February 19, 1923

CON

Henry Herbert Stevens

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. STEVENS:

After the votes are cast. A and B, we will say, in a dual member constituency have the largest number of votes. Of course, if they have enough on the first count to give them their quota they are elected, but assuming they have not, and that is very often the case, and it is the only reason for this innovation, it may be that on allocating the other votes, C and D will be elected over the heads of A and B. As a matter of fact, if I had time and had the figures before me, which I have not, I could show where what I consider to be grave injustices have been done in the distribution of the votes. The only mathematical accuracy in the matter is this; by taking this arbitrary number and determining arbitrarily that one candidate shall drop out, you may distribute those votes mathematically, I do not dispute that; what I question is your right to declare that you get, from a mathematical standpoint, an accurate reflection of the views of the electors. You do not do so. You have the element of chance. You arbitrarily remove from the list the candidate with the lowest number of votes, and after that arbitrary removal you allocate a group of votes which may favour this man or that. If it happens that number 4 or number 5 has a certain number of second choices after number 15 has dropped out, he benefits. So it is a game of chance just as much as is any other form of polling.

I would like to join with the views expressed by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) in saying to my hon. friend for

27i

Brant (Mr. Good) that I think he ought to be mighty well satisfied as an enthusiastic advocate of these measures to have had his first proposal, the alternative vote, advanced. I was somewhat surprised at the Minister of Finance saying that he needed proportional representation to remedy the difficulties of Nova Scotia that he outlined. The resolution already passed in the early afternoon would correct what my hon. friend suggests is perhaps an injustice.

There is another point. We find by experience in our province that the electorate do not take the same interest in the polling that they do under the present system, and there are two distinct reasons for that. One reason is the complex nature of the poll, and the other is that the average elector says, " Oh, well, what's the use? If you go and vote for the man you think should be elected he has mighty little chance because of the peculiarities of this system." It discourages and has discouraged the turning out of the electors to poll. In the case of the city of Vancouver the number of persons turning out to poll under proportional representation is about one-third normal, and I notice it is the same in other cities.

Topic:   PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION IN MULTIMEMBER CONSTITUENCIES
Permalink
LAB

James Shaver Woodsworth

Labour

Mr. WOODSWORTH:

Is that true of

Winnipeg, may I ask?

Topic:   PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION IN MULTIMEMBER CONSTITUENCIES
Permalink
CON

Henry Herbert Stevens

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. STEVENS:

I am not prepared to

say that that is a reason to advance in support of my argument. I am simply stating what experience teaches us, and that is that people do not take the same interest in an election under this system.

Topic:   PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION IN MULTIMEMBER CONSTITUENCIES
Permalink
LAB

James Shaver Woodsworth

Labour

Mr. WOODSWORTH:

May I ask the hon. member if it is a fact that in the city of Winnipeg there is less interest taken in an election under proportional representation than under the old system?

Topic:   PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION IN MULTIMEMBER CONSTITUENCIES
Permalink
CON

Henry Herbert Stevens

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. STEVENS:

I am quite aware that

after the activities of my hon. friend and some of his friends in Winnipeg, public affairs have been creating quite a considerable degree of heated opinion.

Regarding the alternative vote, I do not see perhaps quite the same objections to it that I do to proportional representation, although personally I may say very frankly to my hon. friend I voted " no " to that proposal. Someone said that it carried unanimously. When the motion was put I called "lost." I did that out of candour and frankness, because I did not wish to be considered as supporting it. I think my hon. friend ought to have been satisfied with the passage of his

Proportional Representation

first resolution. I think the government owes it to the country, and I say this with great earnestness to my right hon. friend the Prime Minister, that this very important departure from our present system ought to receive more consideration and a great deal more detailed discussion than has been given to it during the debate before it is approved. As I read this resolution in the order paper proposed by the hori. member for Brant it says:

For the purpose of demonstrating the working and effects of the system of true proportional representation, one or more multi-member constituencies should be constituted by the redistribution legislation in which that system should be applied at the next general election.

