1952-06-28

Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, when I made a statement concerning Dr. James G. Endicott in this house on Wednesday last I was under the impression-as I think most people are-that he was an ordained minister of the gospel; and I referred to him as such. I have now received a communication from the Reverend J. A. C. Kell, M.A., secretary of the Toronto conference of the United Church of Canada, stating that:
. . . James G. Endicott has not been a minister of the United Church of Canada since his resignation from our ministry under date of May 5, 1946, and has not appeared on our rolls since that time. The degree which he received prior to his break with the church carries with it no legal status and hence it has never been the custom of the church to withdraw such degrees except in the case of extreme moral disgrace.
The Reverend Mr. Kell also informs me that Dr. Endicott's letter of resignation was written from Chengtu, Szechwan, China, May 5, 1946, to the president of the Toronto conference of the United Church of Canada, Toronto, and reads as follows:
Dear Mr. President and Brethren,
I regret very much that I feel it is now necessary for me to resign from the ministry of the United Church of Canada. I will not attempt to go into any detailed explanation of how I gradually arrived at the necessity for making this decision. It has come after long and painful deliberations and travail of spirit. It is due primarily, of course, to a change in my own experience, understanding and explanation in regard to such matters as creeds, sacraments, especially orders and ordinations. It is also due to the fact that I now feel called to take an active part in the struggle for human betterment in the field of social and political movement, areas of life that are considered unsuitable for ministers to be active in unless possibly they happen to be on the "right" side.
I hope it will be possible for my resignation to take place without any undue publicity, especially of such a nature as would discourage people in their support of the overseas work of the church. It is not necessary for me to assure you that this decision on my part has been arrived at only after long and painful deliberations.
Yours very sincerely,
James G. Endicott



DOMINION COAL BOARD


Hon. George Prudham (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: I desire to lay on the
table the fourth annual report of the dominion coal board for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1952.


Mr. P. C. Black (Cumberland):: May I ask
the minister if the report he has just tabled has been printed and is available to the members?


George Prudham: It has now gone to the printers, and will be available very soon.



QUESTIONS


Mr. Courlemanche:: 1.	Since 1941, has any construction or repair work been done to a protection wall at Lac Megantic, county of Compton-Frontenac?
2.	If so, was the work done by contract or by day labour?
3.	If by contract, what was the amount for each year, and to whom were the contracts awarded?
4.	If by day labour, what was the amount spent each year, and who were the foremen?
5.	What is the purpose of said protection wall?


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: 1.	Yes.
2.	By day labour.
3.	Answered by No. 2.
4.	1949-50 (a) $27,922.42; (b) J. A. Fillion.
1950- 51 (a) $33,680.97; (b) J. A. Fillion.
1951- 52 (a) $19,660.88; (b) J. A. Fillion.
5.	To protect shore against erosion.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Mr. Knowles:: 1.	Is the R. E. Welch company, of Port Arthur, doing construction work for the Canadian National Railways in the region of Canora, Saskatchewan?
2.	If so, how many men are being employed by this company as an extra gang on the Canadian National tracks in the said area?
3.	What wages are paid to these men by this company?
4.	How much does this company collect from the Canadian National Railways for the work these men are doing?
5.	Does this company collect from the Canadian National any amount for board for these men? If so, how much?
3892

Questions
6.	Are Canadian National personnel used for foremen in connection with this work?
7.	If so, does the R. E. Welch company pay their wages, or pay for their services in any way?


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: The Canadian National Railways advise as follows:
1.	Certain track work is being carried on between mileages 53 and 54 of the Yorkton subdivision under a contract with the R. F. Welch Limited.
2.	Forty-nine men are employed by the R. F. Welch Limited in the performance of the said contract.
3 to 7-concern the details of a current contract between the railway and a private company. It is not the policy of the railway to disclose the details of such contracts.



ROYAL CANADIAN NAVY-SEA-SHORE RATIO OF SERVICE PERSONNEL

Mr. Balcom:: What is the sea-shore ratio of officers and men in the Royal Canadian Navy?


Mr. Blanchette:: As of May 31, 1952, the sea-shore ratio was as follows:
Officers
Afloat	Ashore	Total	% Afloat	% Ashore390	1,505	1895	20-5	79-5Men	%	%Afloat	Ashore	Total	Afloat	Ashore4,905	7,127	12,032	40-7	59-3



JOHN SMITH INDIAN RESERVE, MUSKODAY  LAND LEASE

Mr. Wright:: 1.	On what date were the following parcels of land from the Muskoday, John Smith Indian reserve No. 99 leased: Wj of lot 8, 40-48-24/A -W2nd; WJ of Jot 12, 40-48-24A -W2nd, containing approximately
160 acres each?
2.	Who obtained the lease, and what was the bid per acre over and above the quarter crop required in the lease?


Mr. Harris (Grey-Bruce):: 1.	May 30, 1952.
2.	Zachow Brothers, as represented by Carl H. and Edward H. Zachow, of Birch Hills, Saskatchewan-$2.50 per cultivated acre.
3ELLERIVE, QUE., WHARF


Mr. Courtemanche:: 1.	Was a wharf constructed at Bellerive, county of Labelle, during the fall of 1951?
2.	If so, at what cost?

3.	Was the work done by contract or by day labour?
4.	Under whose direction was such work carried out?


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: 1.	Yes.
2.	$4,187.05.
3.	Day labour.
4.	J. C. Mailloux, (foreman).



ROBERVAL AND DOLBEAU, QUE.   POST OFFICES

Mr. Spence:: 1.	Are any steps being taken by the Department of Public Works with respect to the rebuilding or extension of the Roberval and Dolbeau post offices?
2.	If so, when will each of these projects be carried out?


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: 1.	(a) Yes; (b) No information.
2.	(a) It is expected that work will commence in 1953 on the Roberval post office; (b) Answered by No. 1 (b).



OLD AGE PENSION CHEQUES

Mr. Spence:: 1.	Are arrangements being made by the Department of National Health and Welfare to issue old age pension cheques in both languages to all recipients in whatever part of Canada they may reside?
2.	If so, when will such measure take effect?


Mr. McCusker:: 1.	As was indicated in an answer tabled on June 26, 1952, (.Hansard, page 3753) in reply to an inquiry of the ministry, all cheques issued on behalf of the government of Canada, including those for old age security, are-produced and issued by the office of the comptroller of the treasury, Department of Finance.
2.	As indicated in the House of Commons, on May 6, 1952 (Hansard, page 1906) this matter is under continuous study.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Mr. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: Perhaps it would be appropriate, Mr. Speaker, if I were to mention the questions that have still not been answered at this point. There are some of those questions that have been standing on the order paper for some time. I agree that there has been a substantial reduction in the number of outstanding questions. Several of these, however, are questions which it would seem could have been answered. I would ask if the government could either give an undertaking or accept a motion that would have the effect

of making any question still outstanding when this part of the session terminates an order for return.


Alphonse Fournier: So far as my department is concerned, I gave nearly all the answers to questions, except those that were on the order paper under the date of June 25, and today is only June 28. Question No. 17 on today's order paper reads as follows:


Mr. Spence:: 1.	Has any department of the government received a request for drainage work in the municipality of Mistassini, Quebec?
2.	If so, has consideration been given to such request?
3.	Will this work be carried out in the near future?
My impression is that drainage works come under the provincial government. I suppose I would have to look over the files to see whether, in the last ten or twenty years, we had any correspondence on the subject. I think that question should be dropped. Clearly, it is not under federal jurisdiction. In so far as the other two subjects are concerned, I can try to give answers on Monday. I shall do my best.


George Alexander Drew: The minister, who is the house leader for the government, has referred to his own department. I would point out that the comments he has made in regard to one of those questions are comments that would, in the ordinary course of events, be put forward as reasons why particular questions should or should not be answered.
What I am really raising at the moment is the fact that some of those questions relate to subjects which may have demanded more extensive inquiry than others. I would point out that if the government is prepared to make them orders for returns, then they can be dealt with in the ordinary way during the period when we are recessed. Having regard to what I have said and to the indication the minister has given that he will review the questions relating to his department, may I ask that he have a review made of the other questions, and then it may be possible on Monday morning to indicate the willingness or otherwise of the government to make these orders for returns. If there are questions which in the opinion of the government cannot be answered, that could be pointed out and dealt with appropriately.


Alphonse Fournier: I shall undertake to discuss the matter with my colleagues. I would ask that question No. 17 be dropped, because it does not come under our jurisdiction at all.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: It is agreed that question No. 17 be dropped?


Some hon. Members:: Dropped.


Mr. Speaker:: Dropped.



PURCHASES FROM THE UNITED KINGDOM


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. M. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Defence Production. Can the minister advise the house whether any further progress has been made in increasing Canadian purchases from the United Kingdom as a means of giving them greater purchasing power with which to buy from us and, in particular, has it been found possible to increase purchases of defence materials from the United Kingdom?


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Defence Production):: Mr. Speaker, speaking for the Department of Trade and Commerce, every encouragement has been given to provide purchasers in the United Kingdom with dollars. The sterling trade committee has been active in promoting purchases in the United Kingdom, and I think some success is following their efforts.
So far as the Department of Defence Production is concerned, orders were placed in the United Kingdom last year, that is in the fiscal year 1951-52, to the order of about $45 million, and the results of the last three months indicate that the orders placed in the United Kingdom will be considerably higher in the fiscal year 1952-53.
I might point out, however, that purchasing in the United Kingdom depends a great deal upon availability, and to date we have found it rather difficult to obtain there the materials, equipment and machinery that we need for defence production.


Mr. Coldwell:: May I ask a supplementary question. Has any consideration been given to a proposal of this description, that payments on the $1,200 million loan be deferred, without interest, and the amount due Canada this year, we will say-last year I think it was $26 million-made available to the British to purchase in Canada such things as agricultural products, fish and so on.


Hon. Douglas Abbott (Minister of Finance):: That matter has not been considered. The next payment on the United Kingdom-Canada loan will fall due in December, and there are certain provisions in the loan agreement, similar to the provisions in the United States loan, which provide for a waiver of the interest payment under certain conditions.

246J
3894	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry


Major James William Coldwell: The government will consider that when the time comes?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Those matters are always kept under consideration.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: May I ask a
supplementary question of the Minister of Finance with respect to the answer he has already given. What was the position with regard to the interest payment last year?


Douglas Charles Abbott: The conditions of the loan were adhered to both so far as the United States is concerned and Canada, and the interest and capital payments were made on the due date.



RUDOLF SHOHAN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Lake Centre):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice in connection with a news report of Canadian Press relative to the alleged-charges having been laid against someone in Montreal, arising out of consorting with Russian agents. Although there was a great deal in the press report, the charge was not made clear. Is the minister in a position to say anything about the matter?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: We have not been in a position to make a press statement on this matter until this morning. Just before I came into the chamber, I sent the following press statement up to the press gallery:
Rudolf Shohan, also known as Raymond Arthur Davies of Montreal, was arrested on the morning of Saturday, June 28. He was charged under section 405A of the Criminal Code with having made an untrue or misleading statement in writing for the purpose of obtaining a Canadian passport.
He is being escorted to Ottawa by the R.C.M. Police and will appear in magistrate's court there probably on Monday, June 30.



INQUIRY FOR RETURN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Howard C. Green (Vancouver-Quadra):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Defence Production. Would it be possible to get a return to an order passed on June 23, in connection with a question I asked concerning the officers on loan from business and industry to the Department of Defence Production? I am hoping that this return can be brought down before the house adjourns next week.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, the only delay is in connection with compiling the list. It is a rather extensive list. I will ask that it be brought down on Monday if it is at all possible.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  W. Chester S. McLure@Queens: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries. According to a press despatch in the Halifax Herald on June 20 I note that the minister was to give me the location of the scallop beds of Prince Edward Island as reported by the fisheries research board. Later on, in another dispatch, I note that a new scallop bed is reported somewhere in the Northumberland strait. I should like to have from the minister more definite information as to the location of these beds than just that they are in Northumberland strait.


Hon. R. W. Mayhew (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, I will see that the hon. member gets the information he desires.



MR. MCIVOR    REFERENCE TO REMARKS OF MR. DREW IN FORT WILLIAM

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Daniel Mclvor (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I just want to thank the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) for his kindness, during his recent visit to Fort William, in advertising me to -the people of Fort William.



COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT TO PROVIDE FOR ADMINISTRATION, ETC.'  CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS

Stuart Sinclair Garson: the second reading of and concurrence in amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 306, to amend the Combines Investigation Act and the Criminal Code.


