Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T14:01:14.387Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Redistribution of 1952*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 November 2014

Norman Ward
Norman Ward*
Affiliation:
University of Saskatchewan
Get access

Extract

The decennial redistribution of federal constituencies in Canada always reveals the House of Commons in an unusual light. Almost alone among major pieces of legislation, the Representation Bill that follows each census is not openly an embodiment of cabinet policy; for statements of policy are confined to declarations that redistribution is the business of the House, not of the government. Party discipline is thus relaxed to the extent that every member of Parliament must look out for himself, and in this self-seeking he can assume that his party colleagues, particularly those from his own province, will stand by him; and they do. A redistribution calls forth not party discipline but party cohesion, and commonly offers many illustrations of the decentralized nature of Canadian political organization. Since every member of Parliament is an expert on at least one clause in the bill and has a vested interest in one constituency, local and personal considerations enter largely into debate, so that the House of Commons during a redistribution presents a somewhat disconcerting picture of what the electorate could expect if cabinet leadership in important legislation were weak or relaxed all the time instead of once in ten years.

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science/Revue canadienne de economiques et science politique , Volume 19 , Issue 3 , August 1953 , pp. 341 - 360
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Political Science Association 1953

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

This paper was presented at the annual meeting of the Canadian Political Science Association in London, on June 3, 1953.

References

1 House of Commons Debates, 03 10, 1952, p. 246.Google Scholar The Prime Minister subsequently remarked in the House that the Government had been under pressure from Saskatchewan members almost since the day the House met.

2 Ontario, Quebec, and Newfoundland. The other seven all received their first representation at Ottawa with some violation of “rep. by pop.,” always for excellent reasons. The gap between the census of 1861 and the British North America Act of 1867 somewhat obscures the answer to the question: which two of the four original provinces were not admitted on strict “rep. by pop.”? But at least two were so admitted.

3 See Ward, Norman, The Canadian House of Commons: Representation (Toronto, 1950), chaps, II, III.Google Scholar

4 Most of the arguments summarized here are developed in four articles which I wrote for the Winnipeg Free Press. See that newspaper for Feb. 6, Feb. 9, Feb. 11, and April 17, 1952.

5 House of Commons Debates, 04 21, 1952, p. 1430.Google Scholar

6 A copy of the resolution, which passed the Legislative Assembly on March 20, 1952, was of course sent to the Ottawa Government.

7 House of Commons Debates, 04 9, 1952, p. 1419.Google Scholar

8 Ibid., p. 1421.

9 The debate, which lasted only part of one day, can be found in ibid., April 21, 1952, pp. 1428–56.

10 House of Commons, Bill No. 144 (Mr. Power), 1952. Mr. Power, who had some doubts as to whether his bill was in order because it might be regarded as a money bill, spoke to it in the debate on the Address, on March 13, 1952, in a realistic appraisal of the redistribution problem.

11 The C.C.F., who had pressed for a commission in 1947, tried first to have a clause put in the B.N.A. Act, not because they particularly wanted to have the commission provided for in the constitution, but because the debates on June 12 on the amendments to the Act afforded the first opportunity of bringing the matter to the floor of the House. Mr. Power opposed this particular C.C.F. proposal. Later the C.C.F. supported a Progressive Conservative motion for a commission. See House of Commons Debates, June 12, June 28, 1952.

12 See Mr. Fair's speech in ibid., June 28, 1952, pp. 3911–12; and Mr. St. Laurent's in ibid., July 2, 1952, pp. 4093–5. The Prime Minister's attitude throughout the redistribution debates reminds one forcibly that Mr. St. Laurent has never sat as an ordinary private member of Parliament.

13 Ibid., June 12, 1952, p. 3183. Mr. Power here introduced a substantial modification of his own previous proposals for a commission, by arguing that a commission should do the job just once, and then the pattern so set could be followed subsequently by a House committee again.

14 Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence were printed for meetings on April 30, May 2, May 14, May 28, June 4, June 9, and June 10. Thereafter the Committee met without keeping a record; the vote on whether a complete Hansard for all meetings should be kept was 10–10, with the chairman casting a deciding vote in favor of stopping the record when the B.N.A. Act amendments had been disposed of. Considerable material about individual constituencies which were being created concurrently with the proposed constitutional changes is nevertheless available in what printed record there is.

