¹ And, of course, for future elections; although some provisions of the Election Act apply only to the election of June, 1952.

² Individual rates, originally $15 a year for a single man, $24 for married men, and $30 for a family, were raised to $21 for single men and $33 for a family on January 1, 1950 and to $30 and $42 respectively on July 1, 1951. The rates have now been reduced to $27 and $39.

³ One on the use of daylight-saving in future years was designed to attract rural voters; the other on the sale of spirits by the glass was designed to attract urban voters.

⁴ In 1952, 543,047 voters out of 793,151 voted, or 68.5 per cent as compared with nearly 74 per cent in 1949. They cast 744,300 ballots.

⁵ Even these were subject to recounts in the case of alleged irregularities. Serious difficulties arose over recounts and in the case of Ballot A in Vancouver–Point Grey, a recount ordered by the courts could not be made because the ballots had been removed from their envelopes and made up in packages in order to facilitate the transfer of votes on the original count. As the law could not be complied with in this respect no recount could be made.

⁶ Cf. Morley, John, The Life of Gladstone (London, 1903), Bk. VII, ch. ix, vol. II, p. 616 Google Scholar, ““There is indeed one great and critical act, the responsibility for which falls momentarily or provisionally on the Sovereign; it is the dismissal of an existing Ministry and the appointment of a new one. This act is usually performed with the aid drawn from authentic manifestations of public opinion, mostly such as are obtained through the votes or conduct of the House of Commons.’–Gladstone.”

⁷ No one has gone so far as to suggest that the “rights” of a plurality in the Legislative Assembly should be affirmed by legislation or. by usage. The former method would encounter difficulties. The B.N.A. Act, s. 92(1), restricts the power of the Legislative Assembly in amending the provincial constitution by forbidding interference with the powers of the Lieutenant-Governor. And there is the technical difficulty of defining a party, for the purpose of deciding what members can compose a plurality. Is there, for example, some process by which after an election party A could declare itself integrated with party B? A new convention established by practice would be more flexible but a province is a very small unit to “go it alone” in establishing constitutional conventions.

⁸ The figures indicate that the party situation in the Legislature is not greatly affected by the system of voting. Had the old system prevailed, the number of seats obtained by the C.C.F. would probably have been smaller than the number (21) in which it led on the first count. The reason is that voters who preferred other parties might have used what was ultimately their second choice as a vote utile, a vote not to be wasted by casting it for a candidate unlikely to obtain a majority. At a guess the competitive value of Social Credit would have been underrated and some votes which were given to that party would have gone to Liberals or Conservatives instead. A fairly equal division between Social Credit, the C.C.F., and the field would have been probable. Had the seats been distributed between the parties on the proportion of the ballots cast the C.C.F. would have got 14, Social Credit 13, the Liberals 12, the Conservatives 8, and Independent Labour one. This distribution would have overvalued the city voters who had three ballots each in two constituencies and two each in three.

⁹ An article by D. A. MacGregor on the editorial page of the Vancouver Daily Province, August 11, 1952, was devoted to explaining that it was erroneous to think that the new ministers did not need to be elected at all. The opinion which it was considered worth while to refute is part and parcel of the view that an administration had been elected as well as a legislature. The argument in refutation was based on the traditions of parliamentary government.

¹⁰ The position of the new ministers could, of course, be altered by legislation but legislation requires a majority.

¹¹ But not prudent! The “surplus” arose from the fact that accounting is on a strictly cash basis. Premium collections increased by $800,000 and there was a reduction of $1,100,000 in hospital costs and a collection of $1,265,000 in arrears of premiums i.e. from non-recurrent sources. The total government assistance for the year amounted to $5,333,645 of which $2,500,000 had been contributed by a special vote on the assumption that it would be necessary.

¹² Unless this is modified it will mean that if an insured person is in hospital for ten days he will pay $10 instead of $35; but that if he, his wife, and three children are in hospital for 100 days he will pay $500. A single person with a small income could, under either system, afford to remain in hospital indefinitely, but the new system would seem the fairer of the two in this event.

¹³ The discussion was occasioned by (a) the necessity for finding seats for the two ministers who are not members of the Assembly and (b) the impossibility of a recount in a disputed election. The Premier has said nothing to suggest that he is contemplating an immediate election. Two members have resigned in order to enable the ministers to seek election. The Premier's suggestion that the other parties would be “playing politics” if they opposed his candidates is another indication of the feeling that a party administration has been chosen and should therefore be allowed some freedom in selecting its personnel. However, the seats cannot be considered “safe” and the C.C.F., at least, will contest them.

¹⁴ It was not until September 22 that an article by D. A. MacGregor, on the editorial page of the Vancouver Daily Province, pointed out that it appeared from reviews of King George the Fifth: His Life and Reign by Harold Nicolson, that the King did exercise important discretionary powers. The article also pointed out that his representatives would be under an obligation to exercise discretion in analogous cases. Obviously precedents are difficult to interpret. If a minister is careful never to give advice without a strong case to advance in support of it, his advice will never be refused. It does not follow that reckless advice would have been accepted. A prudent business man might be able to say that his banker had never refused an overdraft. He would not think of arguing that for this reason his banker would not refuse one in an appropriate case.