Mr. Donald M. Fleming (Eglinlon):: Is the
minister going to make a statement with regard to these amendments?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I do not think it is necessary to go into any details concerning them. They were all made in the banking .and commerce committee of the Senate when members of our combines investigation staff and I were present. They are all acceptable to the government.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The minister has been
extremely brief in his explanation of the amendments. I should like to make a comment on them, Mr. Speaker; and I may say that it will not be an extended comment.
I think it is only fair to state that, in my view, the amendments made by the Senate to this bill result in an improvement in the bill. The amendments are not as extensive perhaps as some had been led to believe or expect as a result of the discussions which occurred there and which were reported widely in the press. But so far as these amendments go it seems to me that they make an improvement in the bill.
Personally I have noticed with some little degree of interest, Mr. Speaker, the fact that four of these amendments relate to penalties that follow upon breaches of the act or the Criminal Code. It is the very point that I raised when this bill was before the committee of the whole in this house. Those are amendments which are to be found at page 16, line 4; page 16, line 37; page 21, line 16; page 21, lines 25 and 26 where in each case the words "imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years" are stricken out and the words:
a fine in the discretion of the court or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to both...
are substituted.
When I raised the point in the house the minister rejected the suggestion that there should be some amendment of this kind and said it was quite unnecessary, and that the subject was sufficiently provided for already by the Criminal Code. I do not wish to obtrude personal considerations into this matter, Mr. Speaker, but I must say that it is not a little gratifying to see these four amendments made by the Senate in connection with this particular subject and also to find now that amendments of this kind are entirely acceptable to the government wherea^ a matter of two short weeks ago the suggestion was quite unacceptable to the minister.
The other principal feature of the amendments proposed by the Senate relates to the imposition of a time limit in the cases where power is given by the bill, following upon a conviction, to follow up in the case of a person or corporation convicted. We now find the Senate proposing a time limit of three years in the power conferred by the new section 33, subsection 1, of the Combines Investigation Act. Mr. Speaker, I am sure that that is a desirable improvement.
As to the other amendments made, I think in each case they can also be said to be improvements. I am glad to see that, perhaps because of the lateness of the season
Combines Investigation Act in this session, the government is ready and prepared to accept amendments even though they were not quite so ready when the bill was before this house.	.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, like the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming), I shall be brief in what I have to say; but unlike the hon. member for Eglinton I do not approve of the amendments suggested by the Senate to the bill which amends the Combines Investigation Act. It seems to me that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) was right the first time in the wording of the sections having to do with punishment for certain offences under the Combines Investigation Act. I realize that the minister can argue that the change is one more of form than of substance. I see him nodding his head to that proposition.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: There is no change in substance whatsoever.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In other words, the minister goes a bit further with respect to what I have just said. But it is my submission that, if there is such a thing in law, there is a change in the spirit; and I think it is a poor change to be making. When the government brought in this legislation, its assertion was that it was for the purpose of strengthening our laws against combines and that one of the ways in which our laws against combines were being strengthened was by the stiffening of penalties for offences under the act. In that vein we had at least these four places in the amending bill where it was stated, as for example, in section 32 (1):
Every person who is a party or privy to or knowingly assists in the formation or operation of a combine is guilty of an indictable offence and liable on conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.
There are four places in the bill as it went through this house where that phrase appears, that the punishment shall be imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years. In each of these four places the Senate has accepted the suggestion that was made in this house by the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) that the court should be given the discretion to choose either a fine or imprisonment. When the hon. member for Eglinton made that proposal in this house, the reply of the Minister of Justice was that section 1035 of the Criminal Code would give the court that discretion anyway; therefore, said he on that occasion, it was not necessary to indicate that discretion in the Combines Investigation Act.
I have the advantage of not being a lawyer, and it seems to me that it does make a difference when you have a combines investigation

Combines Investigation Act law which says-and it sticks out very prominently-to the judge who is dealing with it that the punishment is imprisonment. That certainly sounds to me a lot stronger-even though there is a loophole tucked away in some other law that may give the judge, if he can find that loophole, the right to substitute a fine-than wording the combines law so that it says to the judge: You can give this director of the corporation either a fine or imprisonment. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, the effect of this is to weaken in spirit at any rate the proposed strengthening of the Combines Investigation Act.
That same provision carries through in four places, as I say. When we were discussing that in this house on June 11 the minister and I got involved in a discussion over the matter, and I wanted to be sure that a director of a corporation could, under the amended legislation, be jailed if he knowingly was a party to certain offences under this act. Our conversation was in legalistic terms, but it ended in this way, as recorded in Hansard of June 11, 1952, at page 3147:


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is what I mean. Under the
terms of 32(1), if a director of a corporation is a party to an offence and it is proved that he knowingly assisted in the formation or operation of a combine, can he be put in jail?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes, if he is convicted.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Good.
I realize, Mr. Speaker, that the minister may reply that it is still possible under the amended form for the director of a corporation to be put in jail; but, as I say, the change that has been made in the combines law gives two alternatives, and to that extent it seems to me that the whole case against those who commit offences under this law has been weakened. In fact, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that when the Senate passed these amendments the other day, and if this house approves their amendments on this occasion, we are saying to directors of corporations across this country that they need not worry about the jail sentences that were hanging over them in the amended bill in case they are parties to breaches under this act, and for that reason it is my view that the bill should stay in the form in which it was passed in this house, and that we should not approve of the amendments suggested by Their Honours in the other place.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: 


Mr.   Speaker-Mr. Speaker@: If the minister speaks now he will close the debate.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I am sure it will be a source of great comfort to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) to know

that his reasoning is identical with that of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce. That chamber took the position that section 32 (1) of this bill in the form in which it was first passed was an intimidation of people who might be affected by it; and that it was preferable to have inserted in the Combines Investigation Act itself an alternative penalty of a fine.
Now, actually, as I explained when this suggestion was first made in this chamber by the hon. member for Eglinton, there is no difference whatsoever, so far as substance is concerned, between the present wording as amended by the Senate and the wording of the bill in its original form. The position was simply this. Strange as it might seem it is impossible to imprison a corporation. Therefore when you have a penalty of imprisonment of this sort in this Combines Investigation Act, and in many sections of the Criminal Code dealing with offences which it is possible for a corporation to commit, it is preferable, instead of having in each one of those sections, wherever they occur, a provision that if the accused is a corporation it shall be fined instead of imprisoned, to have instead only one section in the Criminal Code, namely, section 1035. This section provides, amongst other things, that the courts shall have authority, instead of imposing a two-year penalty of imprisonment upon an accused person-including a corporation that cannot be imprisoned-to impose a fine without limit. Read with this section 1035 of the Criminal Code, the original wording of this section 32 (1) of the Combines Investigation Act amendments was quite sufficient to achieve exactly the same effect that it now achieves when it is spelled out in the way in which it has been spelled out by the Senate.
The chamber of commerce wanted to have it spelled out for exactly the same reasons as those which have been urged this morning by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre for not spelling it out; and I must say-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker,-


Stuart Sinclair Garson: If my hon. friend will just let me continue. I must say I find this reasoning equally unconvincing from both these sources.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On a point of privilege, the minister seems to have misunderstood what I was saying. I did not want it spelled out in this way.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: My hon. friend does not want it spelled out in this way because my hon.

friend thinks the same as does the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, and that is, if it is not spelled out that way it will serve as an intimidation. The argument is that you will then frighten these people into being good by the fact that there is no alternative of a fine. Well, I find that sort of argument extremely unimpressive. I cannot understand why corporations-


Stanley Howard Knowles: You are encouraging corporation directors to break the law by telling them that there will now be no jail sentences.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: -who will be advised by the cream of the legal talent in this country, are going to be frightened by a provision in the Combines Investigation Act which says that a person which includes a corporation is going to be imprisoned for two years-


Stanley Howard Knowles: If they break the law there will be no jail sentences for directors of corporations. That is what you are now saying.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: -when there is and can be no jail sentence for corporations, and when the court already has power to fine instead of imprisoning both an individual and a corporation.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the motion carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.
Motion agreed to on division, amendments read the second time and concurred in.



REDISTRIBUTION


Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 393, to readjust the representation in the House of Commons.


George Alexander Drew: May I ask if it is the intention of the minister to make any statement? If so, I will naturally wait until he has done so.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, this bill, as I have already explained on two occasions in the house, is a bill which was recommended to the house by the special committee on redistribution.
The purpose of the bill is to give legal expression to the decision which has been reached by this house in amending the British North America Act earlier this month. It sets out the number of seats which are allotted to the various provinces, the district of Mackenzie and the district of Yukon, and provides, incidentally, instructions as to the interpretation, descriptions and the like. It
Redistribution
is, so far as I have been able to determine, in the form which has been common to these bills for some time, and certainly in the past two or three redistributions. It follows almost precisely the wording of the 1947 act, with minor variations. The procedure which we hope will be adopted, if second reading is given, is that I shall move that this bill be referred to the special committee on redistribution for consideration, and for the purpose of attaching thereto the schedule of the constituencies as defined by that committee. That, I believe, has been the custom since 1903.
There will be other amendments suggested, I think, in that committee-if I may be permitted to suggest this to the house- having in mind the fact that some constituencies will be renamed, and therefore amendments will be required in the Canada Elections Act.
I want to point out to the house again that this is merely a bill for the purpose of carrying out the allotment of members among the provinces as determined by the House of Commons recently. It does not contain and makes no reference to the boundaries of the constituencies, which have not yet been reported to the house, nor will they be until the schedule has been affixed to the bill.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, this subject is one which has frequently engaged the attention of the house, since the British North America Act of 1867 requires a decennial census, and a redistribution of seats in accordance with that census. Section 8 of that act makes mandatory the taking of a census every ten years. Section 51 makes it equally mandatory that there shall be a readjustment of seats in accordance with that census.
There has been earlier discussion on a number of occasions about the interests of the provinces in the question of redistribution. I have expressed my own opinion that, when it comes to the number of seats each province will have, the provinces should be consulted. I mention that now because I would not wish any remarks I make in regard to the delineation of boundaries within a province, once that allocation of seats has been determined, to leave the impression that I am in any way disregarding my earlier argument, and the belief I hold very strongly, that the provinces have an interest, and that they should be consulted in regard to the number of seats by which each province will be represented in the House of Commons.
Up to that point, however, it appears to have been generally accepted by members in the house from every part of Canada

Redistribution
that the problem of finding the method by which the delineation of the boundaries of the various constituencies will carry out the requirements of section 51 of the British North America Act is the responsibility of the parliament of Canada. Once again we are called upon to carry out the duty of members of the house to reallocate the seats as required by section 51 in relation to the census taken, under the provisions of section 8 of the British North America Act.
I agree that it is the duty of the House of Commons to carry out that responsibility, and that this responsibility should be accepted during the course of the present session. Having said that, I wish to review some of the considerations which it seems to me should be borne in mind at the time we are asked to accept a principle established by an act which perpetuates the unsatisfactory method that has been followed for so many years in carrying out that responsibility.
We have indicated our disapproval of the method. That disapproval has been expressed on both sides of the house. I am not claiming any originality either on my part or on the part of any member of the Progressive Conservative party in suggesting that the procedure is unsatisfactory, and that another procedure should be adopted.
Over and over again very strong arguments have been made against a system which has aroused cynicism in the minds of the people of Canada as to the way in which the boundaries of our electoral districts are actually decided. And, after all, it is of importance to the members of the House of Commons if the public does regard with cynicism the method we adopt, and if we do not do everything within our power to remove the grounds for that cynicism.
I am not suggesting for one moment that either party can claim any particular credit for virtue in the way in which this has been done in the past. Perhaps I may anticipate the fact that some hon. member opposite will recall the well-remembered words of Sir John A. Macdonald, that in carrying out a redistribution he was going, to use his own words, to do what he could to hive the Grits.
Perhaps there was a fairly frank approach to this subject at that time. At least it was frank; at least he left no doubt as to what his intention was. I must say that it is better to be as frank as that than to proclaim virtue and then to adopt a course which is just as cynical as any which has ever been followed since 1867.
After all, as we are so often reminded, there has been great progress in this country.
fMr. Drew.]
Our parliamentary system has been described as a transcript of Westminster. Stage by stage we have advanced to an increasing measure of maturity, and of pride in our own acceptance of responsibility. Nevertheless we all recognize that our parliamentary system was borrowed from the parliamentary system of the United Kingdom, and that we have very closely followed the rules and practices of that system throughout the years.
That has been true in substantial measure of the other nations of the commonwealth. I mention this because there has been marked progress in the other nations of the commonwealth in dealing with this problem. While at one time they followed the same methods we follow, they have now advanced from the stage of the pocket boroughs and the political liquidation by redistribution of opponents whose presence in the House of Commons they were not inclined to encourage. The result is that in the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa they have impartial bodies conducting an examination of this problem outside the House of Commons and presenting to the House of Commons recommendations which can be accepted, amended or refused. It has worked in the other nations of the commonwealth. It has found acceptance and has increased the confidence of the public in the way in which they have an opportunity to be represented in the House of Commons where government of the people by the people through their elected representatives is supposed to be truly representative as far as that can be possible.
Whatever may have happened in the past, whatever arguments may have been made for or against this system, we should be ready to move with the times. There comes some point when the professions of both parties should reach some effective interpretation by legislative action in this House of Commons and in the parliament of Canada. If the arguments had been made only on one side of this house then it might well be that the repetition of any of those arguments might be regarded simply as an attempt to embed in the records of this house a repetition of earlier statements so that the position of any party might be before the people of Canada and it might be possible at some future time to say, "This has been our position and we ask you to support us in that position."
The fact is, however, that objections to this system have been just as vigorous and just as critical when uttered by members of the Liberal party as when uttered by members of the Conservative or any other party in this house. Those remarks were particularly

