those provinces which are exposed to a loss of seats will be able to preserve them, and preserve them until the next decennial census which will be made in 1951. The province of Quebec, which has a fixed number of sixty-five seats, will still remain in the same unfair position. That province is supposed to be the regulator of the representation, but year after year it has been a regulator that regulates absolutely nothing. When it comes to the application of the rule there is always an exception made. Means are always found of avoiding its application and Quebec continues to have only sixty-five members. The maritime provinces continue to have the small number they have at the present time, while other provinces enjoy a larger number of representatives to which, strictly speaking, they are not entitled.
So far as I am concerned I would have been ready to consider redistribution in the broadest sense possible. One reason has been given which appeals to me. There are members of the House of Commons who have
Redistribution

enlisted in the armed services and who, because they are overseas, could not be here to discuss redistribution if it were proceeded with. I have the most profound sympathy for those members. They have a right to be here, and I would be the first one to see that they are not deprived of the right to express their point of view. But actually very few of them are on the other side; the majority are in Canada. We see them occasionally, and they could be here for a day or two or for a week to look after their own interests. So far as those who are overseas are concerned, and without wanting to assume too much, I think I can say in the name of the representatives of the province of Quebec that we would be ready to leave their seats undisturbed until the next decennial census. I would be the first one to propose such a measure in favour of those members who have enlisted and who are overseas.
I regret very much, Mr. Speaker, that on a question of that kind, with one province in particular having so much at stake, as well as others, we had the motion which was moved by the Prime Minister this afternoon. That incident reminded me of a day long ago in the old House of Commons of Canada when Sir Wilfrid Laurier was on his feet ready to speak to a motion that had been made by Sir Robert Borden to amend the rules of the house, and a Conservative, a member of the government, Mr. Northrup, rose and proposed the very motion the Prime Minister proposed this afternoon-the previous question-to prevent Sir Wilfrid Laurier from exposing his views on the question before the house.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I ask my hon. friend whether my motion is in any way preventing him from saying anything that he desires on the motion of the Minister of Justice?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No. I am explaining my point that the motion this afternoon of the right hon. leader of the government prevents all kinds of amendments being moved. The right hon. Prime Minister said so in so many words.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is something quite different from what my hon. friend just said. What my hon. friend implied was that I had been seeking to prevent hon. members from discussing this motion.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The motion before the Chair.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No, but it reminds me of a similar motion that was made by Mr. Northrup, the effect of which was to prevent Sir

Wilfrid Laurier from exposing his views on the motion made by Sir Robert Borden. I do not say that the motion made by the Prime Minister this afternoon has the effect of preventing discussion on the main motion, but here is the point to which I am coming. The motion of the Prime Minister, according to his own words, according to his own interpretation and according to the rules of the house prevents any kind of amendment; yes, prevents all kinds of amendments which might come within the four corners of the resolution and which might help to remove certain apprehensions that exist and help to prevent certain injustices that otherwise are going to follow. I do not say that the right hon. the Prime Minister made his motion to prevent me from moving my amendment. He did not know about it. Nobody knew about it. The amendment I intended to move is within the four corners of the resolution. The reason advanced by the Prime Minister for making his motion, to move the previous question, was to avoid all kinds of discussion outside the four corners of the resolution-that is the reason he gave-to avoid amendments that he had heard somebody was going to move and which might set the house afire. The amendment which I had in mind to propose and which I am going to read before sitting down was within the iowf corners of tbr resolution and would have prevented an injust treatment being imposed to a province in particular by the passing of the measure as it is at present drafted.
We have been told this afternoon that the populations of certain provinces have been reduced by reason of the war. But no evidence has been produced of that; no indication has been given of the truth of that statement. So far as the house is concerned, we do not know. But if we look upon certain documents that are at our disposal, we come to the conclusion that the decrease in the population of Saskatchewan started in 1931 and continued to decrease until 1936. There was no war on then, but the population of the province decreased considerably from 1931 to 1936. I am not quite correct in saying that. My information is taken from a report I have of the live births for all the provinces of Canada. If hon. gentlemen will look at that report they will see that the birth-rate in Canada has been increasing, with the exception of in two provinces, and one in particular, the birth-rate has been very rapidly decreasing between 1931 and 1936. That was in Saskatchewan.
I hope that nobody will accuse me of making any plea that would be prejudicial to the fair and just interests of the province of Saskatchewan. If there is an agreement that should be

Redistribution
made to protect the province of Saskatchewan, which has suffered so much from drought, let us make it. But let us do something for the other provinces also in order to compensate for the advantages so given to one province at the expense of the others. That is my proposal.
I would have been ready to consider favourably any request to help maintain at a proper number the representation of Saskatchewan in this parliament. I know that that province has been through difficult days, that it has experienced hard times. I am ready to consider that and to provide some relief, if I may use the word, in reference to representation in the House of Commons. But I think that something else should be done to compensate the other provinces that have been receiving no consideration in any redistribution made in consequence of the decennial censuses that we have had since 1871.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Before my hon. friend proceeds any further, on a point of order, I was not in a position to say at the moment whether he was correct when he made the statement that the motion which was moved by Mr. Northrop was the same as the one I moved to-day. I have since had an opportunity to look into the matter, and I wish now to say that the motion moved by Mr. Northrop was not the same as I moved to-day. I wish to make that quite clear to my hon. friend. If he wishes to have the facts verified, he will find the motion Mr. Northrop moved set out in Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, third edition, 1943, citation 215:
On the 9th of April, 1913, Sir Wilfrid Laurier and Hr. Hazen rose at the same time and Mr. Northrop moved that Mr. Hazen "be now heard."


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Technically there is something in the point raised by the Prime Minister. I shortened my recital, but the effect of the two motions is just the same. Mr. Northrop moved that Sir Douglas Hazen be given the right of way, the right to speak in place of Sir Wilfrid Laurier who had risen at the same time. The speaker had "seen" Sir Wilfrid Laurier first and authorized him to speak, when Mr. Northrop rose and moved according to the roles of the house that Sir Douglas Hazen be "seen" by the Speaker and be allowed to speak. A vote was taken, and Sir Wilfrid Laurier and the Liberals were defeated. Sir Wilfrid Laurier had- to sit down and Sir Douglas Hazen rose in his place and moved a motion like the one the Prime Minister has moved. He moved the previous question, without making any speech at all.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend has not had to sit down, nor has he been prevented from uttering any word he wished to say.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No, but that is not exactly representing my position. I am referring to a situation in years gone by similar to the one we are facing to-day. When a motion was moved preventing any amendment, just as the Prime Minister's motion does to-day, I can speak on the main motion; yes, other members have been speaking on it and others will speak, but there can be no amendment moved even to better the resolution that is before the house, after the previous question has been moved. That is my criticism. It prevents all members of the house from any section of the country from moving any amendment that would improve the text of the resolution which we are at present considering and which might help to dispel the anxiety which exists in many quarters and prevent at least the injustice that is being done to certain partners to the pact of confederation, an injustice that may remain on our statute books until ,1951 after the next decennial census is taken.
The amendment, Mr. Speaker, which I had in mind to move was very short. I was simply suggesting to add to paragraph 1 of the proposed measure to be introduced in the British house the following words:
However, a readjustment of the representation of the provinces in the House of Commons in consequence of the aforesaid decennial census shall be made previous to the holding of a general election.
I wanted to avoid the holding of a general election on a redistribution which was made after the decennial census of 1931. If there is an election before 1945 and the war is not then concluded, that election will be fought on a representation based on the decennial census of 1931.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: 1941.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No, 1931, because it is not proposed to deal with redistribution based on 1941 census until after the war. The proposal is to postpone until then the redistribution based on the decennial census of 1941. So that, if we have an election before the war is concluded, that election will have to be fought on a redistribution made after the decennial census of 1931. That I regard as an injustice.
If we had embodied in the amendment to the constitution that in the event of a general election before the conclusion of the term of office of this parliament redistribution would previously be made in consequence of the
Redistribution