15 House of Commons Debates, 06 12, 1952, pp. 3151–85.Google Scholar Note particularly Hon. Mr. Harris' exposition of the procedure followed by the Special Committee in settling on the particular method chosen for amending the B.N.A. Act.

16 The material in this paragraph was obtained privately from members of Parliament.

17 House of Commons Debates, 06 30, 1952, p. 3968.Google Scholar

18 Ibid., July 1, 1952, pp. 4043–4. Mr. Gardiner's speech on this occasion was a veritable tour de force, a masterly demonstration of the interest a political warrior takes in constituencies and election results.

19 Ibid., July 2, 1952, p. 4137. The Nova Scotian Liberal whose constituency was eliminated returned to the House of Commons on January 30, 1953, and was warmly greeted by spokesmen for the C.C.F. and Progressive Conservative parties.

20 See Ottawa Citizen for June 7, June 23, and June 28, 1952.

21 Whereas Mr. Knowles' proposed constitutional amendment of June 12 had referred to a commission for redistributions beginning with the census of 1961, Mr. Drew moved on June 28 that consideration be given to a commission for the 1952 redistribution. As the House was adjourning until November 20, instead of proroguing, Mr. Drew argued that there was plenty of time for the possibilities of a commission to be investigated. See House of Commons Debates, June 12 and June 28, 1952. It is to be noted that the Opposition parties, in citing the 1952 committee's proceedings in support of their case for a commission, were checked by the Speaker, who reminded them that it was out of order in the House at that time to refer to committee proceedings.

22 Arthur Blakely in Winnipeg Tribune, July 2, 1952.

23 House of Commons Debates, 06 30, 1952, p. 3962.Google Scholar

24 See ibid., June 30, 1952, p. 3965; July 2, pp. 4121, 4132.

25 See ibid., Jan. 23, 1953, pp. 1280–1. For details of the Chief Electoral Officer's rulings (made under section 4 of chapter 48 of the Statutes of Canada, 1952) see Report of the Chief Electoral Officer to the Speaker of the House of Commons, Nov. 26, 1952. The necessity for these rulings was normally discovered by either a member of Parliament or the Surveyor General, and in a few instances by returning officers and officials of the Bureau of Statistics. The actual terms of each ruling were suggested by the Surveyor General, whose office had to draw the maps. As a courtesy, the Chief Electoral Officer kept leading members of the House of Commons Committee on Redistribution informed of new rulings, always consulting them before any ruling was made; so that while the Committee technically expired with its last report to the House of Commons, it lived on in spirit for several months.

26 Hon. Mr. Harris described the national picture thus: “For the sake of the record it should be pointed out that in the province of Newfoundland there has been only one change and that six constituencies have been left the same. In the province of Nova Scotia there are five changes and seven constituencies are the same, all the changes being brought about by the necessity for the loss of one seat. The Province of New Brunswick has been left as it was before, with ten seats the same. The same applies with respect to the province of Prince Edward Island with four seats. In the province of Quebec there are two new seats, 45 are the same and 28 changes have been made. … In Ontario there are two new seats, 49 are the same and 34 have changes. In Manitoba and Saskatchewan there have been changes in all the seats because of the reduction in numbers in those two provinces. In Alberta two are the same and there have been 15 changes. … In British Columbia there are four seats added, seven are the same and there are 11 changes.” House of Commons Debates, 06 30, 1952, p. 3961.Google Scholar

27 The final days of the redistribution debate were July 1 to 3 inclusive.

28 House of Commons, Routine Proceedings and Orders of the Day, 12 10, 1952.Google Scholar

29 The subcommittees established in 1952 had the following personnel: Ontario, four Liberals, four Progressive Conservatives, one C.C.F.; Quebec, four Liberals, one Progressive Conservative; Maritimes, three Liberals, two Progressive Conservatives, one C.C.F.; British Columbia, three Liberals, one Progressive Conservative, one C.C.F.; Manitoba, two Liberals, one Progressive Conservative, one C.C.F.; Alberta, three Liberals, one Progressive Conservative, two Social Credit; Saskatchewan, three Liberals, one Progressive Conservative, two C.C.F.; Yukon and Northwest Territories, two Liberals, one Progressive Conservative one C.C.F.