critical when they were uttered by the late Right Hon. Mackenzie King. Members of this party have not been notorious for their complete agreement with everything that Mr. King did in this house, but I think it is a matter of record that the members of this party have indicated their acceptance of his respect for parliamentary institutions and his knowledge of parliamentary practices. For that reason I suggest that when we are called upon to consider this measure at this time it is a good thing to recall what was said by Mr. King in regard to this subject in view of the extent to which the members of the Liberal party now in the house have expressed at all times their faith and confidence in his political opinions.
Again I would indicate that sometimes the views that have been expressed seem to have been more vigorous when some of the speakers were in opposition than when they formed the government. What I propose to quote now was said by Mr. King at the time he was in opposition. However, I point out these words because he indicated when he returned to office later that he had not changed his opinion in that respect. On May 25, 1933, as reported on page 5425 of Hansard of 1932-33, Mr. King had this to say:
My own view, and I have come to it after observing pretty carefully what has been taking place and what has been said in debate in this house as well as in the corridors,-
May I repeat those words, "in the corridors." -is that redistribution should be taken out of the hands of the House of Commons, where the parties are immediately interested, and should be put into the hands of a commission of judges. I would have that commission composed of judges selected in equal numbers by both sides of the house. The redistribution, if it is carried out in a fair way has not to do with party advantage at all. It ought to have solely to do with seeking to effect a fair and impartial division of the constituencies, and if three judges were named from one side of the house and three from the other, and if the choice were made, if you will, from among those who have been in politics and who therefore may be presumed to know something about conditions generally as they exist throughout the country, I think a redistribution which would be regarded as fair might be arrived at. Probably it would not be perfect, and any report which the commission made would have to be submitted to parliament and made subject to discussion and debate in parliament. But I do think that something of that kind would serve to bring about a much fairer result. May I say that if the choice were made in the manner indicated the judges in my opinion ought to be chosen from different parts of Canada. The result would be that in the matters that came before them, there would always be a majority of the commission of judges from outside of the particular province whose affairs might be under consideration by the commission at the time a decision was to be made. It is impossible to get perfection in anything, but I do submit that part of the duty of every member of this house is to consider not only the problems of his own day, but as well the future of his country. I hesitate to think of the complexion of this house as it may be ten years hence. Looking back on the past ten
Redistribution
years, the changes that have taken place in that period have been very many. I imagine that the greater part of those of us who are now here will before the time for another redistribution comes have, so far as continuing as representatives in this House of Commons is concerned, passed beyond its bounds. In the circumstances I think it is a duty that those of us who have views as to what we believe would most be in the interests of our country should assert our views and leave them of record, that they may be there to guide future parliaments in so far as their members may wish to be governed by them.
I have quoted those words because when Mr. King spoke them in this house he indicated that he was putting them on the record in 'the hope that they might be remembered by others who would recognize his parliamentary and political experience no matter whether they might agree with other views that he expressed. Mr. King had the opportunity to speak again on this subject. He was spared to return after the next decennial census and to express his views once again at a time when he was prime minister of this country. He again repeated his view that a redistribution of this kind should be carried out by an independent commission. He had not changed his opinion.
May I quote from Hansard for July 15, 1947, at page 5648. At that time he was speaking in reply to a speech by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker)-, the same hon. member who now represents that very well known constituency in Saskatchewan. These were Mr. King's words at that time:
May I say that with much of what my hon. friend from Lake Centre has just said I am in most hearty accord and agreement. I think I made it very clear at the beginning of this session when I spoke on the question of redistribution that I myself would like to see the whole question of redistribution of the constituencies taken out of the hands of the hon. members of the House of Commons and placed before a commission of judges. I have here the daily Hansard of February 3, 1947, and I read my words as spoken at that time:
I believe I have covered all that I think it desirable to say at present, beyond giving my hon. friend an assurance that the redistribution measure will be brought in at an early date in this session. I still hold the view which I expressed before. I personally would prefer a commission of judges to make the redistribution of seats in this house, but I do not believe that the majority of hon. members take that view, and in that particular I am prepared to accept the will of the majority. I hope, however, the day will come when the House of Commons of Canada will see the wisdom of allowing its redistribution to be made by some impartial tribunal and not by the members of the house themselves dealing with the matter in committee as it has been dealt with in former years.
Then he went on at that time to repeat the view that he had expressed in 1933 and to which I have already referred.
Now, Mr. Speaker, that opinion has been put forward by other hon. members of the Liberal party and of those one who has put it forward most frequently and most vigorously has been the hon. member for Quebec

Redistribution
South (Mr. Power), who has spoken over and over again on this subject from his long experience in parliament. He has dealt with the subject during the course of the current session. He has over and over again emphasized the need for having a different method than the committee method which we are now asked to repeat. The member for Quebec South has referred to the difficulties which have arisen and he refers to the difficulties that arose in the committee which was set up after the speech made by Mr. King in 1933. On a later occasion this is what the member for Quebec South said:
Members who were in this house in 1934 will remember that the committee pretty well ended up in what might have been called an unseemly turmoil, . . .
On that occasion the hon. member was using words which less than described the vigour of the exchange of opinion covered by the term "unseemly turmoil". The difficulty has been that, on each occasion when these very clear and, one would have thought, convincing arguments have been put forward, it always has been suggested that the next time will provide the opportunity. Over and over again we find the explanation that we are now confronted with-that of the necessity of carrying out the obligations under the British North America Act to effect redistribution, and therefore the consideration of a better method must be deferred until some other time.
May I quote from what the hon. member for Quebec South said in 1939 at the time that he was a minister of this government? I quote from Hansard for 1939, volume II, page 1807, and I will continue to quote until I indicate that the quotation is ended:
. . . the object of this motion is to set up again for this year a committee which has been functioning for the past three sessions of this parliament. During the 1936 session the committee studied and reported on such matters as proportional representation, the alternative vote, compulsory registration and voting. During the session of 1937 it considered a large number of proposals which had been made to this house, and particularly to the committee, having for their object the revision of the elections act. Of these proposals, something over one hundred in number, I am informed, some thirty-three were adopted and passed into legislation.
The committee also gave some consideration during the 1937 session to the question of the method of arriving at an equitable redistribution of the seats in this house. During the session of 1938, in the light of the information they had gained from the suggestions made to them by the public, by members of parliament, by organizations, and also by the chief electoral officer, whose long experience in matters of this kind formed the basis of his recommendations, the committee studied and finally recommended unanimously an act known as the Dominion Elections Act, which, with some minor amendments, finally passed this house. I think it can be said, generally speaking, that this act, so far as we are able to judge, since it has not been in operation in an actual theatre of war, has given general satisfaction.

There remain for the consideration of the committee two subjects which are cognate to those already discussed, namely, first, that of methods of effecting redistribution of seats in this house, and second, the question of election and campaign expenditures.
With respect to the redistribution of seats, I think the advisability and even the necessity of remodelling the procedure whereby every ten years or so this house is made the theatre of a somewhat unseemly, undignified and utterly confusing scramble for personal or political advantage, should be evident to all. The difficulty of making an equitable distribution of seats in any country is increased many fold in this country, where we must take into consideration diversity of interests, economic and social; the racial distinctions which exist; the growth of population; and the varying movements of our population brought about to some extent by economic causes in our cities, and in the rural districts, by the opening up of our hinterland. I say this country is an extremely difficult one to redistribute, and that makes it all the more necessary that there should be a drastic change in the system which we have followed up to the present.
As hon. members of the house know, these redistributions have taken place as a result of conferences, of meetings of committees, and finally of what you might almost call a battle royal in this house. It is inevitable no matter which party is in power that there should be complaints and that the distribution of seats will not meet with the approval of all. There are today, as there have been in the past, what I might call almost appalling inequalities of distribution. To cite only a few of them:	In
the province of Quebec, the constituency of Argen-teuil has 11,122 voters and sends one member to this house. Another rural constituency, that of Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm, has 30,363 voters and sends only one representative to this house. Among the urban constituencies in the city of Montreal, St. Lawrence-St. George, with 22,549 voters, sends one member, and St. James, with 54,760 voters, sends one member. It is not surprising that there has arisen a suspicion that the redistribution was undertaken or was carried out not so much in the interests of giving a better distribution of seats but, on the part of some government, to have a greater number of their own followers in the house. But I say and repeat that this would happen no matter what government were in power, and we can only come to the conclusion upon looking over the ground that there should be evolved some method other than the law of the jungle-might is right- in order to bring about a distribution which would be fair to the people of Canada.
Now, that is the end of the quotation I propose to put on the record at the moment. I do so, and I place it side by side with the statement by Mr. King so that the arguments that have been made from this side of the house and the arguments that may be made now will not stand simply as partisan expressions in relation to a problem which, in the interests of dignity and respect for parliament, should be brought out of the turmoil and the type of log-rolling which have been part and parcel of this system no matter which government was in power.
Today, we are called upon to decide a simple question put forward in such clear terms by the dean of the Liberal party in this house, the member for Quebec South (Mr. Power). We are simply asked, when we

consider the principle on second reading, whether we are going to perpetuate the law of the jungle in carrying out redistribution or whether we are not. We are being asked to decide, in dealing with the principle inherent in this act, whether we are going to have an unseemly, undignified and utterly confusing scramble for personal or political advantage. Do not let anyone in this house suggest that there has not been a scramble for political advantage during the considerations given to this subject by the committee already. If anyone says that is not so, may I say in advance that his respect for the intelligence and confidence of the house will be left seriously in doubt when that statement is made. Granted, we have had professions of a desire for a fair and impartial way of dealing with this, but once again qualifying my remarks to say that no one party can claim particular credit for its virtue in tackling this subject in the past, may I say that the professions of impartiality have not gone hand in hand with the actual conduct of either the provincial committees or the general committee in dealing with this problem during this session.
The law of the jungle is the law that has been followed in several cases, and the inequalities referred to by the hon. member for Quebec South, in his very clear and intelligent interpretation of the weaknesses of the system we are asked to perpetuate, are still there. Being a very well known representative from the province of Quebec, he naturally dealt with the inequalities in that province, but those inequalities exist all over Canada. It is not only the acts of commission of the committee which are open to criticism, but it is the acts of omission as well. It is not only that there has been gerrymandering of the most vicious kind in certain cases, but it is also the fact that there has been no attempt to deal with this problem of inequality of representation. There are still seats, under the plans put forward, with a small population that will send one member to this house, and there are seats with more than 90,000 who will have one member; that is not representation by population.
I recognize, and I think all the members of this house recognize, there are certain considerations which must prevent any system of absolute equality of representation by population. I recognize that there are distant and remote constituencies where the distribution of population would make it utterly fantastic to follow any strict basis of the allocation of population. We had the example of one member representing that vast area including the Yukon and the Mackenzie area, an area greater than the :most of western Europe. Here was an
Redistribution
empire in itself, represented by one member. It is not only impossible for the member to get in touch with all the prospective voters before an election, but it is utterly impossible for any member, no matter what his energies or wishes may be, to keep in touch with all that vast area. There has, in this case, been a very sensible attempt to recognize that there are cases where any rigid rule will not apply, and it is therefore intended to have an electoral district for the Yukon and an electoral district for the Mackenzie areas. Even yet, they will be enormous areas for a single member to represent.
But surely there must be some line drawn. There must be some better explanation than we have yet of the necessity for having constituencies with a population of 20,000, or a few more, and other constituencies with a population of more than 90,000 as South York will have under the plans now being presented. We know, Mr. Speaker, that no real effort has been made to deal with this problem on the basis of any settled! principle. Even under the unsatisfactory procedure which we are called upon to perpetuate, it would seem that the logical method would be for the committee to meet and decide on some basic principle which would guide the provincial subcommittees and the general committee in reaching a conclusion as to what the division of population within the various constituencies should be. But that was not the method. There was, of course, some confusion created by certain maps that got into the press. The members of the committee were told that there were no maps and then in some strange way maps appeared in the press, indicating an extraordinary prescience on the part of certain newspapermen in interpreting the minds of the members of the committee. It would indicate a very high ability on the part of certain members of the press to anticipate the opinion of the members of the committee in that particular case, because maps appearing in the press when no maps existed, according to statements made to the committee, afterwards turned out to be quite correct.
It does indicate, of course, that close association between members of the press gallery and members of the house which is extremely helpful in interpreting the events of this house to the public of Canada. Of course, in everything I say I am paying my respects in the utmost sincerity to the members of the press. They were performing their proper duty and seeking to interpret to the people of Canada this very important function of parliament which was being carried out. I must confess that it has strained the credulity of some of us to believe that there were

Redistribution
no maps in existence. However, if we are told that is the case, we are bound to accept that statement. It would have seemed that the way in which maps should be drawn ultimately would have been to say, this is the principle we will follow, and then appoint subcommittees to draft maps in accordance with that principle. But that was not the method that was followed. The people of Canada should know that it was not the method that was followed, if we are by any chance to be forced to perpetuate the law of the jungle by a majority vote of this house at this time. I of course point out again that I am simply following the words of the very distinguished hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power) in describing the procedure in that. way.


Mr. Murray (Cariboo):: May I ask a question at this point, Mr. Speaker?


George Alexander Drew: Yes.


George Matheson Murray: The law of the
jungle did not apply to the Yukon-Mackenzie River redistribution committee, of which I had the honour to be chairman. We have a great many wolves up there and we have some respect for the law of the jungle. But we did not have the law of the jungle apply to these beautiful tropical areas along the Yukon and Mackenzie rivers.


George Alexander Drew: I do not know whether the hon. member came in after I discussed that subject. He must have done so, because I pointed out that a commendable course of action had been followed by the committee in dealing with the Yukon and Mackenzie river areas.


George Matheson Murray: I thank the leader of the opposition.


George Alexander Drew: I also indicated my regret that similarly wise considerations had not prompted the committee in dealing with other problems in other parts of Canada.
This committee, Mr. Speaker, is exactly the same kind of committee as that which has been criticized by such distinguished parliamentarians as the late Mr. King and the hon. member for Quebec South as well as by many others in earlier days and by members sitting in this house. May I say that Hansard will show that, among the extremely effective, wise and sound discussions of this subject, none rate higher than those of the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefen-baker) on earlier occasions in this house. I am repeating these observations today for the purpose of showing that we are being called upon to repeat abuses or things that have been regarded as abuses by both sides of this house.
It will be pointed out that there was a time when there was no committee, and that in "those dear dead days beyond recall", at a time when parliamentary procedure had not advanced to its present point, governments in power did not go through the motions of setting up a committee. They simply presented maps and they admitted that the maps actually existed. They did not hesitate to say so; and they did not hesitate to declare the purpose behind those maps. As I have said already, I do not hesitate to quote the words of Sir John A. Macdonald who said that the maps were for the purpose of hiving the Grits. That was the attitude in those days. But on both sides of the house we are assumed to have recognized that changes have taken place over the years.
Yes, a committee is an improvement. But a committee of this kind is an improvement only to the extent that it gives the condemned man a chance to see the scaffold before his execution. That is all it does. Make no mistake about it, the scaffold is there.