1941 census, no province would have had cause to complain. Some attention could then be given to the province of Quebec, which representation now seems to be fixed at sixty-five for the rest of the life of Canada. Attention could also be given to the maritime provinces representation. I suggest it would have been fair to amend the resolution in that way. Such amehdment would not have brought in any question or any subject not within the principle of the resolution.
Even if we are deprived of the right of making an amendment to have that situation cleared up, I wonder if it will be possible to obtain from the Prime Minister an understanding that before we go to the people some arrangement will be made regarding redistribution in order that no province will suffer from the results of the amendment to the constitution which is proposed. But we have not even that. All that is proposed now is to postpone the redistribution, but we are not told what is to be done in the meantime.
The redistribution is postponed on account of the war; but there is a possibility that the war will not be an obstacle to the holding of a general election. The government is afraid of dealing in the House of Commons now with the problem of redistribution on account of difficulties which may exist, of troubles which may be raised, of representations which may be made by certain provinces and controversies which might endanger the unity of this country. Yet the government does not seem to be afraid of plunging Canada into a general election during the war and before redistribution has been made. That is the situation.
All the arguments which have been advanced up to the present against redistribution apply with a hundred times more force to the holding of a general election before the war is over, but we have not a word as to that. They will postpone redistribution and wait for the opportunity of calling a general election later on, and that general election will be held on the basis of the decennial census of 1931.
I repeat that this is not justice; it is not fair treatment. There is certainly a possibility, between understanding citizens of Canada who have in the past faced many difficulties, of reaching an agreement which will not sow any prejudice or create any disunity in the country. Speaking for my province particularly, I say there would be no trouble there, because there was none in the past when the number of our representatives remained at sixty-five and representation changed in other sections of Canada.

Of course we have difficulties; we have misunderstandings; but what country under the face of the sun is without difficulties? One has only to listen to what is being said in the parliament of South Africa, in the parliament of Australia, even in the parliament of England, to know that they are not afraid there to discuss the problems of the day and that they do not shelve them indefinitely.
It would have been possible, I repeat, to deal with this problem and to grant relief, if necessary, to -the provinces of Saskatchewan and Manitoba according to circumstances and evidence placed before the House of Commons. That case is not made now. If we would deal with redistribution, the case could be made on figures, not on words, not on suppositions; and afterwards it would be easy to reach an understanding. I can guarantee that no trouble would be raised in my province against an equitable arrangement equally fair to all the members of the pact of confederation.
Mr. JEAN-FRANQOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata): Mr. Speaker, it is with a deep feeling of regret and sorrow that I rise in my place to-day. The first reason is that, according to the press of the province of Quebec, not long ago, on June 22, it was unanimously resolved by the Quebec legislature to send a protest to the dominion government regarding precisely the motion which is now before us. It is very seldom, sir, that there is such unanimity of opposing groups; but this time Conservatives and Liberals, English and French-speaking Canadians and even Jews in the Quebec legislature united to send a solemn protest to this government against such a move as is now contemplated. It is wrong, of course, to represent Quebec as a province composed wholly of French-speaking Canadians. There is a large number of Englishspeaking Canadians, of people of all origins and of all religions in the province of Quebec. Jews have been elected to the Quebec legislature; in fact the first Jew who was elected to the legislative assembly of any part of the British empire, even before Disraeli was elected in London, was a Jew named Hart, who was elected in the French-Canadian constituency of Three Rivers. Therefore we cannot overlook the fact that the unanimity of Quebec on this matter is not only that of French-speaking Canadians but that of all those who live within the boundaries of that province, who are represented by members of different religious faiths and of different languages, residing within its precincts. That is why I am so surprised, in fact dumbfounded, that

Redistribution
the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent) have not tabled a copy of that solemn protest, which was not a private letter, because, as I have been credibly informed, it was an official letter of the Quebec government to the dominion government protesting in clear terms against such a move.
We live under a constitution that was passed by Westminster after lengthy discussion in Quebec and in Charlottetown; it is that constitution that we must respect if we are to have order and good government in this country; and if anyone says anything disparaging of that constitution, anything that brings it into disrepute in the minds of his fellow citizens, he is doing something that is contrary to the defence regulations.
The remarks that have been made by the Minister of Justice, who is a distinguished member of the bar, have greatly surprised me. He spoke of extraneous subjects and thereby invited discussion on a most controversial matter. He gave me the impression of a man pouring oil on the fire. I would have understood his position if immediately before he had risen, someone had discussed language and religious matters relating to the subject before us. But no one did so. He was the first to speak on the matter, and he himself indicated that such cases as he referred to were mentioned only by few people and were not important. A minister who holds such a rank in the government of the country had no right on such a solemn occasion to bring forward such matters, adding straw to the fire, in fact lighting the fire of prejudice throughout the country.
I am a much older member than the hon. gentleman. I have been here nearly twenty years and he is a newcomer. But never have I raised the question of race and religion in this house, and I have good friends among members who are staunch imperialists, who have not my religious faith and who do not speak my language. But I believe that we can come easily to an understanding-on what basis? On the basis of fairness. And so long as a minister admits that there is unfairness somewhere, unfairness in this act, in the way it has been interpreted and applied, whether in my province or in a sister province, the first thing to do, if we are to have national unity, is to remedy that injustice and to have the courage to do so. So long as injustice is admitted it is the duty of the government to correct it, and the government cannot come and say that because we are at war they will not correct that injustice. That is cowardice; it is not
worthy of men of the character and determination of those who sit on the treasury benches.
I do not admit that in times of war unfairness should be cherished at the expense of fairness. I do not admit that, and no member will admit it. The Minister of Justice cannot enunciate the principle that in time of war unfairness shall subsist because there might be criticism in some quarters. No member can rise in his place and defend such a theory. How is it that the Minister of Justice, who is the guardian of the law, rose in his place and made a speech in which he said that we do not want to invite controversy, while at the same time he invited controversy, invited prejudice, invited hatred and religious fights and struggles in this country? 1 cannot conceive it, and I tell you, sir, it is a very dangerous thing to deal with. It is a very dangerous matter to handle. I saw that some of his colleagues here were worrying while he was giving his explanation. What has the question of language to do with redistribution in this country? What has the matter of religion to do with redistribution?
Members of this house who belong to the army may suffer an injustice, it is said. As the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres pointed out, is there one member of this house who would do injustice to anyone in the armed forces, whether overseas or in this country? No one would do that; no one would agree to a proposal which my hon. friend could not make but did mention, about members of the armed forces belonging to our house being given the same seats. No one would object to that even if those members were not here. No member would think of objecting to that. Therefore, why use such an argument in regard to such a question? Why raise the patriotic issue, waving that flag that we have not? What is patriotism, sir? It is a simple thing. It is love of our country and respect for our institutions.
What is the motto of French Canadians? It is, "Our religion, our tongue and our rights". That may be the motto of English-speaking Canadians as well. But because the French Canadian speaks French and the English Canadian speaks English, or because the Scottish Canadian speaks Gaelic, that is no reason why we cannot come to an understanding, provided that understanding is based on fairness. And in this case the Minister of Justice has admitted that there is something wrong, something which should be righted by the government-until lately. Why did the Prime Minister state in this house in words that were very clear, words that were not
Redistribution

