1. The Lignite Utilization Board at present estimates the cost of briquettes at $12.25 per ton f.o.b. plant at Bienfait, Saskatchewan.
2. About 11,500 B.T.U. per pound.
3. The immediate objective of the Lignite Utilization Board is to demonstrate a process of producing a carbonized lignite briquette for domestic consumption.
4. The process of briquetting carbonized lignite is the only method known to-day likely to be successful in preparing a suitable fuel for domestic consumption from low grade lignites.
5. Yes; but such method is not suitable for domestic heating.
6. Answered by No. 5.
7. Four hundred thousand dollars was the cost estimated by a committee of the Research Council in 1917. (Preliminary investigations delayed the commencement construction of the plant at Bienfait until 1920.)
8. The Dominion Government has expended $445,000, which sum will be decreased by an amount of $35,000 due from the province of Manitoba; the Saskatchewan government has expended $205,000, and the Manitoba government $170,000.
9. The question of by-products is, in the main, one of markets, not one of technical possibility. There is no question that byproducts can be produced.
In connection with the work at Bienfait, it must be borne in mind that, as the
objective of the whole undertaking is to produce a domestic fuel, the process is designed to permit the greatest possible number of B.T.U.'s to be left in the lignite residue. If the objective were the removal of the maximum amount of by-products a much poorer residue would be the result. The recovery plant installed at Bienfait ,is, therefore, only for the purpose of removing the lignitic tars and pitches from the gas, in order that the pipes, flues and other passages may not become clogged up.
1. The Right-of-Way and Lease Agent of the Department of Railways and Canals lias always looked after such matters in connection with government railways and canals. When the Canadian Northern was taken over, the position of Right-of-Way Agent of that road was vacant through death. It was considered an economy to have the departmental Right-of-Way and Lease Agent take over that work in addition to his previous duties.
2. Answered by No. 1.
4. $1,000. Civil Service Commission is aware of the fact.
Topic: CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-RIGHT OP WAY AGENT
imports entered for consumption $177,700,694 Exports 194,509,143
Total Trade $372,209,837
Fiscal Year 1910-1911-
Imports entered for consumption $451,745,108 Exports 290,000,210
Total Trade $741,745,318
Fiscal Year 1920-1921-
Imports entered for consumption $1,240,158,882
Total Trade $2,450,587,001
UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS Mr. CHURCH:
For a copy of all correspondence between the Minister of Marine and Fisheries or any official of that department, and the. Minister of Justice or an.y official of his department, in reference to judgment given by Mr. Justice Morrison, of British Columbia, in regard to the mode of appointment of persons to act as nautical assessors to assist the Dominion wreck commissioners in the investigation of wrecks and other marine casualties.
For a copy of all letters, telegrams, memoranda, memorials, petitions and other documents, in the possession of or under the control of the Government, relating to claim of residents of Canada for the independence of Fastern Galicia.
PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION Mr. W. C. GOOD (Brant) moved:
Whereas the Special Committee on Proportional Representation appointed at the last ses-
sion of the late parliament, reported in favour of the adoption of the Alternative Vote method of election in all single member constitue.mcies where more than two candidates were running for election, and also found much merit in the system of true Proportional Representation,
And whereas the recent general election has fully demonstrated the many serious anomalies of the existing electoral system,
Therefore, be it resolved:
That, in the opinion of this House the Alternative Vote method should be adopted for use in future elections for this House in all single member constituencies where more than two candidates are running for election,
Also that, in the opinion of this House, for the purpose of demonstrating the working and effect of the true Proportional Representation system, one or more multi-member constituencies should be constituted as early as possible in which that system should be applied at the next general election.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the remarks which. I venture to address to the House to-day can make little or no appeal to those who do not believe in democracy. That there are many such in Canada, I am well aware; that there may be some in this House, I can well believe; but I have confidence that the majority of Canadians, both in and out of this House, do believe in democracy, in spite of its many weaknesses and bundlings. Democracy, indeed, is yet but an infant painfully learning, first to creep, and then to walk, and suffering many a tumble while growing in strength and stature. Some day democracy will grow up, and it is to those who look with faith towards that day that I make my appeal.