An hon. Member:: And the rope.


George Alexander Drew: And the rope as well.


An hon. Member:: And the hangman.


George Alexander Drew: It is only a question of when and how, and the victim is given a chance to see where the trap is going to be sprung, if not when.


An hon. Member:: And he is not even blindfolded.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, the very fact that on both sides of this house this subject should have been so constantly the subject of criticism suggests to me that we should not be carrying this matter forward on a narrow, partisan basis. At a time when parliamentary government and free government all over the world is under the test as it is today, it seems to me that we will only be taking our responsible part in the great struggle to preserve respect for the processes of democracy if we say at this time that we are going to do what we can to give to the public a feeling of confidence. One way to do that would be to say that, under some clearly-established principle, we will come as close as possible to assuring representation by population in the parliament of Canada, and that we will not by our actions repeat all the things that have brought this procedure into such great contempt.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that it is not only in the interests of this House of Commons and the functioning of it and in the interests of respect for the House of Commons and the

parliament of Canada that we should decide to take action now. Because of the importance of respect for parliament, for government and for the procedures of democracy in Canada I think we should decide now to end this confusing and unseemly procedure, and that we should impress upon the public the fact that, regardless of our political affiliations, we are going to end the law of the jungle in carrying out the duties we are called upon to perform under our constitution, namely the British North America Act.
Mr. Speaker, we might have been confronted with some difficulty in presenting this argument on the second reading of this bill if it had been decided by the government to prorogue parliament and not leave an opportunity for further discussion. At a time that it was thought that parliament was going to be prorogued, and that this job must be done in some way within a time that the subject could be dealt with by this house, there may have been some members who reluctantly supported the procedure that was suggested once again. That necessity does not now arise as a result of the decision of the government as indicated to this house yesterday. This session is going to continue and when we rise in the near future it is indicated that we shall adjourn until November 20. This will be a continuing session. It will therefore be possible at this session to provide a method by which this subject can be dealt with in a more orderly and a more satisfactory manner. Even assuming that we were impressed with the apparent desire of the government to remove some of the abuses which have been criticized so often in the past, any sense of confidence in regard to that matter has been removed by what has actually happened before this committee. When we refer to the law of the jungle, may I say that the law of the jungle applied to the decision to obliterate the historic riding of Lake Centre represented by one of the most distinguished members of this parliament.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Is there anything before the house to that effect?


Some hon. Members:: No.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, the committee have made certain decisions. I will anticipate your comment that the discussions before the committee should not be repeated in this house and I shall anticipate a ruling to that effect.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Unless the committee's report was tabled. Was it not tabled?


Mr. Speaker:: That was my question. I did not think the report of the committee had been tabled?
Redistribution


Mr. Ross (Souris):: Why not?


Donald Methuen Fleming: On a point of order, may I point out that one committee report has already been tabled, embracing 97 constituencies. At the final meeting last night it was pointed out that the report should be tabled today embracing all the remaining constituencies.


Mr. Speaker:: I will not go into the question of what the committee decided last night unless it has reported to the house. I do not think there is any report before the house in respect to the riding of Lake Centre.


Mr. Sinclair:: He is wrong as usual.


Mr. Boucher:: I may say that the name of Lake Centre is not eliminated from the map.


John George Diefenbaker: No, not the name.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The report cannot be discussed until it is before the house.


Donald Methuen Fleming: May I respectfully suggest that if it was agreed that the report should be tabled, in order that this debate might proceed intelligently we should have one of the ministers move that we revert to motions and have it tabled now?


Walter Edward Harris: May I speak to the point of order? There was no such agreement; the very opposite was true. It was not intended that we should debate the boundaries at this particular time.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I cannot permit a debate as to what took place in a committee of the house. I think the house appreciates my position.


George Alexander Drew: A consideration has arisen which I do not think should be overlooked. There is already a report tabled. If it is correct that it was agreed last night that the report of the committee should be tabled before this debate took place, then I think we should have an explanation from the minister as to why that has not been done. I think also, Mr. Speaker, there are obvious reasons why it should be done, if that was the understanding of the committee.


Douglas Charles Abbott: But it was not.


Walter Edward Harris: Again on a point of order, I hope there is no misunderstanding about anything which happened in the committee. We had one already this week and we do not want another. Last night I stated that if the work of the clerk would permit it, we would table a report of the remainder of the constituencies. Up until the time I came into the house that was not available.

Redistribution
There is no desire whatever either to delay this debate or to deny hon. members any opportunity to debate the matter. But I made it abundantly clear in the committee that it was not the intention, as far as I was concerned, and others, that we should at this stage debate boundaries. That debate will take place when the bill comes back to the house with the schedules attached to it, which can only happen when this bill receives second reading.


Donald Methuen Fleming: On a point of order, the minister's present statement is I think a little different from the one he made two or three minutes ago when he said that there was agreement last night; there was no agreement with respect to the debate today being confined to principle and not including the question of boundaries.


Walter Edward Harris: No, I did not say
that.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I wish to make it abundantly clear that there was no agreement as to confining this debate.
As to the tabling of the report, there was not any specific agreement on that. The minister is quite right in saying that was a statement. The announcement made by the minister last night as chairman of the committee before the committee rose was that there should be a report made to the house. He thought-I think I am quoting his words correctly-that that report could be tabled at eleven o'clock last night or the first thing this morning. That being the background so far as the committee is concerned, Mr. Speaker, and thinking of the desirability of our having the whole information before us so that we have one intelligent debate on this whole subject and not two, I urge, sir, that the report be tabled at the earliest possible moment. I should think it must be available by now. The house, I am sure, would gladly give consent to our reverting to motions in order that that report could now be tabled and the debate proceed in a comprehensive and intelligent manner.


Mr. Speaker:: As to what took place in committee I can only repeat that I can make no ruling. I was not in the committee. The report of the committee is not before the house. May I add, however, that even if the report were before the house it would not be in order on second reading of the bill to discuss the details. It would not be in order at this time to discuss the clauses. Schedules are considered to be clauses. The only question that is debatable now is the principle of the bill. I am sorry to haye interrupted the leader of the opposition so long. I hope we have clarified the point.


George Alexander Drew: That is the very point. The principle of this bill must of necessity be related to the manner in which it is intended to carry out redistribution, and I would suggest-


Mr. Speaker:: I think that is right.


George Alexander Drew: I would suggest that while it would certainly not be appropriate to enter into discussion of the exact boundaries of any constituency, it is appropriate to refer to the manner in which the procedure has been followed in order to present an argument as to why it is not a satisfactory procedure.
I go further, Mr. Speaker, and point out that we are asked to give second reading to a bill which refers to a schedule. Section 4 refers to the schedule; section 5 refers to the schedule; section 6 refers to the schedule; and section 7 refers to the schedule. The schedule is part of the bill. Without the schedule-unless there is unanimous consent by the house to proceed without it, as is sometimes done-I submit, Mr. Speaker, that we cannot comprehensively deal with the subject, because the schedule will determine the procedure of which we are being asked to approve.
I would think that in the circumstances, Mr. Speaker, it would be appropriate if I moved the adjournment of this debate for the purpose of giving an opportunity to the minister to present the schedule so that we can debate this subject properly.


Mr. Speaker:: I think I should probably point out that my recollection of the procedure is, if the hon. member moved the adjournment of the debate at this time and the motion did not carry, he could not continue with his argument. In view of that, the leader of the opposition might like to reconsider his suggestion. There is no motion for adjournment before the house at the present as there can not be a motion without a seconder.


George Alexander Drew: Redistribution
war of ideas, let us do what we can to maintain confidence in that system, by everything we do.
It is with that thought in mind, and with the idea that this is an amendment which would produce a result that could be carried into effect during the life of the present parliament, and that therefore there would be no delay in carrying out our duty within the life of this session of parliament, that I move, seconded by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker):
That the said bill be not now read the second time but that it be resolved that in the opinion of this house consideration should be given to the enactment of a measure to provide for the appointment of a commission to effect the redistribution of electoral ridings in accordance with the census of 1951 and pursuant to the provisions of the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1952 inclusive; such commission to be instructed to make its report to this session of parliament upon the resumption of its sitting.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order. But before proceeding I wish first of all to state, as a result of what was said a moment ago by the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming), that I did not mean to state that there had been an agreement in committee that we would not at this time debate the boundaries. What I was trying to say in ariswer to the question raised was that there had not been agreement to do so.
Then, on the other point, I would draw Your Honour's attention to the fact that earlier this session, namely in the debate on the British North America Act, the question was raised by my hon. friend, the member for Winnipeg Lake Centre-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Redistribution is having its effect.


Walter Edward Harris: A question was raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) in the form of a motion to refer back to the committee on redistribution for a decision the question as to whether a commission should be set up for the purpose of redistributing seats in parliament. On that occasion there was a division, and I submit to Your Honour that this question has already been settled at this session.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I speak at this point to the point of order. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Harris) argues that, in view of my amendment to Bill 331 which was reported at page 3179 of Hansard lor June 12, 1952, the question covered by the amendment of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) has already been dealt with at this session of parliament.

I submit that that is by no means the case. The amendment I moved to Bill 331 very specifically and very clearly referred to the redistribution to be effected following the decennial census of 1961 and each decennial census thereafter. My amendment on June 12 had no relationship whatsoever to the present redistribution. I note that the leader of the opposition has drafted his amendment in the same form in which I had drafted one which I would have moved had I the chance. It refers solely to the redistribution required in accordance with the census of 1951. I submit that this is a different question. The house already has disposed of my proposal that there be an amendment to the British North America Act requiring an independent commission to deal with redistribution in and after 1961, but the house has not yet dealt with the question as to whether there should be an independent commission to deal with the redistribution required as a result of the census of 1951. I submit that they are two distinct propositions and that the amendment of the leader of the opposition is just as much in order as is the one I would have moved.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, I think it would be well to read the amendment which was proposed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and to which he has just made reference. It reads:
That Bill 331 be not now read a second time but that the subject matter thereof be referred to the special committee on redistribution with instructions that they have power to consider whether the British North America Act should be amended so as to provide that the readjustment in the representation in the House of Commons to be effected following the decennial census of 1961, and each decennial census thereafter, shall be made, subject to any rules to be prescribed by parliament, by an independent commission to be established by parliament for that purpose.
The essence of that amendment is, first, that the matter be referred to the committee with instructions that they have power to consider whether the British North America Act should be amended. In any event it is not applicable to the present time; it refers to a future date. The essence of that amendment is that the commission should operate at a date removed from the present by ten years. The amendment moved by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) reads:
That the said bill be not now read the second time but that it be resolved that in the opinion of this house consideration should be given to the enactment of a measure to provide for the appointment of a commission to effect the redistribution of electoral ridings in accordance with the census of 1951 and pursuant to the provisions of the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1952 inclusive; such commission to be instructed to make its report to this session of parliament upon the resumption of its sitting.

Citation 657 of Beauchesne's third edition, upon which this amendment is based, reads:
It is also competent to a member who desires to place on record any special reasons for not agreeing to the second reading of a bill, to move as an amendment to the question, a resolution declaratory to some principle adverse to, or differing from, the principles, policy, or provisions of the bill, or expressing opinions as to any circumstances connected with its introduction, or prosecution; or otherwise opposed to its progress;...
Similar amendments have been moved on previous occasions, and I would refer to an amendment moved by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) on March 27, 1950, which reads:
That Bill No. 17 be not now read a second time but that it be resolved that in the opinion of this house consideration should be given to the introducing of legislation to amend the Agricultural Prices Support Act so as to provide that floor prices should be established at such levels as to guarantee to producers a price-cost relationship not less favourable than that prevailing in the period 1944-48.
My submission is that the amendment moved by the leader of the opposition is entirely different in application and in time period, and also in its purported relationship to anything that has been dealt with previously, in particular to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. I submit that the amendment is proper and should be upheld by Your Honour.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to repeat the observations made by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), but I should like to emphasize, by reference to the debate that occurred on June 12, the essential difference between the amendment now before the house and the amendment introduced at that time by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. As you will recall, that amendment was to have a future operation only and had no reference whatever to the redistribution required to be made following the census of 1951. The essence of that amendment, as interpreted in the debate which followed, was that it should write into the British North America Act a requirement that all future redistributions, commencing with the one following the census of 1961, should be carried out by a commission.
You will recall that in the notable speech made on that occasion by the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power) he emphasized that that was not the kind of amendment that ought to be written into the British North America Act. It seems to me that that is the basic distinction between the amendment introduced on June 12 and the amendment
Redistribution
before the house at the present time. There was no opportunity under that amendment for members, who held the point of view that some of us did, that that kind of provision ought not to be written into the British North America Act, to contend that that should be a matter of procedure in this house covered by statute.
The issue decided on June 12 was that such a matter was not a proper subject of amendment to the British North America Act, but it did not go further and say that redistribution by means of a commission should not be carried out pursuant to ordinary statute or decision of this house.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, just to refer to the aspect of this problem which has been raised by the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming), I would point out that the motion at that time was a proposal to amend the British North America Act. It would seem that what was in the mind of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) in presenting that motion was that he did not think that we could not proceed in this way at that time and was suggesting an amendment to cover 1961.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I thought we could but I was afraid the house would not agree with me.