I invite the Prime Minister and the government to consider this resolution. Virtually what it is doing is this: It is not merely a

pious expression of opinion by this House on the merits or demerits of this system, but it is a definite instruction to the government and to the committee that will be formed under the aegis of the government to incorporate this system in the redistribution bill which the government has now before the House. In other words, if this resolution carries, it becomes a definite government measure. Now I ask the Prime Minister in all earnestness: does he think this matter has received all the consideration it should have before we get to the point of incorporating it in the redistribution bill? Then I ask him further, does he not think that it is wholly unfair, I will not say unconstitutional, to inaugurate this system as an experiment in one, two or three sections when we are not at all sure that it is wise to incorporate it as a part of the general electoral system of this country? I feel very keenly about this. I do not wish to deride the proposal, but I do think we can well afford to let this particular motion stand, or, if the hon. member is not agreeable to that, to vote it down, not necessarily rejecting the idea altogether, but rejecting it in this form, and letting the first proposal that was passed be given a trial. I am opposed to the first motion also, but it has carried and I bow to the wish of the House. But I do ask the House to refrain from hasty action- perhaps that is too strong a word-in connection with this matter which is of such grave importance.

Topic:   PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION IN MULTIMEMBER CONSTITUENCIES
Permalink
IND

William Findlay Maclean

Independent Conservative

Mr. W. F. MACLEAN (SouthYork):

M.\ Speaker, I have very little to say on this question other than this, that I am an absolute believer in parliamentary government as it has developed in Great Britain and in the nations of the British Commonwealth that are now growing up in all quarters of the world. Parliamentary government does not

stop, it is progressive; and the whole history of progress in connection with our parliamentary institutions is the removal of abuses in connection with government and the substitution of a better system. Therefore I say the day of reform is not completed, the public in many quarters are asking for improvements, and I am prepared to see these two questions embodied in the resolutions considered this afternoon submitted to a committee for the consideration of the House.

But I want to bring something else, which is a real grievance in the country, before the House. It is a real grievance in my constituency. I represent here over 100,000 people and if an election was declared there would have to be a registration of votes in South York and there would be 60,000 people on that voters' list. Well, there is a case where 100,000 people in South York are outvoted in this country by four constituencies that do not have 80,000 population. In other words, as I size up the census and the representation of Ontario, Toronto and the adjacent constituencies in the county of York associated with it, are entitled to perhaps one-fifth of the representation of Ontario which would be 16. In other words the real question in our portion of Ontario is " rep. by pop." Are we to have it? There is the old cry that was long ago raised in this country That was the old Liberal cry. I have always believed in it, I believe in it to-day. Is this House prepared to adopt the principle of representation by population, as well as the principle of proportional representation or the alternative vote? I would like to have an expression of opinion on that. That is a question which concerns the people in Toronto, it concerns the people in Ottawa, and it concerns the people of the whole of the cities throughout this Dominion. At present the urban centres do not have fair representation. In the United States they have representation by population practically and there is no objection to it there. Why does this discrimination exist against the cities, why is this preference given to the country parts? That is the real issue.

I was not here at the beginning of this debate I regret to say, but I have listened with great interest to what was said to-night. I appreciated the statement of the Minister of Finance to-night, but he did not touch this question, nor did the right hon. leader of the Opposition touch it as far as I could hear. And yet this is a vital question and I appeal to my hon. friends from the constituencies of Toronto and York, to support me in this stand. I never read anything with so much interest as I read the last two nights in bed the latest

Proportional Representation

volumes of Mrs Asquith's Biography. I got through the two volumes in two seances of about four hours. But it was most interesting to me and this is the point: The whole of her story forms the history of the progress of parliamentary government in England, and the great instance she gives is the recent struggle -within the memory of most of the members of the present parliament of England-the recent struggle to curb the over-influence of the House of Lords after a clear expression of opinion had been given by the people through the House of Commons, either in a general election or on a reference of the special question to the electorate.