This is not the first time this question has been before this House, but inasmuch as there are many here to-day who have not been here in previous years, I think it well at the outset to make a brief statement of what consideration has been given to this question by previous parliaments.
Beginning then on the 15th March, 1909, the late Hon. F. D. Monk moved a resolution calling, among other things, for a select committee to investigate proportional representation. In his speech, which occupies about thirteen pages of Hansard, there is a vast amount of evidence given in favour of this new electoral method. There was considerable debate on that occasion, and finally the hon. Mr. Fielding moved a slight amendment to the resolution, and in that amended form the resolution carried unanimously. However, the matter was left over, it being then fairly late in the session and nothing further was done at that time. At the next session, on November 17, 1909, the late Mr. Monk again brought the matter up, and after a short discussion the
House again endorsed the motion unanimously. On the 25th November, a committee .was named composed of the following gentlemen, Messrs. W. L. Mackenzie King, Monk, Turcotte, Burrell, Magrath, Wilson and Kyte. This committee did not meet that session, but were reappointed on February 8, 1911, on the motion, I think, of the same Mr. Monk. I find no record of the activities of that committee. However, on April 30, 1917, Mr. J. C. Turriff, now in the Senate, moved a resolution in favour of proportional representation, and in the course of the debate, Mr. Kyte, who was a member of the committee, stated that the committee had met once, but that owing to the illness of Mr. Monk, the chairman, nothing further was done. Mr. Turriff's resolution was not brought to a vote, the debate being adjourned. Early in 1919 a Royal Commission on Industrial Relations was appointed and reported in favour of proportional representation. On July 5, 1919, in reply to a question in this House, Sir Robert Borden said:
I should he very glad indeed to have a Speaker's Conference established for the purpose of considering the important question-
Namely proportional representation.
-to which my hon. friend has directed my attention
* I recognize its importance
and I will be prepared to have a Speaker's Conference appointed at the next session of Parliament.
This promise on the part of Sir Robert Borden was not carried out. I do not know why; and we find that on April 4, 1921, Mr. J. A. Sexsmith, the Conservative member for East Peterborough, moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, in order to give each voter an equal share in the representation, some system of proportional representation should be adopted, and that a special committee of this House should be forthwith appointed, charged with an inquiry into the different systems of proportional representation, with a view to recommend one of these for adoption.
Mr. Sexsmith supported his resolution with a very large volume of evidence and argument, and the debate was engaged in by the following members of the then House: Mr. Levi Thomson, Mr. J. W. Edwards, Mr. Andrews (Centre Winnipeg), Hon. Mr. Oa'lder and Messrs. Denis, Harold, Crerar, Cockshutt, McMaster, Steele (South Perth), Mackenzie King and Thompson (Yukon). I may say in passing that when Mr. Calder spoke he suggested an amendment to the resolution moved by Mr. Sexsmith, and finally, after
a debate of four hours, the amendment suggested by Mr. Calder was unanimously adopted. Now I want to place upon Hansard in this connection the statement made in that debate by the present Prime Minister, Mr. Mackenzie King. He said, as reported on page 1553 of Hansard of the year 1921:
Proportional representation, so far as I can see, is a juster system than any we have at the present time, in that it gives the electors, whether of a minority or a majority, their fair share of representation in Parliament, where their views can be aired ; and it seems to me that it also gives greater freedom in that it allows the greatest possible latitude to every citizen in expressing his choice of who shall represent him in parliament, because proportional representation is founded on the true democratic principles of justice and freedom, and as it gives better expression to those principles in our electoral machinery, I, for one, strongly favour its adoption.