George Alexander Drew: In any event there were many who had the idea at that time with the prorogation of parliament, no matter how desirable another system might be, it would not be practical to set up some other body and have them report back in time for the house to deal with it. I think that perhaps that is what was in the mind of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And I did not know at that time that the house was going to be in session until November 20.


George Alexander Drew: That is what I am pointing out. Assuming that such thought was in the mind of the hon. member-I suggest that that has something to do with the argument that is put forward that this is out of order-what in effect was sought by the motion made at that time was this: We do not think we will have time to deal with this act before we are through the present session, therefore I am suggesting an amendment to the British North America Act which would have effect in 1961.
First, we have the fact that an amendment was proposed to the British North America Act. That is not proposed in the motion I have presented. Second, we have the fact that it was something that would take place in 1961

Redistribution
and not at the present time, which makes it entirely different from the present motion.
To carry it to the point of absurdity, a motion could be made that something be done twenty-five years from now. If that were passed between now and twenty-five years from now we would be precluded from dealing with that subject simply because that resolution had been put forward.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It sounds like the Liberal platform of 1919.


George Alexander Drew: I do not propose to go that far afield or delve that far into the realms of imagination. I am simply dealing with the fact that this was a motion to do something in the future by an entirely different method than that now before us. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that acceptance of the proposal put forward by the hon. minister on this occasion would lead to a most extraordinary result because debate could be deliberately stifled through the delaying action of a motion to take place some time in the future.


Mr. Speaker:: Fortunately it is one o'clock so I shall have an opportunity to consider this.
At one o'clock the house took recess.
The house resumed at three o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: When the house rose at one o'clock, we were considering whether or not the amendment which had been moved by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) was in order. I may say frankly that when I first read the amendment I was under the impression that it was out of order, because it appeared to me to be substantially the same as another amendment upon which a vote had been taken in the present session. However, during the luncheon recess I have had an opportunity of reading the amendment which was moved on June 12, and comparing it with the amendment which has been moved today. I have also had the opportunity of considering what was said this morning, both against the regularity of the amendment and in support of it.
I have come to the conclusion that, although there is a similarity between the two amendments there is also a considerable difference. The amendment of June 12 was one to a bill which was moved in order to amend the British North America Act. That amendment proposed that the act should be amended by providing for the setting up of a commission to effect the redistribution of electoral ridings after the year 1961. The present amendment refers to another bill, namely the bill which is now before the house, and proposes that a commission should

be set up now to consider the redistribution at the present time.
In my opinion, if the present amendment carried it would not be inconsistent with a decision which has been arrived at during this session. In view of that, and the fact that there is a difference between these two amendments, I have come to the conclusion that I should allow the amendment to stand.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We in this group, Mr. Speaker, are glad that the house will now have an opportunity to vote on the proposition set out in the amendment of the leader of the opposition. Naturally we most heartily approve of the decision that Your Honour has just given, and we hope that the house as a whole will really give serious consideration to the suggestion which is now being made. In your ruling a moment ago, Your Honour referred, as did some of us this morning, to the fact that there has already been one debate in this session as to whether we should decide now to have an independent commission do this job in the future. It is a matter of regret to me that the house rejected that idea. This is another question, and as the leader of the opposition pointed out this morning, the fact that this session is to be continued until November 20 does make it possible for consideration to be given to an alternative way of dealing with the present redistribution.
As I indicated this morning when we were on the point of order, had it not been for the amendment moved by the leader of the opposition, we in this group would have moved one in similar terms. Perhaps it might not be inappropriate for me to indicate to the house what the terms of that amendment would have been. It would have read as follows:
That this bill be not now read a second time but that it be resolved that in the opinion of this house consideration should be given to the referring of the readjustment of the representation in the House of Commons, required as a result of the decennial census of 1951. to an independent commission and that in the opinion of this house consideration should be given to the appointment of such a commission for that purpose.
As I have already said, had the way been clear by the time the debate reached our group, that amendment would have been moved, in line with a similar amendment which we moved in February, 1947, on the occasion of the last redistribution.
This morning the leader of the opposition gave a great deal of the history of this question so far as the Canadian parliament is concerned. I shall not repeat the quotations that he gave, particularly those from the late Mr. King and the hon. member

Redistribution
for Quebec South (Mr. Power). Those references do indicate very clearly that there has been thinking in the direction of an independent commission by the Liberal party for a long time.
Now, there is one other bit of evidence pointing to the fact that Liberals have thought for a long time about this job being handled independently. I refer to a bill which was passed by the House of Commons in 1899. That was during the days of Sir Wilfrid Laurier as prime minister, and the bill in 1899 was designed to correct what the Liberals of that day felt to be some of the injustices of the redistributions following the censuses of 1881 and 1891. The bill was limited in its scope, so far as the idea of an independent commission was concerned, but at least it proposed that all those federal constituencies in the province of Ontario which crossed county lines should be reviewed by an independent commission of judges.
It so happens that the bill was opposed in the House of Commons by the Conservative party of that day. There was a recorded vote on second reading. Then, despite the fact it passed in the House of Commons, it was defeated in the Senate and thus never became law. As I say, Mr. Speaker, I have added that bit of evidence to that which the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) gave this morning, in order to show that the idea of an independent commission is not something new. So far as the Liberals are concerned, they have been thinking about it and speaking about it for a long time. Perhaps I might mention again the words of Mr. King on February 3, 1947, when in reply to Mr. Bracken in the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne of that year, he said:
. . . I do not believe that the majority of hon. members take that view, and in that particular I am prepared to accept the will of the majority. I hope, however, the day will come when the House of Commons of Canada will see the wisdom of allowing its redistribution to be made by some impartial tribunal and not by the members of the house themselves dealing with the matter in committee as in former years it has been dealt with.
On that occasion Mr. King referred to the many times he had expressed that view. In other words, as far as Mr. King was concerned, it was Liberal doctrine across the years that redistribution should be effected by an independent commission, even though that doctrine was never implemented by Mr. King.
We of the C.C.F. have taken that view in this house during the time this party has been here. My leader, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), moved a resolution to that effect on a private members' day back in the thirties, in between the redistributions following the censuses of 1931
and 1941. Likewise in 1947, when the second reading of the redistribution bill of that year was before the house, it was my privilege, on behalf of this group, to move an amendment calling for that redistribution to be effected by an independent commission. Only a few days ago, on June 12, we of this group made that proposition again in the form of an amendment to the bill that amended the British North America Act.
Mr. Speaker, I have indicated the longstanding support-in words, at any rate-on the part of the Liberals for an independent commission. I have indicated that that is our view and, if I may say so with respect, without trying to pick a quarrel with anyone, we now welcome to our position the Progressive Conservative party which, I think it is fair to say, for the first time have officially asked for an independent commission to do this job.
In recent years there have been two recorded votes on the question. There was the one on June 12. I recognize the reason why- although I think it was splitting hairs-the Progressive Conservatives voted against my amendment on that occasion. But at any rate, on that occasion they voted solidly against the proposal that redistribution by an independent commission should be declared as a principle in the constitution of this country. Back in 1947, when this question was before the house in the form of our C.C.F. amendment, the Progressive Conservatives voted both ways. I have before me the Hansard of February 24, 1947, and I find that 19 of them were progressive and voted for our amendment and that the other 21 were conservative and voted against it. In that same session, although Mr. Bracken had asked Mr. King to state what his intention was with regard to the redistribution of that year, Mr. Bracken did not ask for an independent commission.
I cite that past history not in order to chide my friends to the right but rather to emphasize the fact that they have now joined with the rest of us in this house who, across the years, have been asking for an independent commission. I hope that the government will recognize the relative unanimity we have now attained on this point. I must not speak for the members of the Social Credit group. They have opposed our motions on this matter in the past. Their view today, which I should think would be different after the experience of the last few weeks, is one that they will have to express for themselves. But, Mr. Speaker, in view of what has happened now, in that the Progressive Conservatives through their leader have officially asked that this job be done by an independent commission, and in view of the fact that as long ago

Redistribution
as 1899 the Liberals tried to get it done in that way through a bill, and have been suggesting it periodically every since then through the lips of Mr. King and through the utterances of the hon. member for Quebec South, X suggest that the time has come to adopt that method which is in effect-as the leader of the opposition has pointed out-in the United Kingdom, New Zealand and Australia and which we feel should1 be the method for effecting redistribution here in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, the reasons for the desirability of an independent commission are obvious. In the first place, it is desirable not only that there be fairness in the redistribution of the seats in the House of Commons but that there be satisfaction on the part of the country that there has been fairness. I know that members on the government side, whenever the matter of redistribution comes up for consideration, will argue that they have been fair. They have always done that, whether it was the Liberals or the Tories who were in power, except for the occasion when Sir. John A. Macdonald was so frank about hiving the Grits. But it is not a question of whether or not the Liberals or the Tories think the redistribution is fair or unfair. The question at stake is the impression created in the country. Certainly from a parliamentary redistribution the country always gets the impression that there has been a scramble on the part of all parties, and all members of the committee; and that the best that can be said for any map that is drawn is that it is a bundle of compromises.
This is a subject about which, as the leader of the opposition pointed out this morning, we all have to speak with some restraint. No one who has been a member of a redistribution committee can take any holier-than-thou attitude. It is inherent in the very set-up of this job being done by a parliamentary committee that there are compromises and discussions back and forth and that there r.re all sorts of interests-some of them that concern the people of Canada but some of them that concern personalities in the House of Commons-that come into the picture. We suggest, Mr. Speaker, that it is wrong in principle that so priceless a part of our democratic heritage as the representation in the House of Commons should be determined by the members who are so closely affected, who cannot possibly take an objective view, and who certainly cannot take one that will be recognized by the country as a whole as being objective.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, for the sake of fairness and for the sake of the appearance of fairness we suggest that the practice

followed in the United Kingdom, New Zealand, Australia and other democratic countries should be followed in Canada. We suggest that it is high time that the start which the Liberals made in 1899 should be proceeded with, and that we should have an independent commission.
Not only is there the appearance of unfairness, Mr. Speaker, in the redistributions that have taken place in the past and in the one that may take place as a result of our passing this bill, as between individual constituencies, as between members and as between parties, but there is also the extremely difficult problem of apportioning the seats in anyone province as amongst distinctly urban areas, mixed areas and distinctly rural areas. This is a problem that always enters into any attempt on the part of a committee to do the job of redistribution. No committee ever likes to upset more boundaries than it must. Thus it is that when you get a decade in which there may have been quite a shift in population within a province-as is happening in our time-from rural areas into urban areas, there is always reluctance on the part of the parliamentary committee to do an objective job and to give to the areas that have become congested representation in proportion to their population.
I accept the ruling that you gave this morning that it is not in order for us now to discuss what the committee has done, the report from which has not yet been laid on the table. But in principle, I suggest that past redistributions indicate to us that parliamentary committees do not deal fairly and objectively with the question of the proper disparity between distinctly urban seats on the one hand and distinctly rural seats on the other, let alone the problem that arises because of the fact that some seats are in between, are half one and half the other. When we come to the schedule I shall have something to say about that witn respect to my own province in terms of actual percentages, in terms of the percentage that we were given last time and the percentage which we were given this time, which I think is quite unfair to my city of Winnipeg. But the submission I am making now on principle is that a parliamentary committee has not the objectivity, has not the freedom from the interests of the members who are here, to deal with that problem in the way that it ought to be handled.
The hon. member for Quebec South in the bill which he has on the order paper, the second reading of which has not yet been reached, deals with this problem. He proposes a formula, namely, that an urban seat should have approximately one-quarter greater population than the average rural seat. Some

hon. members may agree with that percentage; some may disagree with it; but at least all hon. members will agree that it is a mighty good idea to have a rule. We do not have any; we just redistribute according to the whims and the compromises that go on in a committee of members, all of whom are personally interested either on their own behalf or on behalf of their friends here in parliament in the outcome of that redistribution.
Now, as Professor Norman Ward said in one of his articles on this question, it is impossible for any group of men with the best will in the world to deal with that problem in an objective manner. Perhaps I should place on the record once again these words of Professor Norman Ward, because it seems to me they do deal with the problem very aptly. This is what he said:
The problem of redistribution has become too vast and complicated to be handled satisfactorily by a committee of the House of Commons, which like all house committees, has no staff trained in research techniques or anything else. With the best *will in the world, a group of M.P.'s drawn from many occupations, provinces and political parties would find it extremely difficult to face objectively the problems connected with sharing seats fairly among the people within each province. Population density, homogeneity and topographical features and area, are all factors which ought to be considered seriously. But under the normal circumstances in which redistribution takes place in the House of Commons, with all parties jockeying for position, all factors become entangled in what Hon. C. G. (Chubby) Power, M.P., who ought to know, has called an "unseemly, undignified, and utterly confusing scramble for personal and political advantage."
That quotation from Professor Norman Ward includes a quotation from the hon. member for Quebec South, which the leader of the opposition placed on record two or three times this morning. I think that all of us, from whatever party we may come, who have participated in the present redistribution, or the one in 1947, or any who were here longer and were on any previous committees, will have to admit that that is an apt description of how things are done.
A case could be made against the changes that are harmful to opposition parties; a case could be made by government members, justifying the changes that have been made; but in any one of these efforts are we not simply demonstrating to the country that they are right in feeling that this job is not being done objectively when it is done by a committee of the House of Commons? Therefore, Mr. Speaker, because of that position which we have taken across the years, because it is the position that the Liberals have taken at least since 1899, because it is the position the Tories are now taking officially as from today, because of
Redistribution
the request made by their leader today and his amendment, which I presume all his members will vote for, it seems to me that the house as a whole should give more serious consideration to this question than it has up to the present time.
This session is shortly to be adjourned, and we shall be back on November 20. I recognize that that is not long enough for a commission to do the thorough job that it could do in a few years if it had the time; but I suggest it is long enough for it to do something of a job that would at least appeal to the country as being an objective proposition rather than one worked out by people with too much personal interest in the whole question. That is a longer period than the committee has had to work on the matter. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we shall support the amendment that is now before us, it being in terms similar to the one that we moved in 1947, and similar to one that we would have moved today, and we hope that it will have the support of the house, and that this time we will decide that we have had enough of this kind of redistribution, and that we are going to have it done by an objective group of people made up of judges, perhaps geographers, statisticians, surveyors, professors of political science-


An hon. Member:: Of the C.C.F.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -people who have knowledge of these matters and have the respect of the community as being fair-minded, and objective. We strongly support this motion and hope it will have the endorsation of the entire house.