Now, the whole history of progress in connection with parliamentary government is of that kind and it is not finished. Undoubtedly the present system of voting is not satisfactory. The group system, to my mind and from my reading is not likely to end. I do not know in what way it is going to move, but perhaps the old two party system is very near its end. It is very near its end in the United States; that result has already arrived in many of our provinces; and as I size up the situation in the United States the prospect is that the next presidential election and the next election for congress, will result in a very pronounced manifestation in favour of at least three parties and the group system. Accordingly I am prepared to favour a full consideration of this question by a parliamentary committee, not only to consider the alternative system and proportional representation, but to consider a question far more important to all the cities in the urban population of Canada- the demand for representation by population.

One of the great cries of the illustrious grandfather of the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Mackenzie King) who now leads the House was representation by population in this country, which was denied in the old days. That demand has continued to this day, and there may be some trace of it in Britain yet. That abuse has got to be removed. It is a parliamentary abuse that denies equality between the citizens of this country. I believe in equality in citizenship, equality in responsibility, and equality in the right to shape the policy of the country. We have not got it in Toronto, it does not exist in Winnipeg, it does not exist in Montreal. Montreal is entitled to whatever representation is granted to the other cities. At present the urban population of the community, as the leader of the Opposition said to-night is not given a fair show. It is discriminated against in a way even by these proposals submitted to-day.

Therefore, I wish to say that I do recognize the group system and think it will prevail for a good many years in Canada, and it may expand. It certainly is recognized in Britain and, most surprising thing, after the recent election there, and when Mr. Bonar Law came into the House and announced this policy as the new Prime Minister, the other three groups in the House did something remarkable. Practically Mr. Asquith, and I think Lloyd George and others, recognized at once the group system, and as Ramsay Macdonald was the leader of the dominant section of the opposition, Mr. Asquith, Lloyd George and the others all rose and said, " After you, Mr. Macdonald," and automatically he was recognized as the leader of His Majesty's loyal opposition. That shows progress, and that shows what took place in England, and also shows what is taking place all over. There will be a recognition for some years to come of the group system, and it not only goes to-parliament, whether the British parliament, or American congress, or to the parliament in this country, as a recognized group system; but it obtains to-day in most of our provinces.

I am an absolute believer in progress in parliamentary reform. This can only be done by agitation, and it has been obtained only by discussions of this character, by the introduction of reforms, by their being tried, and by their investigation by committee. But when we are dealing with this question, 1 claim on behalf of the urban population of Canada that they are entitled before anything else to representation by population, and that the quality of citizenship is the basis of parliamentary government. It has been ignored in this country and ignored in some of the other commonwealths, and the first thing to do in our parliamentary system is to improve the system under which we select our members for this House. I would go further and would like to see a very much improved system in the selection of the Senate of this country.

Topic:   PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION IN MULTIMEMBER CONSTITUENCIES
Permalink
IND
LIB

Hewitt Bostock (Speaker of the Senate)

Liberal

Mr. SPEAKER:

The debate is always

closed by the mover. If any other member wishes to address the House this is the time, because the mover will close the debate.

Topic:   PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION IN MULTIMEMBER CONSTITUENCIES
Permalink
LIB

William Lyon Mackenzie King (Prime Minister; President of the Privy Council; Secretary of State for External Affairs)

Liberal

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):

I would like to draw

the attention of the House to the

difference in the form in which the resolution is introduced this year from the form in which it was introduced last year by the hon. member. The hon.

Proportional Representation

gentleman brought in a resolution last year which embraced both the alternative vote and proportional representation. I supported him at that time in his resolution, I intend to support him to-night in both resolutions, because I believe in the alternative vote and also in proportional representation.

Topic:   PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION IN MULTIMEMBER CONSTITUENCIES
Permalink
?

An hon. MEMBER:

How about representation by population?