The committee which was then formed in response to the resolution which was carried unanimously was composed of the following members of the House: Messrs. Blain, Calder, Crowe, Currie, Davidson, Denis, Harold, Manion, McMaster, Molloy, Pardee, Sexsmith, Simpson, Sinclair, Thomson and Whidden. This special committee thus appointed met on the following dates: April 8, 14, 22, and May 12, 21 and 28th. It had submitted to it a large amount of evidence from Mr. Ronald H. Hooper, honourary secretary of the Proportional Representation Society of Canada; Mr. J. R. McNichol, Toronto; Mr. J. A. P. Haydon, speaking for Mr. Tom Moore, of the Trades and Labour Congress, and Mr. C. G. MacNeil, speaking for the Great War Veterans' Association. The committee reported on May 30, 1921, and I may say in passing that I have here the evidence submitted to them during those sittings. It is embodied in four pamphlets which contain a large quantity of very valuable evidence on this subject. The instructions given to that committee were as follows, in the amendment which Mr. Calder introduced to the original motion:
That in the opinion of this House a special committee of this House should he appointed to consider the subject of proportional representation and the subject of the single transferable or preferential vote, and the desirability of the application of one or the other, or both, to elections to .the House of Commons of Canada, and to report thereon to the House, and that such committee have power to send for persons, papers and records, and to examine witnesses under oath.
This committee reported on May 30, 1921, in part, as follows:
Your committee has come to the conclusion that at this time it is not prepared to recommend the application of proportional representation in the next general election as a method of electing members to the House of Commons.
Permit me, in passing, to comment on that paragraph in the report.
It is somewhat vague and does not indicate whether or not the committee was prepared to recommend a partial application of proportional representation in the next election, or whether it was not prepared to recommend the universal application of the system to all constituencies in Canada. Continuing, the report says:
The committee, however, was impressed with many of the arguments advanced by the advocates of this system, and believes that the system merits further study and investigation by the Canadian people.
Your committee believes that in constituencies where more than two candidates present themselves the adoption of the alternative vote offers a solution of the difficulty inasmuch as by such method the candidate finally declared elected would represent the choice of the majority of the electors.
Your committee is of the opinion that this system will give a truer reflection of the desires of the voters in the various constituencies than will be obtained where more than two candidates run under our present method of counting the votes.
That was the situation last year. The committee reported in substance as I have just read, but Parliament did not, for some reason or other, take the matter up again. I presume that it was late in the session, other business was pressing, and probably the matter was set aside. We come now to the present year and to the resolution which I have asked the privilege of moving to-day. This resolution asks for two things: first the adoption of the alternative, or transferable, or preferential, or contingent vote-all of these names are applied to it-where three or more candidates are running in a single member constituency, and in that respect it would meet with the support and endorsation of the committee last year. It goes no farther, but it goes just as far. Secondly, this resolution calls for the application of proportional representation in a small way in certain constituencies. I am not asking the House on the present occasion to give an unqualified endorsation to the principle of proportional representation, or to authorize its application in any definite number of places, or in any particular constituencies in this country, but I am asking the House to authorize the trying out of proportional representation in certain constituencies.
It has already been tried with great success in Winnipeg, and, as the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Lapointe) suggested, Toronto, I think, is another place where it could be tried out to great advantage.