obscure, that since the question of redistribution had been mentioned in the speech from the throne the government would proceed with it at this session, before the expiration of the session? AVhat happened between the time when the Prime Minister made that statement and the moment when this resolution appeared on the order paper? What was the reason for the change? How is it that no one doubted all along that before the expiration of the session the government would deal with the question of redistribution? I cannot understand it and nobody can. It is a mystery.
Coming to the resolution itself and the way in which it is drafted, I have a few words to say; but before doing so I would again ask the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice to table a copy of the solemn protest received from the Quebec government, not only on behalf of the French-speaking Canadians of Quebec, but on behalf of those people of Quebec whom they represent, whatever may be their race or religion.
In regard to the resolution I have a correction to make in the quotation of Doctor Skelton by the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation party. Doctor Skelton appearing before the committee said that Canada was the only country in the world that could not amend its constitution. It is true, and it is not true. All dominions, with the exception of Canada, have the right to amend their own constitution. They were all subject to disallowance by the British government, as we are now. Therefore, what was the use of having power to amend the constitution when, on the other hand, the British government had the power of disallowance of any act passed by any such parliament of the dominions. An exception could be made with respect to Ireland, in these later years. But it is the only dominion where there is no right of disallowance. Therefore Doctor Skelton gave a superficial view of the constitutions of other dominions.
Now, to come to this resolution, the government of Canada proposes to go to the British government asking for an amendment of the constitution with respect to the holding of a redistribution. As one who at the request of the late Minister of Justice made a report on redistribution in each county of Quebec, covering the last eighty years, and who prepared a booklet used by that right hon. gentleman as well as by the hon. member for Rich-elieu-Vercheres (Mr. Cardin) when they discussed the matter with Conservative ministers at that time, I believe I have the right to protest against a move like this. I have also the right to protest against the way in which the resolution has been drafted.

The other day while speaking, not about the British government but about His Majesty the King and Her Majesty the Queen, I said I did not feel humble when speaking to them, through you, sir. I did not feel humble, although I do feel so at times. I did not feel humble, because I represent people I am proud of, and I believe that is the feeling of all hon. members elected for the various constituencies of this country. But I do not see the government of Canada, which is supposed to be on an equal footing with the British government, going humbly before the lords spiritual and temporal asking them to amend the constitution. I do not see them going humbly

and the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent) repeated that expression at the beginning of his speech-going humbly like the burgher of Calais, or like one of our colleagues who had to act humbly, and who had to repeat flectamus qenua four times the other day before his withdrawal w-as accepted. I cannot agree with that. I cannot agree with it because I think we should have the dignity of an autonomous country within the empire. We should have the right to amend our constitution ourselves, as has been said so well by some hon. members. I do not see how we can go twice a year, or once a year to London to ask for an amendment to our constitution. What is our constitution worth, if it has to be changed like that every year? I admit that nothing is perfect in the constitution. But when Mr. Bennett stated that the constitution should be amended I asked him very often, "What part of the constitution do you wish to amend?" He could not answer me.
Last year the constitution was amended to permit the introduction of an unemployment measure. This year it will be amended to destroy a vital part of the British North America Act, a part which deals with representation in the House of Commons, the representation of a group of men who must have their say in our deliberations, and who must have no fear or favour in the conduct of their discussion. That is the British North America Act. Every province agreed to the constitution at the time of confederation. The government has no power to go to London to ask for a change without at least asking the people what they think of it. It should ask the people by way of a. plebiscite, the fashion of which was begun last year.
This matter affects not only the dominion. It affects the provinces, and affects every citizen in the country. Therefore each province and each citizen, each man and woman have the right to express their views on the matter. If this motion is passed I hope the government will be fair enough to attach to it

Redistribution
a copy of the solemn protest received from the government of Quebec against such a change before an election. The suggestion of the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres is only fair and just. He did not offer an amendment, because he could not, on account of the Prime Minister's motion. But does it not appeal to every hon. member that it would be only fair that the next election should be conducted after the last census, and not the census before the last one. What is the purpose of a census? It is to establish a basis of representation in accordance with the provisions of the British North America Act. What is the use of spending a million dollars for a census, if it is of no use, and if it does not serve the purpose for which it is made?
There is no question of any intervention by Mr. Anthony Eden in respect of the matter of redistribution, except that if the matter is taken to Westminster he will be one who will have to help decide. The same applies to Lord Halifax. What has Lord Halifax to do with this matter? What has Mr. Anthony Eden to do with this matter? He may have something to do with it when the resolution is over there, but only at that time.
To this moment no one has explained satisfactorily to me the reason for the sudden change of the government in connection with this matter. I do not know the reason. I took some notes of what the Minister of Justice said, and he made one observation which astounded me. This is a proposal for a modification of the act of 1867. I do not know if my understanding of his statement was correct, but if it is not, he will no doubt correct me. When a change is to be made in the British North America Act those concerned must deal with a constitution formulated by the fathers of confederation to weld into one nation two groups of peoples of different origin and with different religions. That is not the question. It is admitted that different people have different religions. But I say that although they do not belong to the same race, or do not have the same religious beliefs, or are not of the same origin, still we are all in the same boat and we have to make the best of it. Therefore it is not by leaving an injustice, and permitting it to continue that we are going to bring about a greater degree of peace and unity in Canada.
I have said it before, and I now repeat that it is a great mistake to consider French Canadians of the same class and in the same walk of life as being different mentally from English, Scotch or Irish citizens performing the same work. That is a great mistake. All have the same interests. They are fellow *citizens. They must work in unison, and they
will do so, provided no one raises the cry of prejudice or brings before their eyes matters which may be exploited by a few individuals unworthy of the name Canadian.
I was sorry that the Minister of Justice took the trouble to bring that matter before the house. Some of his statements were commendable, but they would have been just as good on another occasion. But this was not the time to say what he said because, as was pointed out by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Graydon)-and rightly so-what he said was irrelevant.
The matter before the house is one of representation of people within the boundaries of a certain unit known as a constituency. All those people have the right to be represented in the House of Commons, and it would be an injustice both to French Canadians of Ontario as well as to English-speaking citizens of Quebec not to proceed with redistribution according to the solemn promise which was made in the speech from the throne, and which was repeated not long ago by the Prime Minister. I see no reason for it.
What explanation have we been given? The hon. member who preceded me in the debate suggested that this was being done to have more seats for Quebec in the next election. No, sir; that will not work. Even Englishspeaking Canadians in Canada would not agree to any injustice to both English-speaking and French-speaking citizens, which would have the effect of greater support for the choice of the government in any constituency. I believe that the French-speaking people and the English-speaking people in this country are fair-minded. The only trouble is that they have not been told the things that they should have been told; they have not been spoken to in the language that should have been used. But when they read Hansard they will see the admission made by the Minister of Justice that there was something wrong, that there was, to use the expression of my hon. friend who spoke previously, a nigger in the wood-pile. They will want to know what the nigger in the wood-pile is. If they proceed farther, they will see that the Minister of Justice has admitted that there is something wrong somewhere, that we must wait until the end of the war to do something and not create a disturbance.
Our soldiers are fighting for freedom and liberty, and yet an injustice exists in our midst. Is it possible to conceive that while we are trying to cure the evils of the world, we allow them to exist in our midst? That is my last word. I make a special appeal to the Prime Minister; I make a special appeal
Redistribution

to the Minister of Justice; I ask them in the interests of all Canadians to conceive it to be their duty to drop the motion for the previous question and the motion before the chair.


Mr. D. K. HAZEN (St. John-Albert):: Mr. Speaker, after listening this afternoon to the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent), I concluded that the consent of the provincial governments or legislatures had not been obtained to the amendment to the British North America Act proposed by this resolution. If I am not correct in that conclusion, the Minister of Justice can correct me. If I am correct, I think some explanation is due to the members of this house and to the country as to why this consent was not obtained. All the provinces are interested, and in my opinion they should have been consulted. Before an amendment was made to the British North America Act to establish a system of unemployment insurance, the consent of the provinces was obtained. But nothing of that kind has been done on this occasion.
I do not think this is the proper time to have redistribution; I do not think it would be fair to some of the western provinces, but I rise this evening to place myself on record as being opposed to any amendment to the British North America Act unless the provincial legislatures have agreed to such amendment. Any amendment to the British North America Act should involve the approval of the legislature of -each province. I intend to support the resolution, but I do so upon the understanding that it creates no precedent as far as further amendments to the British North America Act are concerned.