Mr. Larson:: Will the hon. member permit a
question?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes.


Frederick Hugo Larson: If that is the official view of the C.C.F. party, why did they not have an independent commission in the province of Saskatchewan?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I hope that when this house has decided on an independent commission all of the provinces of Canada will follow suit.


Mr. Bradetle:: Your party has not followed it in Saskatchewan. That shows what sincerity there is in that kind of argument.


Mr. Robert Fair (Battle River):: There is so much argument going on between different members that I doubt whether I will be able to be heard in the few words that I have to say at this time. However, I might say that I am now sitting on the redistribution committee for the third time since I came to the

Redistribution
house back in 1935. I believe that if we can make use of the honesty, sincerity and good sense of each individual we can still do a good job under our present system. This is one instance in which politics should be left out, and I am sorry to say that it is not left out altogether, but that is the case with respect to the motion that is moved at the present time. We did have two or three small differences in Alberta, but we have done a fairly good job, and I am only sorry that all the other provinces have not been able to do the same thing.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not think the hon. member should discuss the details of the bill and the schedules at this time.


Robert Fair: I was speaking of the principle of the motion on the commission and the principle of the bill also. If we were to adhere to these things all around in the subcommittees as well as in the main committee on redistribution I do not think we would have any trouble whatever.
Under the commission plan, as I understand it, there win be no opportunity, when people are dissatisfied, to pick out any particular constituency and deal with it. The whole thing would have to be returned to the commission. Then again the terms of reference of the commission might be so loaded that many on the opposition side at that time might have difficulties, the same as they are having at the present time. I am satisfied, as I said before, that under our present system if our representatives in each province are allowed to exercise the good intentions they have when they go in there, in most cases-I do not say in all cases, because there are some intentions that are not so good- it will work out all right when they go into those committees. But I think if they act honestly, as they do in their everyday lives, in these committees there will be no difficulty at all with the system that is being used at the present time.
When troubles come up in the subcommittees and they are brought to the main committee, of course we know what the result is, and what it has been in the past. Again, if the results are carried in the committees, I know they will be carried here, also; because it would not do at all to change decisions that have been made in committee.
But, so far as I am concerned, and so far as the Social Credit group is concerned, we are quite satisfied to continue under our present set-up. At the same time we would express our regret that politics have been brought into the subcommittees in dealing

with the boundaries of the several constituencies, and we would hope that in the future that would be eliminated.


Mr. A. E. Dewar (Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to speak in this debate at all, but what I would like to say will be brief and to the point. What I intend to say I shall say when the schedules are brought back to the house.
This morning I listened to the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) praise the many excellent speeches of the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) in support of the proposition to take redistribution away from parliament and to entrust it to an independent commission. I was surprised to hear this, because I had gone back to Hansard and had listened to the numerous speeches of the hon. member since I have come to the house, and I have never heard him speak on this issue at all. As a matter of fact, the hon. member for Lake Centre always champions the supremacy of parliament.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. This indicates that my hon. friend has not read very carefully, and that he did not receive proper instructions from those who are his mentors; for I dealt with this matter. .


Austin Edwin Dewar: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, the hon. member has imputed to me that someone has instructed me to speak. No one instructed me to speak. I ask him to make a withdrawal of that imputation, that I have been instructed to speak.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker-


Austin Edwin Dewar: On a question of privilege; the hon. member stated I had been instructed.


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: The	hon.	member	for
Qu'Appelle says that he was not instructed.


John George Diefenbaker: What is that?


Mr. Speaker:: The	hon.	member	for
Qu'Appelle says that he was not instructed.


John George Diefenbaker: Well, if he was not
instructed, I just noticed the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) talking to him.


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw.


Mr. Brooks:: Here we go!


Mr. Gardiner:: It is quite correct that I went over and made a remark to the hon. member for Qu'Appelle, but I had nothing to do with his speech. I did not know he was going to make a speech.


John George Diefenbaker: That is fine.


James Garfield Gardiner: I did not tell him to make a speech, either. Of course this party may be a little different from the Conservative party. I would like to know who instructed my hon. friend to get up and make a speech now. I certainly did not ask him. I would advise him that he ought to be careful about what he says when he is speaking.


John George Diefenbaker: Now, I rise on a question of privilege, and say-


An hon. Member:: Withdraw.


John George Diefenbaker: I will withdraw nothing; I will withdraw nothing!


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Lake Centre stated-at least I understood him to say-that the hon. member for Qu'Appelle was instructed to make a speech.


Some hon. Members:: No.


John George Diefenbaker: No.


An hon. Member:: Yes he did.


Mr. Stuart (Charlotte):: He said that.


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member did not say that, probably he would repeat what he did say. But my suggestion is that-


Mr. McCusker:: Who is instructing him now?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker-


James Arthur Ross: MoCusker's last stand!


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest that the hon. member for Lake Centre should accept the statement of the hon. member for Qu'Appelle that he was not instructed.


John George Diefenbaker: I accept that, because it is obvious he was not instructed. I had dealt with that matter, and dealt with it in the house, and in 1947 referred to the need for a commission.


Austin Edwin Dewar: I accept that, too. It has been my experience that the proof of the pudding is in the eating. We will go back and see what happened in 1947.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Austin Edwin Dewar: I do not see the hon. member's name reported in the vote taken, supporting the amendment of the C.C.F. party.


Mr. Sinnolt:: He was not there yesterday, either.


An hon. Member:: He ran away yesterday.


Austin Edwin Dewar: As recently as June 12, when this subject was previously discussed, the hon. member for Lake Centre spoke about three minutes prior to the taking of the vote, and yet I notice his name is not recorded in the vote.
Redistribution


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, again I rise on a question of privilege. Again what the hon. member says indicates that he was not instructed, because I was not here on that debate.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: You were here yesterday.


Austin Edwin Dewar: He said that I was instructed. I have here Hansard for June 12, and I notice that-


John George Diefenbaker: When we voted I was not here on that date.


Austin Edwin Dewar: You were in the house; three pages previously you were in the house, asking a question. You are playing the same game this week. You were here about five minutes before the vote was taken-three minutes before the vote was taken.
In fairness to the hon. member for Lake Centre, however, I would like to ask the leader of the opposition to indicate where we can find some of these excellent speeches of the hon. member for Lake Centre, so I can read them.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, the heat engendered on the part of the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Dewar) with respect to the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) is just a repercussion of the gerrymandering that has been proceeding involving Qu'Appelle at the expense of Lake Centre.


Austin Edwin Dewar: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down!


Austin Edwin Dewar: On a question of privilege; the only heat that has been generated by me, and wifi ever be generated, is that I shall speak my mind. Every time the hon. member for Lake Centre gets after me, I will go right after him.


Donald Methuen Fleming: My hon. friend is going to be "going after" for a long time.


Mr. Ferrie:: On a question of privilege; the charge that there has been gerrymandering is unparliamentary.


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


Gladstone Mansfield Ferrie: Let me make the statement that there has been gerrymandering of no constituency in Saskatchewan. I wish to say that there is no such thing as gerrymandering.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The last remark of the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Ferrie) makes me think of the remark of the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Fair) who said there was nothing wrong with the present system, if only the members going into the committee on redistribution and into the subcommittees would forget their interests in politics. Now,

Redistribution
if anybody can find a way to make the leopard change his spots, then there is some hope for the present system-but only if you can make the leopard change his spots. Anyone who has had the unhappy-


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh.	.


Donald Methuen Fleming: My hon. friend knows all about spots; he can see them.
Anyone who has been through the unhappy experience of sitting through the meetings of the redistribution committee over the past couple of months will have remained unimpressed by any suggestion that the members should forget that they are members of political parties. Although I was in the house when the last redistribution was carried out in 1947 I was not a member of the committee at the time. I know from my more recent experience just what I missed then-. So far as I am concerned, this experience of sitting on the redistribution committee has been an eye-opener. I hope I am not completely naive in political matters; certainly I am not so naive as to believe in the statement recently made by the hon. member for Battle River. I may say to him that if anyone goes into that committee hoping to see that important task carried out with some regard for principles he is in for a very shattering disappointment.
It has been a wearying and a very disappointing experience. In the light of this I can state at once that I am convinced that some better method of effecting redistribution must be found. I say that notwithstanding the fact that the present method has been in effect for a considerable time. While in times past I have personally entertained some serious doubts about the method of achieving redistribution by means of a commission, in the light of my recent experience I have come to the view that that method must be tried. The present method has exposed its own shortcomings so completely in recent weeks that in my view the time has come when we must apply our intelligence to finding a better method. Here is a method at hand, the use of a commission, which I for one not only will be prepared to see tried but will welcome the opportunity of giving it a fair trial to see if it cannot be applied to better advantage than the method now being followed.
At the moment there are only two alternative methods open to us. One is the method that has been followed at this present session; the other is the commission method. I wish to make some observations concerning the present method and I do so with my recent experience directly in mind.

In the first place, the present method necessarily implies that the government possessing a majority in the house will possess a majority in the committee. If they wish to make ruthless use of that majority, in the last analysis there is nothing that can stop them immediately, though public opinion will catch up with them eventually. The greater the government majority, the less its sense of responsibility, the greater the extent to which totalitarian ideas have seized the minds of the government and its following, then the greater the risk that abuses will result from the use by the majority of its powers in the committee. That is the point. I am not speaking of something theoretical, I am speaking of what has happened before our eyes.
The second point is that principles which receive lip service in all parts of the house from time to time fail to receive any measure of consistent support in the committee. We see one principle invoked to justify what is done in connection with one riding, but when we move to another riding where the political situation happens to be a little different, that particular principle seems to be completely forgotten; it is abandoned and something else arises to dictate the decision in that particular case.


Walter Edward Harris: Hear, hear.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I think the minister can well applaud. He and I have been through this experience. We have attended a good many meetings together sitting across the table in room No. 430 during recent days and weeks. What is required is some consistent application of principle. Gross inequality of treatment of different constituencies is bound to result unless there is some means of guaranteeing a consistent application of principles. In the many and strange abortions in size and shape of ridings which we shall be seeing shortly will be found the truth of what I am saying, that there has been no adherence to principle.
In the third place, and this is a serious criticism which flows from the two factors I have just referred to, glaring inequalities do result within the same province. I am not comparing a riding in the territories with a populous metropolitan riding; I am referring to the situation within a single province. Take my own province of Ontario as an example. Can any member say that principle has been honoured consistently when you have a situation where the riding with the lowest population will be around the 30,000 mark and then there will be ridings with populations of over 90,000? Can that be defended in principle? In my submission,

when you have results like that, when you have such glaring inequalities you see exposed the weaknesses of the present system.
Then in the fourth place there is in such a committee a great deal of pulling and hauling at all times, and gerrymandering. Ever there is the problem-I think this indicates one of the inherent weaknesses of the present system-created by the fact that government representatives on such a committee are the objects of a great deal of pressure from within the ranks of their own party. That will always be so as long as the present method is followed. There will be accusations within the same party of playing favourites, of favouring one member at the expense of another, of putting up a hard fight for one member and not putting up a hard enough fight to protect the rights of another member. So you have a situation where there is pulling and hauling, where there is accusation of internal favouritism. Hard feelings can be engendered whether such accusations are fair or unfair and there is always the temptation faced by government majorities to liquidate political opponents.
In the fifth place, there is the situation that is created in the main committee. I think in some of the provincial subcommittees the discussion has been quite brief, but in other subcommittees there has been extended consideration. I think at once of the Ontario subcommittee whose meetings were quite extended and numerous. What is the situation when the subcommittees report to the main committee? I do not think it is unfair to say that when decisions are taken in the main committee by those who do not reside in the province particularly concerned, government members are content with very little knowledge of the issues really involved. In the Ontario subcommittee when I said I wished to explain a particular situation fully to the members of the main committee I was told: "You are not going to change anything in the main committee".