I propose to examine the two parts of the resolution separately, the alternative vote, in the first place, and proportional representation in the second place. What, then, is the need for the alternative vote? I have before me a table giving an analysis of the returns of the Canadian general election last fall, and I would like permission to have this table inserted in Hansard. It is not very long, and it might convey in a very concise form the information which I wish to present to the House. I will read the table and give the House the particulars, and then suggest, if the House is agreeable, that the information be printed in tabular form, rather than as I read it. This is a statement by provinces of the three, four and five cornered contests, with a record, by parties, of the members elected by a minority vote of their constituents. I find that in the various provinces which I shall name there were the following three, four and five cornered contests:
New Brunswick 4
Prince Edward Island 3
Nova Scotia 8
British Columbia 8
Making a total of 140 constituencies in which more than two candidates ran. Now out of that 140 the following numbers were elected on a minority vote:
New Brunswick 1
Prince Edward Island 3
Nova Scotia 3
British Columbia 5
Making a total of 74 constituencies where the present representatives sit in this House as minority representatives. I do not wish to imply that these representatives have no right to sit in this House. It is quite possible that, under a better system of election, they would still be here, but we do not know about that. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that it would be very much better for themselves, for this
House and this country, if we knew that these gentlemen who have been elected under the system that we have had in existence for many years, were entitled by virtue of being supported by a majority of their constituents who voted at the election, to a seat in this House. The distribution of these 74 minority representatives among the different parties appears in a statement I have before me. I will not give it for the various provinces, but will give the totals, to save time. They are as follows :
Representatives elected by minority vote
Liberal party 22
Conservative -party 28
Progressive party 21
Labour and Independent party.. 3
I may say that, in a few instances, members were elected who received barely, or not much more than, one-third of the total vote.
In the Ontario election of 1919, if my information is correct, 74 out of 111 constituencies had three, four, or five cornered contests. I wish to submit to the House, arising out of that situation, a section of the report of the committee of the Ontario legislature appointed about two years ago to consider this whole matter. I wish to state that in the report of that committee there is an unqualified endorsation of the alternative vote where more than two candidates are running, and I wish to state further that a bill is, I understand, being introduced into the Ontario legislature this year to give effect to that recommendation. I do not know whether the bill has yet received its first reading, but when I was in Toronto a little over a week ago I read the draft of the bill which had been prepared, so that there is no doubt this matter will receive very shortly the consideration of the legislature of Ontario, and I feel quite confident that either this session or next session, at all events bercre another provincial election is held in Ontario, the alternative vote will be adopted.
I do not know that it would be wise or necessary to take up the time in explaining to the members here the method whereby this particular system of voting can be applied. As, however, there may be in this House possibly some members, although I think very few, who do not understand the method of applying the system, I will endeavour to explain it very briefly. The ballot papers are just the same as they are
at the present time. The names of the candidates running are arranged on the left hand side of the ballot paper in alphabetical order, and the blank spaces to the right are just the same as they are now. But the instructions to the voters are different; the voters are instructed to place the figure "1", or the common "x" mark, after the name of the candidate whom they choose first, the figure "2" after the name of the candidate who is their second choice, the figure "3" after the name of the candidate who is their third choice, and so on to any extent which they wish. This gives the voter an opportunity of transferring his vote from a candidate who has no chance of being elected to his second or third choice. Under our present system, every voter in a three, four or five cornered contest is placed in a most embarrasing and unfair position, and a grave injustice is done to him. Hon. members must know of many instances where voters have been placed in this unfair and embarrassing position. In the election of 1917, there were three men running in our constituency, and I 'remember being greatly puzzled and troubled as to how I should register my vote, because I had to consider which one of the two candidates whom I preferred above the third had the better chance of being elected. No voter ought to be compelled, by an electoral system, to consider a matter of that sort, a matter which, in the nature of the case, is utterly irrelevant; and it is unnecessary to embarrass and perplex and worry an elector with such a situation. If, on that occasion, I had been allowed to express my preference as between two of the candidates, to put my first preference down as No. 1, and my second choice as No. 2, I would have had no hesitation at all, and my wishes would have been respected. I remember, on that occasion, hearing of a man who confessed that he had voted, not for his first choice, but for his second choice, because he thought his second choice had the better chance of being elected, and he wanted to defeat the third man. I submit to all hon. gentlemen in this House, who have any regard for fairness and justice, that no elector should be placed in that position, and that if a system, which can be changed, places electors in a position like that, it is our duty to change the system in order to give the electors a fair show and a square deal.
Furthermore, not only is this embarrassing to the elector; it is unfair to the total electorate and to the country. It is
discreditable to this Parliament to allow a situation like that to continue, particularly when we have so many three, four and five cornered contests as we have had recently, and as we are likely to have in the near future.
