BRITISH NORTH AMERICA BILL [Lords] (Hansard, 22 July 1943)

§ The Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs (Mr. Attlee)
I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
I would like to explain briefly to the House the circumstances in which this Bill has been brought before the House. Under Section 8 of the British North America Act, a census of the population of Canada is required to be taken in the year 1871, and in every tenth year thereafter. In accordance with this provision, a census was taken in 1941. Section 51 of the Act provides that, on the completion of the census in any year, the representation of the Canadian Provinces in the House of Commons of Canada shall be readjusted, in accordance with the provisions of that Section. The Canadian Government and Parliament consider that under war conditions it is unnecessary and undesirable that there should be a change in the representation until after the cessation of hostilities, and an Address has been presented to His Majesty the King by both Houses of the Canadian Parliament asking that the necessary legislative provisions should be made to postpone such redistribution until after the cessation of hostilities.
The reason why the matter comes before this House is this: There is no power conferred by the Act of 1867 on the Canadian Parliament to deal with this matter. From time to time, the question has been discussed in Canada of whether some method should not be devised in order that Canada should amend its own Constitution, but there has never been any agreement on that. At the time of the passing of the Statute of Westminster, an express provision was made at the request of the Government of Canada, taking out from the general 1101 powers then conferred any power to amend or repeal the British North America Act, and the procedure therefore for amending the British North America Act remains as it was before the Statute of Westminster. This procedure has for many years been followed on the basis of an Address presented to the King by both Houses of the Canadian Parliament, and that is what has been done on this occasion. I understand that the Address was carried in both Houses by very large majorities. The Clauses of the Bill follow substantially the terms of the Address passed in the Canadian Parliament, and the Recital corresponds closely with that adopted on the last occasion on which similar legislation was passed here. The Canadian Parliament is rising at the end of the week, and lion. Members will naturally sympathise with the Members of the House of Commons of Canada in their desire to know just how they stand or rather how they sit. We have had a request that we should pass this legislation through this House as soon as possible, and that is why it has been introduced in another place and has come down to us to-day.

§ Sir Percy Harris (Bethnal Green, South-West)
As one who has recently been in Canada, I should like to say a few words on this Bill. As the House knows, they have not got a national Government in Canada, and party politics remain in force there. I had an opportunity of discussing this particular question with members of all parties, and I found that there was a general desire that this agreement should be confirmed and that these powers of postponing electoral reform until after the war should he accorded to the Government of Canada.

§ Mr. Mander (Wolverhampton, East)
I desire to facilitate the passage of the Measure in every way, but there is one point that I should like to raise and ask the right hon. Gentleman to comment on. I have received a communication from the Dominion of Canada pointing out that the Measure now before us was objected to by one Province and met with a certain amount of opposition in the two Houses of Parliament. In view of the fact that these representations have been made, would the right hon. Gentleman say to what extent there appears to be any difference of opinion among the Provinces?

§ Mr. Lewis (Colchester)
I should like to call attention to the very sensible suggestion made by Canada that the question of redistribution should await the termination of hostilities.

§ Mr. Speaker
The hon. Member appears to be about to address the House on redistribution in this country. That is outside the scope of the Bill.

§ Mr. Maxton (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
I should like to reiterate the point made by the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander). I accept the assurance of the right hon. baronet that during his very short visit to Canada he got a complete low-down on the whole situation, but I should like the right hon. Gentleman to give us precise particulars of how this was brought before the two Houses in Canada, what debate took place, and what opposition was expressed.

§ Mr. Attlee
I have no detailed information with regard to the Debate. My information is that it was carried in both Houses by very large majorities. Perhaps the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) will consult with his Leader as to the specific point that he put. I have no information as to any Province objecting, but, in any case, the matter is brought before us by an Address voted by both Houses of Parliament, and it is difficult for us to look behind that fact. After all, in this House we carry things, and sometimes we have minorities, but they become the act of the Legislature.

§ Mr. Maxton
This is a question of tampering with the Constitution. I think the view held by most people would be that when you are starting to interfere with a Constitution it should not be done if there is a substantial minority objecting. All I want to know is whether there was a substantial minority, and the right hon. Gentleman tells us he is absolutely uninformed on the subject. I do not think that is treating the House rightly.

§ Mr. Attlee
I do not know what the hon. Members' interpretation would be of a substantial minority. I am informed that it was passed by large majorities in both Houses, and, if the majorities were large, presumably the minority was small.

§ Mr. Stephen (Glasgow, Camlachie)
I thought I heard the right hon. Gentleman say that all parties were in agreement in Canada with regard to this legislation, but it appears from what he has said subse- 1103 quently that that is not the case. There are parties which are not in agreement. He also says that the fact that both Houses have passed it should be sufficient for this House. The fact that the Act laid it down that this House had to give its assent to any such changes also shows that this House has a certain interest in the matter to see that minorities are not simply steam-rollered by majorities. I think the right hon. Gentleman might have taken the trouble to inform himself a little more fully as to the position in Canada. He seems to know very little about it. That is not the proper way for the responsible Minister to bring it before the House.

§ Sir Edward Grigg (Altrincham)
I suggest that it is really improper in present circumstances for the House to question the discretion of a sovereign Parliament in the Commonwealth of Nations. It is only owing to a technical legislative peculiarity that it comes to the House at all, and it is very improper that the House should question the discretion of a national and absolutely sovereign Parliament. I hope that that will be accepted by the House and that this legislation will be passed without further comment.

§ Mr. Price (Forest of Dean)
I entirely endorse what the hon. Gentleman has just said, that we ought not to discuss the matter, but I think we ought to ask why a sovereign Parliament in one of our great Dominions has to be before us at all. I really think it is an anomaly, and, though it may not be possible to get rid of it at this moment, I hope my right hon. Friend may be able to give us an assurance that at some future date, as early as possible, it will be got rid of.

§ Mr. Edmund Harvey (Combined English Universities)
Surely the whole question depends on Section 7 (r), of the Act of Westminster, which was expressly put in at the request of Canada. I think that meets the point raised by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Altrincham (Sir E. Grigg). It was put in in order to protect the interests of certain minorities in Canada who at that period desired that, in the event of any change being requested by the Canadian Parliament which they themselves did not unite in, there should remain the possibility of this Parliament protecting the interests of the minority. It is an entirely exceptional 1104 position placed in the Act at the express request of the Canadian Government desiring that Parliament in those circumstances should be the final court of decision. We should all wish in the present circumstances, without needless Debate, to agree to the request of the Canadian Parliament, which has been made, we understand, by the decision of a large majority, but, if such an unhappy event were to arise, though there is no reason to contemplate that it ever will arise, this provision has been placed in the Statute of Westminster at the request of Canada, and it so remains until Canada desires an alteration.

§ Mr. Neil Maclean (Glasgow, Govan)
Is it not a fact that the Bill has been brought before the House at the request of the Canadian Government itself, and, consequently, the House ought to act on the matter in the shortest space of time left it by the request of the Canadian Government? Any delay that may arise owing to peccadilloes which may suggest themselves to hon. Members must delay the desire of the Canadian Government.

§ Mr. Attlee
I may correct my hon. Friend on one point. In substance he is right, but actually it is the request of the two Chambers of the Legislature, and not the Government.