Mr. Speaker:: I do not think I can permit the hon. member to discuss at this time what took place in the committee.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I was using it by way of illustration of the sort of thing that does happen, but I will not pursue the point. I will just say that I think under the present system, without making detailed comment on the present committee of the house or of its subcommittees, you are going to find that members of the main committee who reside in provinces other than the one particularly concerned have very little direct knowledge
Redistribution
of the issues involved in the decisions affecting riding boundaries in that particular province. When we talk about using the wisdom and experience of parliament to apply to a particular situation I think in fairness, sir, and in the interests of accuracy it should be said that that type of knowledge goes very little beyond the borders of the particular province involved. At any rate that has been my observation.
Now, sir, you have indicated by your ruling this morning that you do not intend to permit discussion of the boundaries of particular ridings and I shall certainly respect your ruling, Mr. Speaker; but I ask whether a system can be defended in principle which results in glaring inequalities, inequalities of population as between constituencies in the same province, in the same part of the same province-for instance a low of 30,000 compared to 90.000 on the other hand. That cannot be justified in principle, Mr. Speaker, and it is principle that, as I understand it, we are discussing in this particular debate. When we see cabinet ministers enjoying benefits of ridings with low populations, pocket boroughs of which the sitting members are cabinet ministers, then again, sir, I think that is a situation that cannot stand up to honest and fair criticism.
So much, sir, for the system currently in vogue. I have had to speak critically of it because I speak of it as I have found it and as I have seen it, but I would like to speak briefly now of the other alternative, the proposal for dealing with this matter by a commission.
As I indicated earlier, I came to the view I now hold after having entertained originally -and when I say "originally" I mean in previous years-some serious doubts on the subject. I was impressed by arguments to the effect that this was a matter in which parliament itself should retain complete responsibility. However, Mr. Speaker, in the light of what I have now seen I am satisfied that another and better method must be found. The method by commission in the light of experience with such a method in the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa has so much to commend it that I think in all earnestness it ought to receive a fair and complete trial here in Ottawa. It is true, sir, that in the United Kingdom this method has worked with eminent satisfaction. There is no responsible quarter in the United Kingdom today, as I am informed, from which criticism is directed at the commission method of achieving redistribution. If it can be made to work with such general satisfaction in the

Redistribution
United Kingdom I do not see why, Mr. Speaker, this parliament cannot put it to work with equal satisfaction.
Now, sir, I wish to deal frankly with this question of whether the commission method does subtract something from parliament's control. In the United Kingdom there is a good deal of vigilance on the subject of retention of parliamentary control. That experience gives me reason to think that there is no basic discrepancy between the application of this method and the maintenance of parliamentary control, which is a very important factor for those of us who sit in the official opposition. But does it mean that there is a contradiction, Mr. Speaker? I think not. When the report of the commission is completed it still requires a statute of parliament to give the formal effect of law to that report, and there will then be in parliament the fullest opportunity for discussion of the report of the commission. The experience and knowledge of members of parliament will be available to be brought to bear on such report. There is no reason to think there will not be the fullest opportunity to discuss such report and when the report comes before this house, as a report is going to come before this house from its committee on redistribution either tonight or Monday, Mr. Speaker, the result will depend in large measure upon the weight behind the report. When the house receives the report of the commission it knows at any rate that the commission, if it is an adequate commission, has carried out its task and made its report without any desire to sharpen political axes, to liquidate political opponents or to perpetrate hardships and injustices upon individual members of this house or members of the party that happens to be in a minority.
The report of a commission if it came to parliament would I think receive the respect that would be due to the commission having regard to the personnel of the commission, the thoroughness of its labours and the intrinsic merits of its report. Parliament then will have full opportunity of weighing that report and taking its responsibility for either enacting that report and its recommendations into law or on the other hand for differing or departing from the recommendations made by a commission appointed with the consent of parliament.
Now, sir, there is another feature to this method of appointing a commission which must be faced. If there is to be a commission that body will require guidance from parliament as to the principles which it should follow in proceeding with its task. Now, there
fMr. Fleming.]
are some principles that are discussed from time to time; there are principles to which lip service is given here and elsewhere from time to time. But so far as I am aware, Mr. Speaker, there has been no attempt by this house to write principles in the form of law or in any form that would, even be binding upon a committee of this house, with the inevitable result that when a committee is appointed it has virtually a free hand to apply a principle, disregard a principle, or to apply a principle in one case and to ignore it in another case.
Mr. Speaker, with a commission appointed under parliamentary authority I think parliament will be obliged to take responsibility for directing that commission as to the principles which it ought to follow. In this house there have been proposals by one or two members indicating principles. There would have to be a body of principles. The hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power) has made a useful contribution with the suggestion on his part that the following would be principles worthy of parliamentary adoption for the guidance of any commission appointed to carry out redistribution:
(a)	permanence in the definition of the boundaries of electoral districts is desirable;
(b)	the development of a sense of community of interest among the electors in each electoral district is to be encouraged;
(c)	the territorial area included In each electoral district should be continuous;
(d)	electoral district boundaries should follow the lines of division between recognized municipal, administrative or other areas by reference to which the census figures have been compiled;
(e)	the population included in each urban electoral district should be greater than in each rural electoral district;
(f)	the population of each urban electoral district in any province should be equal, and that of each rural electoral district in each province should likewise be so.
It may not be, in every case, simple and easy to apply all such principles, but at any rate they would be a useful guide. There are others that could be added to them. I do not suggest that such a list is necessarily exhaustive, and I do not suggest that it is complete. But at any rate, Mr. Speaker, we are not going to have a fair and comprehensive discharge of the duty of redistribution unless there is some attempt to lay down principles in a way that will be binding upon those who are charged with carrying out the task of redistribution. As long as we follow the method of a parliamentary committee, I cannot see that we are going to have anything but the kind of situation we have now, where the principle is applied where it happens to suit the majority and disregarded where it happens not to suit their purpose.

Then there is a third aspect of this matter of the commission method, and in my view it is vital. The success of the commission method depends upon the quality of the personnel of the commission. We would not be very much further ahead if the government simply exercised the power it enjoys at the hands of the majority of this house and appointed a commission of partisans of its own choosing; that is not the kind of commission for which the leader of the opposition is contending. It will have to be a commission composed of men whose objectivity in these matters is above suspicion. Remove the political motives that necessarily enter into the calculations of members of a parliamentary committee, and I think you will have gone a long way toward eliminating the injustices, the political liquidations that necessarily result under the present method.
The suggestion has been made by one or two members that the commission should be composed of judges. I do not wish to be taken as subscribing to that view, because I am not at all sure it is a proper position in which to put a judge. But I am satisfied, sir, that there are men in this country whose objectivity or sense of justice and fair dealing are beyond reproach, and who would be available to render what would be a very outstanding public service in such a capacity. They will have to be men with knowledge, and they will have to have assistance. I do not suppose there is anybody in this house, regardless of the length of time he has been in the house or the extent of his travels across this country, with all the knowledge the members of such a commission would require. The plan put forward by the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power) has taken account of that fact, and proposed that assistance be provided by way of advisers or what he calls assessors in the various provinces, to assist those who are members of the commission appointed for this purpose.
Therefore I say that whatever objections have been raised to the commission method are capable of being fully met. There is no reason whatever why this method should subtract anything from the responsibility or the control of parliament over redistribution, or its duty in that regard. If the government of the day will apply its considerable ingenuity to the selection of men, and do it in consultation with the other parties in the house, there is no reason why competent men could not be appointed. The hon. member for Quebec South proposed that the political bias which would tempt the government in the naming of the personnel of such a committee be eliminated by having the 55704-247J
Redistribution
appointments made in consultation with the leader of the opposition, who it was proposed would also consult others in the opposition as well. I am satisfied, sir, that if there is a will on the part of the government to see redistribution carried out in such a way that it will accomplish and not defeat justice, that will really be a fair, comprehensive and principled redistribution, it can be done by this commission method. It is not being done, and I am convinced it cannot be done under the method currently in vogue.
There is a question of the time element as applied to the present situation. As the leader of the opposition pointed out this morning, if we were about to prorogue in a day or two it might be said that by advocating the reference of this matter at this stage to a competent commission it would inevitably result in delay. Even if it did result in delay, Mr. Speaker, until the next session, that would be a very small price indeed to pay for so desirable a purpose. I do not think we are likely to need the redistribution act before the next session of parliament. I do not think the government will be in great haste to call a general election before parliament meets again. I believe they have had their fingers sufficiently burned recently in a series of by-elections so that any fears or expectations that there will be a general election before another session of parliament can be eliminated. I believe the feeling that the redistribution bill will need to be carried into legislative effect before another session of parliament has been allayed.
If there are those who are in great haste to see this redistribution put into effect before the next regular session of parliament, then, as the leader of the opposition pointed out today, the method is ready. Let us provide now for the appointment of the commission to take this task in hand, and they can derive whatever value-and very doubtful it will be indeed-there may be from the report of the committee of this house on redistribution. Then when this parliament meets in the fall, still in the present session, the commission's report could be laid before the house. The house could deal with it before the prorogation of the present session.
My final word, sir, is this. What my leader had to say this morning about preserving public respect for parliament as an institution is entitled, it seems to me, to very weighty consideration by members in all parts of this house. The strength of our parliamentary institutions in this country is no greater than the respect people have for those who serve them in this place. If the impression continues to be borne in upon the minds of the public that parliament goes about the task

Redistribution
of redistribution simply by sharpening political axes and practising not the rules of fair play but the law of the jungle, then, Mr. Speaker, we are going to witness a continued decline in the respect of the public for their parliament. In days like these, when the battle for men's minds is a sharp battle being fought on a long front, let no one of us dare to turn his back upon his responsibility for seeing that the rules which govern the distribution of seats and which, in turn, determine in a large measure the representation of the people within this sovereign House of Commons, are governed by fair play. We should see that the procedure is carried out with justice, and is not calculated simply to pay off political debts or guided by political expediency at the expense of principles.
There are many imperfections, sir, in the way our parliamentary institutions function. We are all conscious of them, I think. Perhaps we in the opposition are more conscious of them than are those who sit to your right, Mr. Speaker, because we see more of the imperfections. But this is a human institution. Can hon. members leave the public any longer with the impression that the redistribution of seats in this house is determined simply by political expediency and the arbitrary exercise by the majority in these committees of the rights which they happen for the time being to possess as majorities? Times like these, Mr. Speaker, are much too serious for us to be any longer parties to the creation of an impression like that in the minds of the public.
In what I have had to say, sir, I hope I have been not unfair to people in different political parties. There is no member of any party who can go into that committee on redistribution and completely put aside party considerations or assume the role of objectivity which is rarely evidenced in this house or in our own political courses. We are here representing the people. We are here also as persons who subscribe to a particular party. What I have had to say, Mr. Speaker, by way of criticism of the way in which things are being done is not only criticism of the way in which the present majority in this house exercises its rights as a majority in the committee and the subcommittees, but is directed at a system where majorities, if the system continues, are always going to attempt to exercise their powers for the political benefit of the party to which they happen to be attached.
In times like these, Mr. Speaker, that kind of course is not good enough. Therefore I say that while I did not come to this decision quickly or lightly I am satisfied, on

the strength of an extremely unhappy and disappointing experience as a member of the committee on redistribution appointed by this house, that the present method can no longer be retained. It is no longer entitled to any respect on the part of the public or of this house. It is at best a piecemeal method. It is not a method that is based upon principle. It is a method that is based largely upon political expediency. I say the time has come to discard this method and at least give a fair trial to another method such as the alternative that has been found to work in an eminently satisfactory way in the United Kingdom and in our sister nations of the commonwealth.


Mr. J. O. Gour (Russell):: Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to speak this afternoon on this subject, but in view of what has been said by the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming), who has just spoken, I think it is quite fitting for me to say a few words concerning the province of Ontario. As I listened to the hon. member, it sounded to me as though he wanted the committee to be named by himself.


An hon. Member:: That is right.


Joseph-Omer Gour: He began to talk about the -committee following what his leader, the hon. member for Carleton, had said. He said -that it should be a committee composed of some group of -people, but that if the government named it, -they would not be good people. They must be named by the hon. member. He is to be -the judge of who are to be the people on that -committee. He said the government have to be careful in naming it. He seems to say that if the government name them, they will be not be good people on that committee because they have been named by -the Liberal party or by the government. It sounded to me as though the hon. member were saying that the -committee should be named by him, that he was the only one who was capable of doing anything right.
To my hon. friends who are from Ontario may I say this. I know that we are not supposed to discuss the proceedings which took place during meetings of the committee, but I sat with my hon. friends on other committees. I did not belong to the committee on redistribution. I think hon. members win admit that the hon. member for Eglinton takes quite a bit of time in the committee and you are not sure that 100 per cent of what he says is supposed to be said there or has any value. Now he is complaining because we are a majority in all committees. That is not the fault of the members who are the majority in the committees. It

is because the public of Canada want Liberal members; they want to elect us.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is the way you have gone about the redistribution.


Joseph-Omer Gour: I will come to the redistribution. You will get that, don't worry. The hon. member said that because they are the majority in the committee, the Liberals are taking advantage of the fact and are doing the thing that will best ensure that they will be elected. It is not the redistribution which elected the members, Mr. Speaker; it is the people who elected the members. There is no question about this fact. Canadian people are all intelligent people and they are all independent people. When the time for an election comes they vote for what they believe to be best for themselves and for their country. It is not a question of boundaries, of whether the eighth concession or seventh concession is going to belong to me tomorrow. The people on the seventh concession or on the eighth concession are Canadian people who are just as independent as any others.
I come now to the part where the hon. member said the Liberals were taking advantage of their majority. I think I can prove to him in one second that he is not exactly right. I do not want to say he does not speak the truth, but I will say that his judgment causes him to say that. In my own riding and my neighbouring riding, which began at confederation, are the nicest people that could be found anywhere in Canada; there are none better. There are Scotch, French-speaking, Irish and English; there is a mixture. Those two ridings, in federal elections, 99 per cent of the time elect a Liberal. Now they are represented by two good members; they are French-speaking and good Liberals. Those two ridings are to be lined up; they will be together. If we were to take advantage of the majority, then we would keep those two ridings as they used to be, and as they have been since confederation.
Those two ridings have sent some fine men here who gave of their best to the country. Now, in this redistribution, because of their small population they have been put together. If the Liberals wanted to use their power they would keep those two ridings as they were before. We have not a large number of French-speaking members from Ontario. We have not had enough up to the present time for our population. We will now have one seat less for the Liberals and for Frenchspeaking members. The Liberal majority are so straight that they are trying to give fair play all over this country on every occasion.
Redistribution
That is why they decided to combine those two ridings. I sincerely regret that they have combined them, but in order to be straight they have done so. That goes to prove that the Liberals are straight even with their big majority in the committee. They decided it was only straight to do that.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Joseph-Omer Gour: I have just finished, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If the hon. member is discussing the various ridings in detail, I have ruled that it should not be done.