If we have any regard for the principle of democracy, we must surely go to this extent, at all events, that the representatives of the electorate in the House should be returned here by a majority of their constituents. We can do more; but that is the least we can do. And when we find, at the present time and in the present House, 74 members who sit here on a minority vote, such a condition of affairs is discreditable to this House, and we are not doing our duty to this country and to the electorate, if we allow such a condition to continue any longer. Therefore, with respect to the alternative or transferable vote, quite regardless of any system of proportional representation and having reference only to our present electoral system of single member constituencies, we ought to provide that, where more than two candidates are running, every elector should have the privilege of recording his second or third choice, as the case may be, so that, in the event of his first choice not having any chance of being elected, he should not lose his vote, but should be privileged to record his vote and to have it counted in the final result. If we do that, then we shall guarantee that, on every occasion, a member who sits in this House sits here as the representative of the majority of the electors in his constituency.
Now, why should we not stop there and say: That is sufficient? I will answer the question-because even if you go that far, inevitable inaccuracies will occur under the single member constituency system. The alternative vote will bring us back again only to the situation which we had before there were more than two parties; to the situation where a representative sat in this House by reason of the fact that he was elected by a majority. We shall get only that far, and I am going to submit to this House some evidence to show that that is not enough; that that will not get us where we ought to go and ought to be. I wish to cite some figures in connection with various elections to show the extraordinary inaccuracies and injustices that are bound to prevail to a greater or less degree under the system of single member constituencies, no matter whether we have the alternative vote or not. Let
us take first the British Columbia provincial elections of 1912. I find that the Conservative p'arty on that occasion-and in order to save time, I will give the figures in round numbers-polled a vote of about
51.000 and got 31 representatives and also an additional nine by acclamation. The Liberal party polled about 21,000 votes, and they did not secure a single representative in that legislature. The Socialist and Independent party, with a total vote of about 12,000, secured two representatives. Therefore, in that particular case,
21.000 Liberal voters in British Columbia were totally unrepresented in the provincial legislature. Let us take the federal elections of 1904 in Nova Scotia. The Liberals polled about 56,000 votes and secured 18 representatives; the Conservatives polled 46,000 votes and did not secure a single one. Take the federal elections in British Columbia in 1911: the Conservative party polled a vote of 25,000 odd, and secured seven representatives; the Liberal party polled a vote of 16,000, and did not secure a single representative. So there you have the reverse situation from that which existed in Nova Scotia in 1904.
Here are the results, for the whole country, of the federal elections in 1896. The Conservative party at that time polled a vote of 416,000-I am giving only round numbers-and secured 88 representatives; the Liberal party polled a vote of 405,000 and secured 118 representatives. So that you have in that election a minority of the total vote securing a very considerable majority of the representatives. Independents at that time polled a vote of 76,000 and secured 7 representatives.
The Manitoba provincial elections of July, 1914, give this result: Liberal vote, 74,000, representation 21; Conservative votes,
68.000, -less, mark you-and representation, 25, along with 3 other representatives who were elected by acclamation. The Independent party, with a vote of nearly
8.000, secured no representation at all.
Take the Canadian federal elections of
1908: the Liberal party secured a vote of
594.000, getting a representation in this House of 135; the Conservatives, with a vote of 552,000, secured a representation of 86, so that the representation of Conservatives at that time was disproportionately decreased. In the federal elections of 1911 the Conservative vote was 669,000 and the representation 134; the Liberal vote was 625,000, almost as great, and the re-
presentation only 87,-a reversal of the situation in 1908.