Mr. LIONEL BERTRAND (Terrebonne) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, the resolution we are requested to pass does not meet with my approval and I must admit frankly that I cannot countenance it. Here are my reasons. In 1867 the British North America Act fixed at 65 the number of members for the province of Quebec. Besides, the same legislation states that the other provinces will be entitled to as many constituencies as the number of times their population is divisible by one sixty-fifth of that of the province of Quebec.
This clause was included in the Confederation pact in order to safeguard the rights of Quebec as compared to the other provinces and ensure that it would be fairly represented in Parliament. If the population of Quebec should increase more rapidly than that of the other provinces in a ten-year period, it may

well be that the representation of these be decreased, as on the contrary, it may increase if the population of Quebec should experience an appreciable decrease.
The British North America Act specifies that the representation shall be adjusted following every tenth-year census. A census has been taken in 1941; according to the constitution the readjustment of representation should take place before the next general election.
However, the government, in the resolution now before the house, request that this readjustment be postponed until after the end of the war. As main arguments in favour of its resolution the government state that we are at war and that such a readjustment in war-time would inevitably cause dissension.
I still believe, Mr. Speaker, that the war should not be an excuse or a pretext for the establishment of a precedent or for any abuse. Time and again, I have protested in this house against the tendency of the government, under pretext of the state of war, to alter or amend our parliamentary set-up. The readjustment is to be made following the census taken every ten years. It has been taken during the war. Why have not the government, at that time, thought of postponing it? Since the census has been taken why should the readjustment of representation be postponed?' It had been announced in the speech from the throne, on January 28. On May 14th last the Right Hon. Prime Minister informed the house that this measure would be brought down in the course of the present session. Exactly a month later, the Right Hon. Prime Minister announced the intention of the government of having the constitution amended so as to postpone until the end of the wrar the readjustment of representation. Why this change in policy?
Any amendment to the constitution would establish a dangerous precedent, even in wartime. Besides, the constitution should be amended only in cases of absolute necessity. Furthermore, the readjustment of representation bill does not affect our war effort, either directly or indirectly, but is purely and simply an administrative affair.
The government fear that this readjustment may cause serious dissensions. This could not possibly be the case in Quebec, for that province may have neither more nor less than 65 constituencies. The protests could be based only on the alteration of the boundaries of existing constituencies and the government could, very wisely, avoid these, for reasons of war emergency. On account of

Redistribution
the increase in the population of the province of Quebec, the prairie provinces will lose seven or eight electoral districts. I under-[DOT] stand that if the redistribution was to be done at once, some hon. members, and especially those who sit on the other side of the house, would rise in protest. What happens is solely due to the constitution. The population of Quebec, a province where large families are the rule, which is no commonplace title to fame, has materially increased since the last ten years, and many persons who have left other provinces have found that Quebec was hospitable. Such are the facts. The province of Quebec is justified in demanding that the constitution be upheld, especially since the latter is the very basis of our representative system. Speaking in the Quebec house, whose members were unanimous on that point, Prime Minister Godbout has demanded on behalf and for the protection of the province of Quebec a representation wholly in accordance with the constitution. That desire on the part of the provincial government, and it is also the desire of the whole population of the province, cannot and must not be ignored.
The resolution clearly emphasizes that the readjustment of representation will be proceeded with at the first session held after the cessation of hostilities. The question comes up:	What will happen if the war is to last
one, two or three years longer, or if there is a general election before the cessation of hostilities? If the resolution is passed and if the government should decide to hold a general election in the coming fall or next winter, it follows that the number of constituencies will still be 245 while it should, in fact, be only 237 or 238.
Do you not believe, Mr. Speaker, that an injustice is being done as regards the rights which the province of Quebec enjoys under the confederation agreement, and that, under the pretext of war, the democratic character of our parliamentary system is being set aside? In my opinion to postpone the redistribution is simply to check the influence which Quebec is entitled to have on the political destinies of this country.
The Prime Minister has referred to an unusual movement, of population between the various provinces as a result of the enforcement of the mobilization act and the opening of war plants. The argument is not absolutely convincing, since it is quite possible that the situation may, with the cessation of hostilities, become both normal and permanent.
I am opposed to this resolution for the reasons which I have just stated. I consider that I have no right to take any other stand;
a principle is involved, and it is also a matter of justice for my province. Besides, this resolution interferes with the constitution and my province is especially affected. The government has no justification for overriding the constitution.
Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Minister of Justice): Mr. Speaker, there is very little I think it is necessary for me to say at this time. I wish, however, to deal with one objection that was featured rather prominently in the speeches that have been made.
First of all, it would appear that there are many members of this house who feel it is proper that redistribution should be postponed. They also realize that this cannot be done without some legislation which would be operative notwithstanding the ordinary provisions of the British North America Act. Legislation that would operate notwithstanding the terms of the British North America Act could not be passed in this country and must be obtained from the parliament of the United Kingdom. It has even been suggested; that the old traditional form of "a humble address may be presented to His Majesty" indicates a degree of humility that is not compatible with the autonomous state of this country. I do not think that in the courteous forms which have been handed down to us there is anything that need prove a serious danger to our autonomy. But it is a fact that the only way in which legislative provision can be obtained that would operate notwithstanding the provisions of the British North America Act is by an act enacted by the parliament of the United Kingdom. I trust it will not always be so. I trust that there will be a system devised whereby it will be possible for us to deal here in our country with the problems which concern us. But the establishment of that system will require an amendment to be made to the British North America Act, and that amendment will have to be made by the parliament of the United Kingdom. I do not think it would be the temper of this parliament at the present time to undertake to establish any permanent system for amending in a permanent fashion the provisions of our constitution. I hope that day will arrive and that it will arrive soon enough for me to witness a system found and made operative whereby things like this will not require even to be registered, for that is really what it amounts to, as the statute of another parliament.
When it comes to making amendments to our constitution I would like to suggest to hon. members that there appears to be a fundamental distinction to be observed. Confederation was not really a pact between provinces.
Redistribution

As a matter of fact, there was only one province of the United Canadas, Upper and Lower, at the time confederation came into existence. But it was nevertheless the system worked out by responsible prominent leaders of the population of the areas which then, constituted, on the one hand, the united province of Upper and Lower Canada, and- on the other hand the maritime provinces, and it was provided that under this system provincial legislatures and provincial governments would be established to deal with certain matters over which they were allocated exclusive jurisdiction. The courts have held that the provinces in the exercise of jurisdiction in the field allocated to them are sovereign states.
There are other matters which were not so allocated for administrative purposes to provincial legislatures or to provincial governments, but which were either expressly allocated to the federal parliament or which come under the residual clause under which parliament is competent to deal with them.
I would readily concede to hon. members that if there were to be any suggested amendment to change the allocation of legislative or administrative jurisdiction as between the provinces, on the one hand, and the federal parliament, on the other, it could not properly [DOT]be done without the consent of the organism that was set up by the constitution to have powers that would assumedly be taken from that organism.
Apart from the matters that are expressly allocated to the provincial legislatures and provincial governments, there are other matters which the representatives of the inhabitants of the provinces who sit in this parliament are the competent persons to deal with, and here in this instance is something having to do with representation in this house. That is something which is not allocated to the provincial legislatures or to the provincial governments. That is something which interests the inhabitants of the provinces, but the inhabitants of the provinces as electors have sent representatives to this national parliament to represent them, and I suggest that when dealing with matters in that category the members elected by the people of the provinces, who are also the people of Canada, are those who have to take their responsibility in determining whether they are in the interests of Canada or otherwise.
The example that was given by the hon. member is a case where it was eminently proper that the consent of the legislatures be obtained because it meant transferring to this parliament jurisdiction which in 1867 had been allocated to those legislatures. I submit