Topic:   PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION IN MULTIMEMBER CONSTITUENCIES
Permalink
LIB

William Lyon Mackenzie King (Prime Minister; President of the Privy Council; Secretary of State for External Affairs)

Liberal

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

Topic:   PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION IN MULTIMEMBER CONSTITUENCIES
Permalink
CON

George Black

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. GEORGE BLACK (Yukon):

Mr. Speaker, I would like to call the attention of the mover of this resolution and of the members generally to just one aspect of proportional representation which seems to be unfair to the voter in that it impairs his franchise and reduces his voting power in constituencies described in the resolution as multi-member constituencies. For instance, let us take a constituency which has the right to elect four candidates and that those four positions are coequal, one is of no more importance than another. Yet, the elector in voting for those four can really give only one first vote; to the second, he gives a number 2 vote or half a vote; to the third, a third of a vote, and to the fourth a fourth of a vote. That is, the fourth man he votes for has not as much opportunity of being elected because of his vote as the man to whom he gave his number 1 vote, although, as I say, the positions are coequal, just as important and the elector has just as much right to vote for the fourth man as he has to vote for the first. I have not heard that point touched on by any of the advocates of proportional representation.

I am not in favour of passing this resolution in this House at the present time, if for no other reason than that the matter has never

been submitted to the electorate. The members of this House were not sent here to introduce any such legislation. We have had no expression of opinion from the electorate of Canada as to whether or not they are in favour of proportional representation, and I do not think this House should. take to itself this opportunity of putting upon the shoulders of the electorate this new system with its imperfections as they have been demonstrated to the House to-night, in preference to the old system. For that reason, I propose to-night to vote against the resolution, and I should like to hear the mover explain the point that I have called to his attention and to the attention of the House.

Topic:   PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION IN MULTIMEMBER CONSTITUENCIES
Permalink
LIB

James Joseph Hughes

Liberal

Mr. J. J. HUGHES (King's, P. E. I.):

Mr. Speaker, I want to get a matter concerning which I am in some doubt cleared up before I give a vote on this resolution. Supposing there are 100 votes in any single member constituency with three candidates running. One of them gets forty votes, and each of the other two gets thirty votes. Is it possible under this principle for one of the men who gets thirty votes to become the representative? Then, let us take a double constituency and say that there are four candidates running. Two of them get twenty-five votes each; one gets twenty votes, and the other gets thirty votes. Is it possible for the man who got twenty votes and one of the men who got twenty-five votes to become the representatives for that district?

Topic:   PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION IN MULTIMEMBER CONSTITUENCIES
Permalink
CON

Henry Herbert Stevens

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. STEVENS:

Certainly.

Topic:   PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION IN MULTIMEMBER CONSTITUENCIES
Permalink
LIB

James Joseph Hughes

Liberal

Mr. HUGHES:

And so on in like manner. If that is possible, it appears to me that in our effort to right an injustice, to correct a wrong, we would be doing a greater injustice. If that point can be cleared up to my satisfaction, I would, perhaps, feel like supporting this resolution. But, if that is the result, I do not see how I could vote for this resolution, because as I have already stated, it would appear to me that we would be doing a great injustice to the man who got the largest vote of the group.

Topic:   PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION IN MULTIMEMBER CONSTITUENCIES
Permalink
CON

John Franklin White

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. J. F. WHITE (London):

Mr. Speaker, I have listened with a good deal of interest to the debate to-day, and I can understand how proportional representation might be advantageous in securing a more accurate expression of opinion in municipal matters. As has already been pointed out, in municipal affairs there are no political parties and very seldom great questions at issue, and the policies are generally outlined by individuals. I can therefore understand

Proportional Representation

how proportional representation might be of advantage in those cases.