Let us now come to the situation in Great Britain. The returns for the general elections in Great Britain of December, 1918, give the following results-the last column indicates the number to which the party is entitled by the vote registered:
In the last case you have an accidental equality, and the same thing occurred in the case of the National-Democratic party, which was entitled to 12 seats, having regard to the vote polled, and obtained 12. In the case of the Independent-Unionists, however, the seats obtained were 25, whereas they were entitled to only 20. The total vote was 5,500,000; seats obtained, 428; number of seats in proper proportion to vote polled, 292. I shall not give the details as to the vote polled by the nonCoalition groups, composed of Liberal, Labour, Socialist and Farmers, Co-operatives, National party and Nationalists, and Independents, but the total was slightly over 4,000,000 and the representation secured was 81, although they were entitled to 217. You see, therefore, that in that particular election the Coalition with its allied groups was disproportionately represented, whereas the non-Coalition groups did not secure their fair share of representation.
The Transvaal provincial elections of April 1914, show the following result:
Party Vote polled Seats proportion obtained to vote Labour 26,000 23 16Unionist 12,000 2 7South African parties.. .. 6,000 1 3
In the Ontario elections of 1919 a Conservative vote of 386,000 won 25 seats; a Liberal vote of 336,000 won 29 seats; a Farmer vote of 256,000, considerably less than either of the other groups, won 45 seats; a Labour and Independent vote of
173,000 won 12 seats. In the Alberta elections of 1921, 97,00 Liberal votes elected 15 representatives; 81,000 Farmer votes elected 39 representatives; 32,000 Conservative votes did not elect a single man; and 30,000 Labour votes elected 3.
May I refer also, amidst a great mass of similar evidence, to the situation in the New York aldermanic elections in November of last year. About 250,000 Democratic voters elected 33 aldermen; 258,000 Republican voters did not elect a single representative. I have here some other results of elections ih the United States, but possibly I had better forbear reading them. The figures are even more astounding than in the case of the Canadian and other elections to which I have referred, showing that under the single member district system you sometimes get the most extraordinary results. I have in mind an election in Indiana. I have not the facts before me, but speaking from memory I think it was about the year 1912. At all events, in this particular election the Republican party was split into the Progressives and the Stand-pat Republicans, and the vote was so split in the various constituencies that the Republican party did not secure a single representative in the state legislature; the Democratic party, with a minority of the total vote, secured the total representation. In the next election, when the two factions in the Republican party had become reunited, the Republicans secured every one of the representatives. Now there is a situation, Mr. Speaker, that I think we ought to face very frankly. It does not always happen, but if it does not happen it is only by accident. It may happen at any time that you have the pendulum swinging from one extreme to the other, and I submit that it is a very unwise thing, it is a very harmful thing, for any such condition of affairs to exist.
I come next to the Canadian elections of last fa'll. I have prepared here a very exhaustive analysis of the results of the late Canadian general elections. The figures are given according to provinces; I will just explain briefly the information which this set of tables contains. In the left hand column I have the constituencies; following I have the various parties-Progressive, Liberal, Conservative, Labour, Independent and miscellaneous, and under each heading I have the name of the candidate and the vote which he secured. On the right-hand side I have three other columns giving the number of votes counted, the number of names on the list, and the percentage of the votes polled to the total vote. I think this may be useful for other purposes than that which I am using it for on this occasion. At the bottom I have the following information for each province: the number of candidates
running for each party, the total vote for each party's candidates, the percentage of the total vote obtained by each party, the number of candidates actually elected, and the number who should have been elected according to the votes polled.
I now leave that rather extensive set of tables and turn to a condensation of them. On the first page I have stated the votes polled for the various parties by provinces, and I have added those votes together to determine the representation, on the basis of the total votes polled in the whole Dominion which each of the parties should have got in the last federal election. I find that representation should be as follows: Liberals, 96 members; Conservatives, 73 members; Progressives, 55 members; Labour, 4 members; Independents, 7 members.
On the next page I have an analysis of these figures by provinces. I think this page might well be inserted in Hansard because the information is conveyed in very concise form, but if this is not permissible I shall have to read out the figures. I have shown here the seats actually obtained by the various parties, with the number of seats which they were entitled to by reason of the total vote polled.
In Ontario the Liberals secured 21 seats, they were entitled to 45; the Conservatives tives secured 37 seats; they were entitled to 32;