that it would have been quite improper to take away from the provinces without their consent anything that they had by the constitution. That, I think, Mr. Speaker, disposes of the objection founded on the protest of the Quebec government or the Quebec legislature. They may have expressed their opinion, but in respect of matters concerning representation in this house they are merely electors, and they are represented here by members of parliament who have been elected by them and by the other electors of the respective constituencies in which they have their homes.
As to the amendment which the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres (Mr. Cardin) would have liked to move, may I point out that the hon. member must have overlooked the terms of paragraph 5 of section 51 of the British North America Act; he would expressly provide that there would not be an election until redistribution shall have taken place. Well, the constitution provides that any readjustment, whenever made, is not operative until the dissolution of the parliament under which it is made. Paragraph 5, section 51, states:
Such readjustment shall not take effect until the termination of the then existing parliament.
So that a bill with that kind of amendment added to it would have been without any effect at all. It would merely have meant that a redistribution might be made at one session instead of at another session of the same parliament. There is no amendment to the constitution necessary to do that. I was not here at the time, but I am told that the redistribution following the census of 1931 was not made until the second session following the publication of the census reports. There would not only be this fact that it would utterly destroj' whatever effect this bill in the resolution provides for, but it seems to me that there are also two serious constitutional objections to the hon. member's proposals.
One would be to deprive the crown of its right to dissolve parliament until there had been a session where redistribution had been enacted; and the other-an indirect effect at that-would have been to make this parliament almost eternal, to prolong the life of this parliament until the majority saw fit to enact a provision for redistribution. There would have been no obligation to enact it at any special time, and if the majority of this parliament continued session after session- to find itself unable to agree on a redistribution the life of the parliament would be automatically prolonged by the terms of the amendment thus introduced.

Redistribution


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Will the minister permit a question?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Certainly.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: When this resolution is adopted and when the bill is passed by the British House of Commons postponing redistribution until after the war, supposing the war concludes in 1946 or 1947; does the hon. minister contend that we could not have a general election at the expiration of this parliament, which expires in 1945?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I am not contending anything of the kind. What I am contending is that if an amendment such as that suggested by the hon. member were made, it would not be possible to have a dissolution until after a redistribution had been agreed to by parliament.
Hon. members have asked, what has happened between the speech from the throne, in which redistribution was announced, and the introduction of this resolution? What happened was that figures collected during the last census became available, and upon looking at them it was realized that what they would mean, with a redistribution at this time, was a situation as exposed to the house-this afternoon, and it was felt that that would not be fair. Now it is submitted with great vehemence that when anything unfair exists it should be corrected. That may be so, but I submit that the agreement on the extent to which there is unfairness would not be sufficiently unanimous to warrant provoking a debate or debates upon it at the present time.
For these reasons, although I agree with hon. members that it would have been preferable if the result desired could be achieved in some other way than by asking a parliament outside of this country to pass a statute, since that is not possible, and since the object pursued seems to be desirable, I submit that the resolution should meet with the concurrence of the members of the house.


Thomas Vien: The question is on the main motion. Shall the motion carry?


Jean-François Pouliot: On division.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The same division.


Thomas Vien: The same division.
Motion (Mr. St. Laurent) agreed, to.


Mr. DUROCHER:: I was paired with the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruick-shank). Had I voted I would have voted against the resolution.

War Appropriation-Agriculture



EXTENSION OF GRISTING PRIVILEGES TO FARMERS DURING CROP TEAR 1942-43

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
James Angus MacKinnon: I have an announcement I wish to make regarding wheat farmers' gristing. At the present time western wheat farmers are permitted to grist up to forty bushels within the quota for their own home use. It has been decided that these gristing privileges shall be extended to a total of one hundred bushels to each permit-holder, during the crop year of 1942-43 without diminishing the total wheat delivery quota of fifteen bushels on the authorized acreage.
I shall be making a further announcement regarding gristing regulations for the crop year 1943-44 shortly.



WAR APPROPRIATION BILL


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, July 1, consideration in commitee of a resolution to grant to his majesty certain sums of money for the carrying out of measures consequent upon the existence of a state of war-Mr. Ilsley-Mr. Bradette in the chair.

[Stage Direction]
Freight assistance on western feed grains,
Mr. KNOWLES:: The other night some reference was made to dehydration, and the minister told the hon. member for Fraser Valley that he would make a statement on the question under one of these items. Under which of the items will he make that statement?


Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture) :: What I did say to the hon. member for Fraser Valley was that I would be prepared to answer his question on this item. I am not sure what the question was, but I presume it had to do with the dehydration plant in British Columbia. I have an answer with regard to the plant at Haney. British Columbia. If the Haney plant can be fully and properly equipped for the dehydration of potatoes and can manufacture a product which will meet the board's specifications, and if the wartime prices and trade board will approve the production of additional dehydrated potatoes from British Columbia, the board may give the Haney plant a contract for a small quantity of dehydrated potatoes in 1943-possibly 200 tons. That is the statement which I have had prepared to answer l Mr. Durocher.]
the question in regard to that plant. However, I am not sure that that was the question intended.


Mr. REID:: As the hon. member for Fraser Valley and I are both interested in this matter, and as the hon. member for Fraser Valley had to leave the chamber a few moments ago, perhaps the minister would not mind answering a question of mine, because both of us have been appealed to. This is a plant which has been in business in the town of Haney for a considerable time. Some assurance must have been given to the management of the plant that they would be given an order for dehydrating potatoes, because before I left the district at Easter time one of the prominent farmers in the district told me he had contracted his potatoes to this plant. My understanding was that many farmers both in the Fraser Valley and New' Westminster constituencies had agreed to sell their potatoes to the plant.
Since that time and up until the present the management of the plant has been endeavouring to obtain a contract from the wartime prices and trade board, or whatever board has to do w'ith it, to supply dehydrated potatoes. My information to-day is that it is without success. An argument was used that the Fraser valley was known as a deficiency area, in so far as potatoes are concerned. May I say that I absolutely disagree with that finding? In fact, I cannot understand how such a finding could have been given, because I myself remember not so very long ago-just prior to the war-hundreds of tons of potatoes being allowed to rot in the Fraser valley. And the reason why potatoes have not been grown, particularly in the Fraser valley, to any great extent, is that the price did not warrant production, or did not cover the cost of production. But the fact is that the Fraser valley is a splendid district for the growing of potatoes.
I tell the minister and the committee now that I take strong exception to the statement made by the member of the wartime prices and trade board that potatoes growm in the Fraser valley were not very good. I do not know what potatoes he was talking about, but he certainly was not talking about potatoes grown in the Fraser valley. I can tell you, Mr. Chairman, and members of this committee, that potatoes have been dished up in this city that we would not feed to the hogs, let alone to human beings.
I resent very much the statement made by that member of the board that there were no good potatoes grown in the Fraser valley. And, in so far as any deficiency area is concerned, it is not correct to make that state-

War Appropriation-Agriculture
ment, because we did grow potatoes in past years. I have seen hundreds of tons going to waste. I am going to ask the minister why this firm cannot get a contract for the dehydration of potatoes. The opinion is that there will be an excess of potatoes grown in the Fraser valley, that there will be at least 15,000 tons more this year than were grown last year.
It seems strange to me; if there is anything against the plant or the management we should know about it. The excuse cannot be given that they have not potatoes, or that the potatoes are not good. I would ask the minister to tell us why this firm *cannot obtain a contract for dehydrating potatoes.


James Garfield Gardiner: The wartime agricultural supplies board has no information as to whether the Berryland plant at Haney, British Columbia, has pre-processing equipment such as pealers, cutters, dicers and plungers, or whether this plant is equipped for that work. Our representative at the Summerland experimental station, Mr. Atkinson, advised Mr. J. M. Armstrong recently, namely on June 23, that the Haney plant ordered temperature control equipment for their plant, and that they have no information yet that the order can be filled, or that the equipment can be supplied. Mr. Atkinson has informed Mr. Armstrong, or did inform him, in the Lethbridge area in June, that he believed that the dehydrator and the layout of the plant was satisfactory. That statement has been made.