The first thing we have to consider, without going into the pros and cons of the figures in connection with this question, is the matter of confusion in the minds of voters. Any system that we adopt must have the confidence of the people before we take it up very seriously. We must make sure that the people are certain that their votes will be treated with perfect fairness; that the man for whom they wish to vote will receive the count without undue manipulation. Not only that, but the voter must be thoroughly conversant as to how to mark his ballot and as to the procedure afterwards. Unless that is the case, then our people will not have the confidence that they should have in the system. The hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Black) has touched on a point that I think is very important, namely, that the public have not expressed any opinion at the polls whether they wish to elect their representatives in this fashion or not. It struck me that it would have been the part of wisdom for the government of this country to have found out in some way the feeling of the people in this regard.

Topic:   PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION IN MULTIMEMBER CONSTITUENCIES
Permalink
PRO

Robert Alexander Hoey

Progressive

Mr. HOEY:

Does the hon. member not know that proportional representation is in both the Progressive platform and the Liberal platform, and that the majority of the members of this House were returned on that principle?

Topic:   PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION IN MULTIMEMBER CONSTITUENCIES
Permalink
CON

John Franklin White

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. WHITE:

I know there are a good many things in the Liberal platform, but I have not seen them come to fruition yet. Another matter is the delay, after voting takes place, before the results are announced. If four or five or six constituencies are grouped together, there will probably be fourteen or fifteen candidates. The result will be that the ballots will have to be counted several times, or perhaps some of our Progressive friends can figure out some more expeditious way of counting them. But so far as I can see, a great delay will occur, and it will probably be a week after the election before the results are announced. We have made one experiment to-day without very much consideration, and I would be sorry to see another one made without more consideration than it has so far received. If we are taking up this matter of proportional representation seriously, I think we should give it further consideration, and I would therefore move in amendment:

That this resolution be referred to a special committee, to be appointed by this House, for further consideration and report later in the present session.

Topic:   PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION IN MULTIMEMBER CONSTITUENCIES
Permalink
CON

Thomas Langton Church

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. T. L. CHURCH (North Toronto):

Recently there was a recount of ballots in the last election that was held in the city I have the honour to represent, and of the

80,000 ballots cast in that election there was less than one-eighth of one per cent improperly marked,-as found by the learned judge of the county court. This, I think, every hon. member will admit is proof that the present system is as just and equitable a system as one could devise, and one that does not seem to leave much room for improvement. Now, it has been my privilege to act for a considerable time as president of the Union of Canadian Municipalities, and I can assert that there has been no demand on the part of the people of Ontario for legislation such as is now proposed. It is one of the principles for which the United Farmers of Ontario stand, that before any far-reaching legislation of this character is proposed in parliament it should be submitted to a vote of the people; and hon. gentlemen of the Progressive party are now violating that principle. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the motions which hon. members of that party have seen fit to introduce in this House since the present session began provide a sufficient reason for the total abolition of private members' day.

Recently I attended a meeting of the council of the county of York, which comes within the constituency represented by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King); and I can assure the House that there is more solid work done in one afternoon and evening by that county council than has been accomplished in this House during the past three weeks, most of which time has been wasted by the Progressives, who indulge in the discussion of a lot of academic questions that have no practical import. The more they talk the more evident is their lack of knowledge; and the less they know the more they talk. If the Progressives in this House would only stand up and advocate something for the working classes, if they would only make practical suggestions as to how the poorer classes are to get coal to warm their houses, if they would only do something to reduce the high cost of living, it would be to very much better purpose than for them to worry the government. And eoodness knows every government to-day, Dominion, provincial or municipal, has a hard time dealing with the problems that face it. As a distinguished member of the British House of Commons stated on one occasion, governments can do little without co-operation. I think my Progressive friends

Proportional Representation

ought at least to give the government a chance to get some work done instead of wasting the time of parliament discussing all sorts of academic theories.

The other day Mr. Gordon Waldron, a lawyer who draws about $21,000 from this so-called Farmers' government in Ontario, was invited to discuss the question of proportional representation in a Methodist church in Toronto. Let me tell my hon. friend from Brant (Mr. Good) that if the system which this gentleman was asked to expound, and which he is now proposing in this House, had been practised in the city I represent, which has a budget amounting to two or three times the budget of Ontario-between $34,000,000 and $35,000,000 per annum-instead of a thirty-mill tax rate the working classes would have to pay a rate of from 45 to 50 mills. That is what would happen under this system of proportional representation, which, after all, is nothing but a Yankee fad, which has been abandoned wherever it has been tried. If that system were in general operation in Ontario, it would tend to abolish public ownership, it would destroy the hydro-electric movement, it would mean a ten-cent fare on the street railways of Toronto, it would mean an increase in the water rates there, which are the cheapest in America today; and it would mean a deficit all along the line, because every fad would be put in the tax rate under this new system.

Now, with many of the principles advanced by the Progressive party, such as the public ownership of utilities, I agree. I am in accord with them on those things that tend to relieve the lot of the workingman. But I do not agree with the way my hon. friends try to do things in this House. The hon. member for Brant is good in deed as well as in name in a great many respects, but in this matter I think he is trying to accomplish something that is not in the interests of proper government. I believe in a low tax rate, but I do not think that you could secure it if you adopted proportional representation. Furthermore, proportional representation would create the group system of government, and I contend that such a system is not in the interests of the country.. As Mr. Austin Chamberlain said in the British House of Commons once, you may criticise the party system as much as you like, but it has stood the test of time. No doubt it has its defects, and men may be actuated sometimes by political motives in the views they take on certain questions. And possibly in the present case the Progressive party may have an eye to votes in advocating this proposed legislation. But however much you criticise the party system, do not forget its virtues.

That system has proved the strength of representative government in the Mother Country; and in the province of Ontario, under the Conservative regime, it has given us the magnificent hydro-electric system which 10 pm. we have and which has meant a saving of 29,000,000 tons of coal to the people of that province between the years 1911 and 1921. The virtues of the party system more than compensate for any defects that * may have become apparent in it in the course of time; and for every dollar spent under it by the Conservatives and the Liberals the so-called Farmers' government of Mr. Drury spend five dollars. Has that been representative government? No.

Well, Mr. Waldron, lawyer for the U.F.O. took the platform, and this reverend gentleman-I forget his name-announced that Mr. Waldron would speak on behalf of proportional representation. Mr. MacNicol of Parkdale, was to be opposed to him. Just here I may remark that the hon. Minister of Finance says that he very regretfully supports this motion. He is a gentleman who is respected by everybody, high and low, rich and poor, and I thought we could look to him for leadership in this matter. Well, what does Mr. Waldron say about proportional representation. I quote from the Globe report:-

Mr. Waldron began by extolling the U.F.O. government-

No doubt it meant a very good thing for him. He got $21,000 a year out of it, from that brilliant little attorney general.

-and expressed the opinion that it would be a calamity if it were not returned to power again.

Not one chance in a hundred of its being returned to power again. It is like our friends the Progressives in the House here; they can discuss academic questions, but when it comes to something of a practical nature for the working classes, what have they done? I have sat in this House for two sessions as the representative of a large municipality, and I have not heard one motion brought down by hon. members of the Progressive party for the benefit of the working classes. The report says further:-

"There is nothing in the world the U.F.O. is not thinking about for your welfare," he told those assembled in the hall, much to their apparent bewilderment. It had been rumored, however, that the U.F.O. would favour the enactment of proportional representation, but he sincerely hoped they would not. The government in Queen's Park had won public favour to retain power, or to elect* candidates in a city of such high ideals as were possessed by Toronto.

Proportional Representation

Then he goes on to say:-

If I were the Prime Minister I would not resort to proportional representation, even if my government were condemned to opposition.

Of course, he is prime minister de facto if not de jure.