Thomas Reid: That it was satisfactory?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, that he believed it was. But we have no absolute information with regard to it. We have no definite information in regard to it. That is the first matter that has to be cleared up, namely, whether the plant is properly equipped to do the job, if the contract is given.
The second point is this: the price to be paid by the special products board for dehydrated potatoes in 1943 was thirty-five cents per dried pound. That is what is asked. That is higher than will be paid in Alberta, the price there being thirty-three cents, and prices in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick being thirty-three and thirty-two cents respectively. The price for Prince Edward Island is not known, but it is presumed it will be thirty-two cents. Only in Ontario, where a relatively small quantity of potatoes have been contracted for, will the price be as high as British Columbia. So that there is the question as to whether we can get dehydrated potatoes at a lower price elsewhere. Unless British Columbia can meet the price of other parts of Canada, I presume it will be difficult for them to get a contract.
Then, Mr. Shaw, chairman of the supplies board, gave evidence some time ago before the committee on agriculture. Among other things he said this:
We were aware of the plant in question and had it inspected by a dehydration man whose report stated that it was fairly -well equipped but lacked certain equipment for the completion of the dehydration processing of vegetables.
In other words, the report he has given to the committee is to the effect that it is not fully equipped. Then he continued:
Now, that means just what I said in the beginning, that this plant is not at the moment in a complete position to do this job. I stated it would probably be possible, that -we had no objections, in regard to giving a contract if the products were required, providing they gave assurance on two things: First, that they can do this job to the satisfaction of the board, and second, that by doing it at that particular point they do not endanger or short the domestic supply situation.
That is the question just raised by the hon. member for New Westminster, the question as to whether the preparing of dehydrated potatoes in that particular area would short the supplies for cities like Vancouver and Victoria, and for camps out there connected with military operations. Then he continued:
Those are the two conditions and they are very important ones. They are the only points in question. I might mention this, that there are no controls in that plant. Dehydration cannot be conducted without controls, and there has been no application, as far as I am aware, for controls.
In other words, the contention is that the plant is not fully equipped, and that those who are operating would have to satisfy the board that it would be equipped before an order would be given. In the second place, there would have to be satisfactory evidence that there were sufficient potatoes-not five years ago or six years ago, or even last year- but that there would be sufficient potatoes this year to warrant the board's going in there and buying potatoes to be dehydrated for shipment out, when there may have to be potatoes shipped in to feed the people in that area.
If that can be proved satisfactorily, then there is no reason why a contract should not be given. That matter, I believe, has been referred to the wartime prices and trade board, and I understand they have stated- and I presume they had evidence before making the statement'-that while it is true that British Columbia has been exporting potatoes, that very much larger quantities are imported from points outside the province. Considerable quantities move from interior points, such as Ashcroft and Kamloops. The wartime prices and trade board state it is their opinion that a dehydration programme

War Appropriation-Agriculture
at the coast would accentuate this movement which, under war-time conditions, would not appear to be justified. That is their decision on the information they have, up to the moment. They point out that there are so many potatoes being used there that there is some question as to whether we should _ dehydrate potatoes in British Columbia.


Thomas Reid: I do not know whether I can answer all the statements made by the minister, but certainly I shall answer as many of them as I can remember.
First of all, with regard to the quantity of potatoes may I say that this is not the first occasion I have protested to the Minister of National Revenue against allowing potatoes to enter British Columbia from southern points, at times when the farmers had their pits full of potatoes. The fact that there have been importations of potatoes does not mean that there are no potatoes in British Columbia. We must remember that in some parts of California three crops are grown in a year, on irrigated ground, and that they have cheaper labour. They have sent the surplus crop from California, Oregon and Washington into British Columbia, while our potatoes rotted. I have protested many times in the house about that situation.
At the outset of his remarks the minister stated that whoever had surveyed the plant had said that the equipment this man had was all right for potatoes, but that he did not think it would be satisfactory for vegetables. Let us have a clear picture of this. Just what do they want? Here is an instance where the farmers have made an agreement with the manager of a plant to the effect that they will sell their potatoes to this plant. If they get an ordinary crop of potatoes in British Columbia they will have a surplus this year. I contend that that point has not been investigated. All we are getting now from the minister is a statement that some official says that some things have to be decided to find out whether they will make a contract with the farmers. This is the first part of July; the crop is almost ready for market-. Steps should have been taken long ago. This matter should have been settled months and months ago.
That was the stand taken by the chairman of this firm. Will the minister say on his responsibility as Minister of Agriculture that this is a deficiency area? Will he make a statement now?


James Garfield Gardiner: The hon. member wants me to make a statement now, and I will. He knows the reason for the action that was taken

last spring as well as I do. He knows of the telegram that we received which threatened not to feed the people of the west coast area.


Thomas Reid: That has nothing to do with its being a deficiency area. I would take the minister up on that statement if I had time.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is why potatoes were shipped in. A certain organization in British Columbia threatened this government and threatened the board that they would not even supply potatoes for the military camps, and potatoes were admitted into that area. I do not want to get into any unnecessary discussion about this.


Thomas Reid: I do not care whether the minister does or not.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is quite all right. While he was speaking, on at least two occasions, my hon. friend made a statement which I had not given a moment ago.


Thomas Reid: What were they?


James Garfield Gardiner: I did not say anything about vegetables and potatoes. I read what I said and I still have it in front of me. That statement can still be read.


Thomas Reid: The minister is taking another argument. We were talking about dehydrating potatoes at this plant. We were talking about 1943, and the minister is talking about the 1942 crop and what occurred in connection with the potato board of British Columbia. That is an entirely different subject. We realize that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) takes care of the wartime prices and trade board, but I do not want the minister to try to sidetrack the issue.


James Garfield Gardiner: We were talking about potatoes; we were not talking about vegetables.


Thomas Reid: If you will read the record you will find that you mentioned that this man said that they had a plant fit to dehydrate potatoes but that it was not fit for vegetables. That was the statement you made. I ask you to read Hansard to-morrow, and you will find you said that in spite of what you say now. I want to know what you are going to do. You have not yet said that there is a deficiency area in British Columbia.


The CHAIRMAN:: I ask the hon. member for New Westminster kindly to address the Chair.


Thomas Reid: I will turn and look at you, Mr. Chairman, and perhaps I will not feel as bad.

War Appropriation-Agriculture


James Garfield Gardiner: If my hon. friend will just permit me, I will read what was said. It reads:
If the Haney plant can be fully and properly equipped for the dehydration of potatoes and can manufacture a product which will meet the board's specifications and if the wartime prices and trade board will approve of the production of additional dehydrated potatoes in British Columbia, the board could give the Haney plant a contract for a small quantity of dehydrated potatoes in 1943 (possibly 200 tons).


Thomas Reid: We will get the record straight because I am not letting the Minister of Agriculture get away with that. I did not say that that was the statement he referred to. I said that the official he spoke about who investigated the situation had given it as his opinion that this plant had the equipment to dehj'drate potatoes but that they did not have sufficient equipment for vegetables. That was the statement to which I took exception, but now the minister has changed it and gone on to another statement and I am not going to let him do that. I was referring to the official who had investigated this plant, not to the statement which the minister has just read.


James Garfield Gardiner: I read all of it and there is not a word about vegetables.


Thomas Reid: Will you go back to the one by the official who investigated the plant? I want to know if there is to be a further investigation and I want to know if the minister is going to see that this plant gets fair treatment.


James Garfield Gardiner: I have answered that on three occasions and I will answer it again. "If the Haney plant can be fully and properly equipped"-that is the first thing they have to do.


Thomas Reid: To whose satisfaction?