The report goes on:-

Whether he was speaking as the mouthpiece of the U.F.O. or not, he did not state, but charged that all this agitation for the P.R. system had originated with the Liberal party in Ontario which, despairing of displacing the present party in power, sought this tricky means of squeezing in between the U.F.O. and Conservatives, while using the former as a tool to put it over. Then, turning his attention to the merits of proportional representation, he said it was totally opposed to the interests of the public. He had a profound respect for long established forms of public action and expression and would not want to see anything to break them down. What he was saying might have been called toryism ten years ago, but when he saw the lack of respect for social and established order now to be witnessed on every hand, he naturally became conservative in viewpoint, although not in the political meaning of the term, as the disrespect, if allowed to continue, would set up and arouse the mob spirit. It was for this reason that he opposed P.R. Under the present government in Queen's Park, the lunatics, wise men, lawyers and the various professions and occupations were well taken care of, he continued without a smile.

These are the remarks of the gentleman who was put up by Mr. Drury to speak on behalf of proportional representation. The present system is a fair system. What mandate have the Progressives to bring down this motion? What mandate have the government to adopt it? Has there been any vote of the people on the question? Was it discussed in North York? I attended five or six meetings in North York and I never heard the matter mentioned. What mandate has the hon. member for Brant to deal with the matter in this way? I was in his constituency, in the city of Brantford, and I am sure the matter was never mentioned during the course of the election. As I understand it, it was one of the planks in the U.F.O. platform that before any legislation should be introduced with regard to the matter there should be a vote of the people.

I will give the House an idea of what the effect of the adoption of this principle would be upon the hydro-electric movement in Ontario. For some years I was a hydro-electric commissioner, and during that time application was made to the board by some of the workmen for increases in wages that the system could not stand. They urged that the Industrial Disputes Act should be invoked but it was found that it did not apply. I say it is going to mean a ten cent fare on our street cars and all the people will have to pay. The average light bill of the working classes in Toronto is only 90 cents a month, but any increase in the cost of running the

hydro-electric arising out of these causes and loading up the system to pay for every fad will mean that rate will be multiplied by two or three. You will have deputations wanting this, that and the other thing and my contention is that under the proportional representation system the commissioners will not be able to oppose all these suggestions that are made and which add to the cost of operation.

We have $120,000,000 invested in public ownership in Toronto. If this proportional representation goes through, it will have a pronounced effect upon our bond transactions. In the city I come from we used to sell our municipal bonds by private tender, giving the business to a broker, but when I became a representative on the treasury board I changed the system to that of calling for tenders, with the result that we got seventeen or twenty bids for about $17,000,000 worth of bonds. A leading banker said to me that if this system went through it would destroy the basis upon which the transactions connected with the bonded indebtedness of our municipalities are conducted, because no man will tender for bonds when he knows that the government of the day can change the hours of labour, can change the conditions of labour, can change all these things upon which the bond man figures when he is making his bid.

I want to point out to our friends the Progressives what that W'ill mean. It is an unfortunate fact that in the province from which I come a large share of the burden of provincial debt is placed upon the municipalities. For example, the tax rate of Toronto includes 5 or 6 mills on the dollar of purely provincial responsibility, a tax placed by the province on the municipality. Consider all that the municipality has to maintain- registry offices, courthouses, hospitals-fixed charges, maintenance charges and so on on all of these; yet 5 or 6 mills on the dollar in Toronto alone go to meet what should be a purely provincial burden. Ontario spends a million and a quarter on education, on the public and separate schools in the province; the municipality of Toronto spends $12,000,000 on schools. When we consider all these things, when we think of all these fixed charges and the difficulties with which the municipality has to struggle, with its limited revenue and limited means of raising money, then we should pause and consider what the effect of the introduction of this system would be. When it comes to floating a loan for a bridge or something like that-[DOT]

Topic:   PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION IN MULTIMEMBER CONSTITUENCIES
Permalink
PRO

Oliver Robert Gould

Progressive

Mr. GOULD:

I rise to a point of order, and it is that the hon. member is not discussing the resolution.

Proportional Representation

Topic:   PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION IN MULTIMEMBER CONSTITUENCIES
Permalink

February 19, 1923