James Garfield Gardiner: To the satisfaction of those who are going to buy their product; that is always the person who must be satisfied. "For the dehydration of potatoes and can manufacture a product which will meet the board's specifications"-they have to be properly equipped before they can manufacture that product. "And if the wartime prices and trade board will approve the production of additional dehydrated potatoes"

that raises the question as to whether or not there are sufficient potatoes to supply that particular area. If there are not, there will not be any taken out of the area. If there are sufficient, then they are quite prepared to have potatoes dehydrated. "The board could give the Haney plant a contract for a small quantity of dehydrated potatoes in 1943, possibly two hundred tons." I do not know how I can make the statement any clearer than that.


Thomas Reid: I am very glad the minister did not reiterate the statement that it was a deficiency area. I should like to know what official of the department advised the wartime prices and trade board that the potatoes of the Fraser valley were not good for eating purposes. Would the minister tell us who that official was? That is a slur on the potatoes of the Fraser valley and something we are not going to let go by just as easy as that. I am addressing you, Mr. Chairman.


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not know where the hon. member is getting that statement. I cannot find it in anything I have read.


Thomas Reid: I will produce it later.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I realize that I slowed up the proceedings by raising the question of dehydration, but I had no idea that I was going to start a family quarrel. I may have misunderstood the minister, but from what he said I understood that he would make a general statement on what his department was doing to encourage the dehydration of vegetables and fruits to meet the needs of the war situation. We all realize the desirability of maintaining as good a supply as possible of vegetables and fruits to maintain the health of our people. On account of the difficulties in connection with getting sugar it has not been possible to get canned goods as readily as was the case before the war. My information is that it would be possible to make up that dsficiency to some extent by increasing the commercial dehydration of vegetables and fruits and also encouraging the home hydration of vegetables and fruits. What is the minister's department doing along these two lines?


James Garfield Gardiner: The dehydrating of vegetables including potatoes was not carried on in any extensive way until a year ago. When the war first began we had been carrying on experiments in dehydration at different farms, more particularly at Kentville, Nova Scotia, and at Summerland, British Columbia. I think it was in the spring of 1941 when some inquiries were made as to whether we could provide dehydrated vegetables, fruits and potatoes to the British food ministry. I think that inquiry was made to the Department of Trade and Commerce through its officials. The officials who were dealing with it at the time were not fully familiar with what was being done in agriculture, but later on in the season the British representatives made representations to the Department of Agriculture, and we were able to satisfy them at that time that we had methods of dehydration which, if applied to some plants in Canada, might produce an

TFar Appropriation-Agriculture
acceptable product. The British representatives made some suggestions as to what equipment might be put in, and those suggestions were added to by the dehydration officials of our different farms.
One of these men has been placed in charge of dehydration in Canada, and there has been the development of plants which was agreed upon between the British government and ourselves. The result is that we have some eight plants operating across Canada. These plants have had some assistance from the government, largely in the matter of how they should be equipped and some assistance in connection with getting the equipment and having it put in the plants. My understanding is that the government is not actually paying out cash, that the equipment is to be paid for by the plants themselves. As I say, some eight or possibly nine plants by now are operating in different places across Canada. They have been providing all the products for which we could get an outlet in our arrangement with the British government. I may say that a year ago, after we got the plants operating, we were not at all certain that we would get rid of all the dehydrated products we had at that time, but since that time satisfactory arrangements have been made and the British are taking these products.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I should like to press further the local aspect of the matter. Is the department doing anything to increase the supply of dehydrated fruits to be avaiable in the home market to replace the canned fruits which are practically off the shelves of Canadian stores?


James Garfield Gardiner: Ever since the beginning of the war we have had a contract with the Nova Scotia apple people under which apples were dehydrated and also canned. The government has taken delivery of a very considerable part of the apple crop and we have either canned or dehydrated the apples. During the first year of the war we actually gave away a considerable part of the dehydrated product to the British as part of our programme to help out in the marketing of a crop which in those days was not needed; that is, in the form of fresh apples. Since that time we have been encouraging housewives to can fruit and vegetables. We have put out pamphlets which indicate how this canning can be done most satisfactorily and how fruit and vegetables can be dehydrated in the home. That kind of work is being done constantly by the department right across Canada.


Major James William Coldwell: This may have been covered while I have been away for the last

few days, but in view of the fact that there is likely to be a shortage of potatoes in this part of Canada again and the possibility that we may have another large crop of potatoes in western Canada, is the department doing anything to see that our surplus potatoes in the west that may come into existence in the fall are properly stored with a view to shipping them later on to points in Canada where they are needed? The minister will remember as I do that last fall on a good many farms in western Canada there were piles of potatoes that could not be used, and yet, as we know, potatoes can be stored very simply. I have seen potatoes just put into a hole in the ground, and if it were deep enough and dry enough and had a little ventilation the potatoes would come out in the spring in excellent shape. I wonder if the department is contemplating urging farmers to store in such simple fashion any of their surplus potatoes under a sort of guarantee that they would be marketed under some government plan in the spring when they would be needed in those parts of Canada where there is likely to be a shortage.


James Garfield Gardiner: There is considerable difficulty in determining very long in advance whether there will be a shortage.


Major James William Coldwell: It looks very much that way now, with the rain rotting the potatoes.


James Garfield Gardiner: It is, but I was just going to call my hon. friend's attention to the statement that was read in the house the other evening to the effect that there are now 5.000 cars of potatoes south of the line looking for a market, whereas two weeks ago we were worrying because we were not able to get potatoes. Potatoes are a crop that anyone can grow in his back yard, and we have been urging people to grow what we call victory gardens all across Canada. If they have been responding to the appeals we have been making, it is very difficult for anyone to estimate how many potatoes we shall have this fall. On the other hand, I think it is known to farmers right across Canada how potatoes can be pitted. It has long been the practice to pit potatoes for keeping during the winter. Publications go out from the department that give information to those not properly informed as to how that can be done.
I think one of the big problems in connection with potato marketing is this. With prices under control and the price based on some particular season of the year, the farmer finds that if he keeps his potatoes in the cellar during the winter and has to go down and pick them over in the spring and sacrifice-

War Appropriation-Agriculture
probably half of them in order to get the other half, good potatoes that can go on the market, he hesitates to do so if he is controlled by the price in the fall, particularly if labour is short in the spring, which it usually is. I think some attention will have to be given to encouraging the farmer to keep potatoes during the winter and have them ready for marketing in the spring. Right at the time of the potato shortage here I had a letter from a farmer telling me that he had just taken out one hundred bushels of his potatoes from his cellar and fed them to his pigs. He was complaining of the method that had been set up for moving these potatoes from his farm to where someone wanted them. I can understand the farmer doing that, and so can anyone who has been on the farm and knows how farmers store their potatoes and what a job they have in the spring with them and the labour involved in it. If there is a shortage of labour, and that is very likely in the spring, the farmer will feed the potatoes to the pigs. We do all we can to overcome that, but I am sure hon. members will realize we cannot overcome it all.


Major James William Coldwell: I have another question that comes to some extent under the minister's department, but largely perhaps under the Department of Trade and Commerce. Is any attempt being made to solve the problem of the transportation of our wheat to the United States for feed? I ask that deliberately, because on Friday of last week I heard that question asked by the vice-president of the United States. Is there an answer to it? I could not answer it.


James Garfield Gardiner: The position is this.
We shall have in Canada about 649 million bushels of wheat in store at the end of this month, a carryover from preceding years. It is not all feed wheat, but it is wheat that can be fed. But we have a decided shortage of cars on both sides of the line with which to move the grain. That is on account of the fact that the cars are being used to ship minerals, largely iron, and to handle the output of our war factories.
I should say, too, that up until a few months ago there was an embargo on wheat entering the United States, with the exception of feed wheat, and the percentage of our feed wheat is comparatively low. The Americans have recently removed that embargo, but just removing the embargo did not start the wheat to move. There was a lack of cars and a lack of shipping on the lakes to move it. The officials of the wheat board visited Washington and discussed the matter with government and railway officials there, because, as the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar says, this matter comes under the Department of Trade and Commerce, and they made an arrangement whereby the United States railways would place all the cars they could at the disposal of the Canadian railways to move grain to the head of the lakes. Every hon. member from the west knows that United States cars have been spotted at the towns all up and down our western railways to move the grain to the head of the lakes. It was supposed, if moved in United States cars, to be moved there to be at the disposal of the Americans who would take it away in United States ships.


Major James William Coldwell: Are they buying the
wheat from the wheat board?


James Garfield Gardiner: They are buying on the market, but I presume most of it would come from the wheat board. They have bid prices of SI on the market and take whatever supplies they can get. The grain is then supposed to move down the lakes on United States ships and in United States cars from United States ports. The Americans want the grain in their eastern states where the shortage chiefly exists. They have sufficient grain in the prairie sections where the grain is grown. The grain has to be shipped down the length of the lakes and reshipped by train to the points where it is required. There has been this difficulty of getting sufficient cars and shipping to move feed wheat or coarse grains in the quantities we would like it to move. They wanted to get 200 million bushels, and we would like to sell them 200 million bushels, but up to date they have moved under 100 million bushels. So that the position is not as we would like to have it. The difficulty is transportation, but the railways and shipping are doing the best they can.


Major James William Coldwell: Have the two countries a joint organization to handle it?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, there has been
co-operation.


Major James William Coldwell: That is what I was not clear about. Apparently the need for feed is becoming acute in the United States. They are faced apparently with the problem of shipping. I was not clear whether there was cooperation between the two sides of the line, and my impression was that some doubt existed in Washington. I wanted to be clear about that.


James Garfield Gardiner: There is no reason why that feeling should exist. I have heard a little about the questioning that was done by Mr. Wallace. I was in Chicago about two weeks ago and have also heard the questions

War Appropriation-Agriculture
he was asking and I think his questions were based on what was being said as to conditions on this side of the line. I found that many farmers across the border did not realize that there was as large a wheat surplus as there is in Canada, and consequently they were inclined to increase their own acreage in wheat, whereas we have a very large surplus here. That was one of the reasons why I went to Chicago, to make it apparent to them that the grain is here. There is still the transportation difficulty.


Mr. COLD WELL:: The government should get its information board to do something about this, because there is apparently in the United States a lack of understanding of what this country has, of what it is doing and of what it has done. While this is not under the minister's department, I think every effort should be made to publicize what Canada has done toward furnishing free supplies to Great Britain last year and to the united nations this year, and what we are prepared to do in the way of production and the extent of cooperation which we are prepared to give and have given to the United States and the other allied nations. I feel that this is not understood.


John Horne Blackmore: Under what item will the minister be prepared to discuss the question of wool prices?


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: We are now on item
5. Freight assistance on western feed grains,


John Horne Blackmore: I should like to
have the minister's answer. The question of *wool prices is very important and should be discussed.


James Garfield Gardiner: The wool board is not
under us, but still the special products board is; I think the best place to discuss it is here.


John Horne Blackmore: Under what item
would the minister suggest that we discuss the price of beef?


James Garfield Gardiner: Under what is called the bacon board; it should be the meat board now.


Mr. WRIGHT:: On this item, freight
assistance on western feed grains to eastern Canada, I think this is a policy of the government which was supported quite widely in western and eastern Canada. Would it be possible to have this freight assistance extended to commercial seed grains? What has happened during the past year is that a great deal of feed grain was shipped to eastern Canada and used for seed, because the additional freight on seed grain placed the price out of line with the price of feed grain, so

that a lot of inferior seed has been sold in eastern Canada this year and a lot of good commercial seed had to be sold in western Canada for feed. That position will be even worse in the coming year, because in a great deal of eastern Canada not so much seed grain will be available this year as there was last year. It will be found that in 1944 large quantities of feed grain shipped to eastern Canada will be used for seed, and seed of inferior quality, when better seed is available and could be used to produce more grain than can be grown from; the inferior grain. Would the government consider paying freight assistance on commercial seed for use in eastern Canada?


James Garfield Gardiner: The freight policy was associated with an attempt to get food for Britain, and the payment of freight from Fort William east was in the hope that we could get enough western grain moved down into the eastern areas to feed all of the live stock there is on eastern farms. I do not know whether the government would be prepared to accept a policy of free freight on seed as well, coming from Fort William east. It is a new idea; I doubt very much whether it is necessary in order to get the results we desire to get at the present time. I am not sure whether the hon. member for Melfort has in mind seed grain or whether he has in mind alfalfa seed, which is grown in his constituency or in that area.


Percy Ellis Wright: I had not reference to alfalfa seed; I had reference to oats and barley and commercial coarse grain seed which is produced in large quantities and of good quality in western Canada, and has been shipped in considerable quantities to eastern Canada. My understanding is that that freight fell off this spring because some of the better carloads of feed grain were being used by eastern farmers for seed, rather than pay the additional cost on commercial seed grain of standard quality. The result is that there will not be as .much production in eastern Canada from the inferior seed which has been used. I think the government would be quite justified in paying the freight so as to get better seed for eastern Canada, especially in view of the fact that there is likely to be a considerable shortage in seed grain in eastern Canada during the coming year.


James Garfield Gardiner: Of course I would not be in a position to prove whether or not grain shipped down under the feed policy has been used for seed, other than to say this, that those who collect the money on the freight are supposed to prove that this grain is used for feed. Hon. members will understand that

Mobilization Act
when oats, for example, get out on to the farm it is difficult for any inspector to follow the shipment and say that these particular oats went into feed and these others went into the ground. Nevertheless payment is only supposed to be made if the grain is being fed. For example, we do not pay if grain is milled for any other purpose than feeding live stock. We pay on that proportion of the wheat which goes into bran and shorts which is fed to live stock, but we do not pay on the other part of the wheat which goes into flour. For the same reason we would not pay, if we knew it, on grain which is going into seed, under the present policy. I doubt very much if the government would be prepared to pay freight on seed grain under present circumstances.


Mr. QUELCH:: Is this assistance being given to British Columbia as well?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes. The arrangement is the same. It starts from Calgary and Edmonton west as from Fort William east.


Thomas Reid: Has the minister anything to show whether the consumption of grain has increased since the freight assistance has been put into effect?


James Garfield Gardiner: Oh, yes; the amount we have shipped east has been greatly increased. It is about double.


Thomas Reid: And west?


James Garfield Gardiner: West, I would think about the same. The freight assistance amounted up to the end of the fiscal year 1943, in round figures, to the following sums; Ontario, $4,600,000; Quebec, $4,900,000; New Brunswick, $900,000; Nova Scotia, $1,300,000; Prince Edward Island $274,000; British Columbia, $1,218,000; making the total $13,343,000. The total for the fiscal year 1943 is $8,906,000, with an additional $708,000 being paid on wheat at eight cents a bushel.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Feeds administrator-
Payment of eight cents per bushel in respect of western wheat used exclusively as feed for live stock, $2,000,000.
Mr. ROSS (Souris):: Does this apply to feed grain shipped east, or anywhere in Canada?


James Garfield Gardiner: It applies on the same grain shipped to the same points as the other feed grain, and from the same points; that is, from Fort William east to any point and from Calgary and Edmonton west.


James Arthur Ross: But not to any point within the prairies themselves?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.


George Hugh Castleden: Why is this amount eight cents a bushel?


James Garfield Gardiner: It is the difference between the price which the miller is presumed to get the wheat at, and the ninety cents.


George Hugh Castleden: Is any of this $2,000,000 paid to millers who are using the wheat for making into flour? Are they paid on the proportion of the bran and shorts which are made out of wheat?


James Garfield Gardiner: There is a ceiling on flour, and under that arrangement the miller gets his wheat at a certain price. That price is based on what he paid for wheat in September and October, 1941. But the farmer gets ninety cents a bushel for the wheat, and this puts the wheat for which the farmer gets ninety cents a bushel on a feeding basis eight cents lower than that.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Progress reported.
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Tuesday, July 6, 1943