Joseph-Omer Gour: I will not do it any
more; I have finished. I am of the belief that there is no one better able to do this job than a committee of the members of the House of Commons who have been elected by the people. I do not believe anyone is better able to represent the public than the members who are elected to this house. That is what we call democracy. The party that has the largest group in the house is entitled to the largest group on the committee. I believe the right way to do this job is to have it handled by a committee composed of the members of this house, and I support the bill.


Mr. George H. Hees (Broadview):: I agree a hundred per cent with my leader in what he said this morning about the desirability of having redistribution carried out by an independent commission. The idea, as he pointed out, was brought forward a long time ago by the late Mr. King. It was brought up again later by the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power). To my mind it is fairness itself, when you consider that the individual judges may have had political experience; they may have been members of this House of Commons. They would bring in a redistribution bill which I believe would be much fairer than the redistribution bill which is to be presented to this house for our consideration.
In advocating this method of doing things I am looking to the future as well as the present, because I know that when the next redistribution comes up the Conservative party will have been in power for nearly ten years. I would hate to see us faced with the same temptations the Liberal party have succumbed to at the present time. To my mind the setting up of an independent commission would remove any possibility of or opportunity for political vindictiveness or reprisal by the party in power. It is very regrettable that there are a number of instances of what I think must be called political vindictiveness in the present bill.
During the past winter the gross negligence which the government displayed in

Redistribution
mishandling the foot-and-mouth disease, the negligence which has already cost this country many millions of dollars, was brought to light largely by three very prominent members of parliament, the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker), the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross) and the hon. member for Brant-Wentworth (Mr. Charlton). By the gerrymandering which is being done in their ridings1 at the present time it is very obvious to every casual bystander that the government has simply decided that they must be taught a lesson for what they have done, and to show other hon. members what will befall if at any time in the future they have the audacity to speak up against the large government majority.
I should like very much to deal with what has happened in those ridings, but unfortunately the ruling of Mr. Speaker makes it impossible to do so. Therefore I shall just have to leave the details. I think the riding of the hon. member for Lake Centre has been simply mutilated.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Robinson):: Order. That is exactly the point on which the Speaker previously ruled.


Mr. Ward:: The riding is still there.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The name is there, that is all.


George Harris Hees: And the treatment received by the other two members, the hon. member for Souris and the hon. member for Brant-Wentworth, is of a similar nature. I shall take great pleasure in dealing with it when this bill comes up for further study on Monday.


An hon. Member:: What about Swift
Current?


George Harris Hees: It seems a shame that at this time we cannot deal with the details of the gerrymandering which has been going on in so many instances in this redistribution bill. I think the public will be very interested to see the depths to which the party in power has gone in order to eliminate, or try to eliminate, those who have caused them embarrassment in the past. I believe this kind of political vindictiveness is just the kind of thing that must be stamped out, and I believe it can be stamped out by the appointment of an independent commission. I believe that kind of thing must be stamped out if our democratic political system is to continue successfully.
I say in conclusion, Mr. Speaker-and I shall have a lot more to say on this when we reach the point where we can do justice to the subject-1 do hope the government will see fit to follow the advice of the very

able and experienced member from Quebec South, of their late revered leader, the late Mr. King, and of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) who so ably expressed his views this morning. I hope those views will be accepted and that very soon we shall see a commission of this kind in operation.


James Arthur Ross: It has been my privilege, if one can count it such, to serve on the redistribution committee on two different occasions, in 1947 and on the present committee. With respect to the present committee, I am very sorry the report has not been tabled so we could have had a more thorough discussion on the practical workings of the committee. I am sure it would be very enlightening to the country as a whole. The public in general have very little knowledge as to how the redistribution committee actually does function and do its work.
I want to support wholeheartedly the proposition made by my leader this morning. I will admit that at one time I myself, when I was rather green in this house, thought members of parliament should do this sort of job; but as I have studied history and have had experience on these committees I have become quite convinced that a commission of judges as suggested would do a much better job than any members of parliament can do on a political basis, no matter what party may be in power.
Reference was made by the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Fair) to the fact that he had been a member of this committee on several occasions, and that he thought it was on a non-political basis. Well, people being what they are, they do not operate on a nonpolitical basis; and of all committees, a committee on redistribution does not operate on a non-political basis. At least that has been my experience.


Mr. Wylie:: Where does the hon. member get that idea?


James Arthur Ross: Your colleague suggested it, and I say it does not happen.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: They operate on a fair basis.


James Arthur Ross: I have also seen some of the operations carried on by the hon. member for Springfield behind the curtains. He was not a member of the committee. If the public would just realize how these things operate, the present committee, the second to last one-


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: You are out of order in what you are saying now.


James Arthur Ross: No, I am not.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: It is out of order.


George Harris Hees: You are fair game at any time.


James Arthur Ross: The general committee is divided into subcommittees for different provinces, and they have their subcommittee meetings. Some have very few; others have a great number. They have their differences in those subcommittees. Generally they are controlled by the majority of members supporting the government. They report back to their respective caucuses which, in the two experiences I have had, have been Liberal caucuses of those provinces. I have gathered from one source that they have their difficulties in the Liberal caucuses. A lot of jockeying goes on there, too.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: The public send us here.


James Arthur Ross: We are sent here to legislate for our people. That is the point I am trying to make. From my experience as a member of this house, I have somewhat changed my mind on how we should legislate in the matter of redistribution and the allocation of seats. When one thinks that in Great Britain, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and other places they have commissions, he must realize that it speaks well for their progressive thought and attitude.
We do not have any guiding principle that operates through all provinces in this dominion, as applied to our committee on redistribution. I know the government and those who support it maintain that there should be no reference to provinces in connection with this matter of handling redistribution; yet we see that the committee is divided into provincial subcommittees. My experience has been that scarcely any of the provincial subcommittees operate on the same basis or the same principle. Each committee has its own ideas. I could refer to a province in the maritimes where I believe changes should be made. Yet I am satisfied that when we receive their schedules we will see that that province will report on exactly the same basis that existed before the committee was set up.
One could find some glaring examples of disparity which should not exist. They should be rectified. Then, on the other hand, other provinces have tried to strike some sort of average. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) will be arguing, I have no doubt, about what he thinks is the great disparity between urban and rural ridings-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hear, hear.


James Arthur Ross: -in a certain province. I believe the same principle does not operate in any two of the provinces. The hon. member will find the same thing in many provinces
Redistribution
of this country with small rural ridings, with probably no more than 30,000 people. That will be seen in the schedule when the report is made. Yet it will be seen that there are other ridings with 90,000.
That is far from what it should be. We have heard a supporter of the government talking about what gerrymandering is, and he contended that there could not be gerrymandering unless there was a combination of the constituencies of two members in the same party. His statement was that when that condition existed there would be genuine gerrymandering. Well, again without referring to what happened in the committee, my guess is you will see exactly that sort of thing in respect of certain provinces when the schedules are brought in. But that is not brought about as the result of any general principle, either, because in the same province where this has happened you may see a riding with a small population, and then in contrast you will see another riding-likely an opposition riding-wiped out entirely.


An hon. Member:: Order.


James Arthur Ross: I said you may. I am not saying what has happened in committee.
I am guessing at what is going to be proposed, and giving an example of what has been proposed in the past.


Mr. Harkness:: An educated estimate.


James Arthur Ross: Alongside a smaller riding you will see another riding in a certain province, with a large rural population- again, in opposition-wiped out entirely. In other words, there are the two opposite extremes; no principle is being supported at all. I suppose it would be the same with any party in power; there would be a lot of political jockeying taking place. I think when the schedules are presented for a certain province, with respect to which instructions were issued from a certain party convention about the date of the opening of this session of parliament as to what must take place following the decennial census of that province, when redistribution would be brought about-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Was that Manitoba?


James Arthur Ross: It will be queer indeed if, when the schedules come in, they do not follow the instructions given by the brass hats or the brass tops of that party in that certain province.
That is the sort of thing we have to contend with under this system. I presume it has been carried on in the same way in some past redistributions. Because of those things, surely we should learn from experience and

Redistribution
not continue to carry on in this way. Therefore I certainly am wholeheartedly in support of the proposition put forward by my leader today. It has been suggested before, and I hope the house will take this matter into serious consideration before hon. members are called upon to cast their votes in respect of this very important matter, which is of the most importance to the people of this country. For those reasons I shall support the amendment.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, I think the necessity for a better means of redistribution than has existed in the past was amply shown by the proceedings of the past two or three months in the main committee on redistribution and in the subcommittees which have been working on this subject. I must say I speak from unfortunate personal experience when I say that.
I was a member of the committee this year for the first time, and I now realize how fortunate I was in not having been a member of the committee when the last redistribution took place. I think the present system can only be described as a mess. There was one remark by a Liberal member of the redistribution committee with which I think all members of the committee would heartily agree. He said, "Thank God this will not have to take place again for another ten years." I believe all hon. members who served on the committee were sick of the way the proceedings were carried out, and of the unsatisfactory results of trying to carry out a redistribution in this way.
On the other hand, the manner in which a commission such as has been suggested by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) could operate was well illustrated by the work of the subcommittee which dealt with the Yukon-Mackenzie district. In other words that was an independent inquiry in which political considerations as well as personal desires, and a consideration of what might be to the advantage of an individual member, were absent. That procedure is bound to be more satisfactory than the present system of attempting to carry out a redistribution in which everyone is jockeying for position. Those factors-the absence of political considerations and personal desires-were absent so far as the subcommittee which dealt with the Yukon-Mackenzie district was concerned. No one on the subcommittee either represented or expected to represent either the Yukon or the Mackenzie area. There was no particular advantage to any party, no matter what was done. We realize that only one or two seats were involved, in any event. Circumstances were not such that anything in the nature of gerrymandering could be carried out.

In addition to that, the chief electoral officer was present at the committee meetings and gave expert advice as to the geography of the area and the problems involved in splitting it up, as well as in taking a vote. As a result of the absence of these factors there was a perfectly impartial discussion of the problem of redistribution in the Yukon-Mackenzie area, with the result that decisions were reached fairly and unanimously. I might add that to a large extent they were reached on the advice of the chief electoral officer. I would say that particular experience with redistribution might very well be taken to indicate how satisfactorily an independent commission could operate.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Robinson):: Order. I would draw the hon. member's attention to the fact that at this time he should not discuss the outline of any particular riding, but rather the principle of the bill before the house.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I had not mentioned the outline of the riding, but was merely indicating how the work of that subcommittee was carried out so satisfactorily. I suggest it was a good example of how an independent commission might operate in this connection.
Being a member of the committee on redistribution this year was a very disappointing experience. Any idea a person might have had that redistribution would be carried out on a fair and impartial basis was dissipated very early in proceedings. It did not take long to get rid of that idea, if anyone had it at the beginning. The only principle that was apparent to me as far as redistribution went was the principle of political advantage. The various principles which were talked about were all contravened in one province or another or in one constituency or another. The principle stated to be followed in one particular province would quite often be the exact opposite to that which was being followed in the adjoining province. As has been indicated before, there should be some fixed and definite principle according to which redistribution will be carried out. These were outlined a few minutes ago by the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming), and I shall mention just one.
I think the basic principle of representation is supposed to be and should be representation by population. That principle was fought for a hundred years ago and was thought to be firmly established in this country. Generally speaking this principle has been followed as far as the number of representatives in each province is concerned, though even in that regard there have been departures.

For example, in the case of the maritime provinces the special provision is that their representation shall not fall below the number of senators. This applies particularly to Prince Edward Island. I am not complaining about that, but it is a departure from the general principle. Then we have another departure in connection with Saskatchewan. Again I am not complaining particularly, but if we keep on departing from this general principle of representation we are soon going to have a situation where there will be no principle left in that regard.
It was away back in 1911, I think, that the exception as far as the maritimes were concerned, in favour of Prince Edward Island, was brought in. This year we have the exception in favour of Saskatchewan. If the present government has anything to do with the next redistribution and sees political advantage in it, I have no doubt another exception will be made. The first thing we know the whole principle will be gone.
When we come to the distribution of seats within the provinces we find that the principle of representation by population is honoured only in the breach. There just does not seem to be any regard paid to it in many cases. I think we should have some sort of provision in our electoral law, such as they have in Australia, where the size of a constituency cannot vary from the figure set- we will say it is 50,000 population-more than one-fifth up or down. I do not say that our provision should be one-fifth, but if we had a provision like that in this country we would avoid the extreme discrepancies which exist at the present time.
For example, in New Brunswick there is one constituency having just over 25,000 population and right next to it is another constituency with just over 84,000 population, or more than three and a half times as many people. The present redistribution has left them sitting exactly as they were; no change is to be made. Then when you come to deal with another province you hear the cry that a particular constituency cannot be left as it is because the population is too small. In other words what I said a short time ago appears to be the case, that the principle argued in the case of one province is thrown out the window when it comes to the next. The only principle left, the only principle followed is the one I mentioned, that of political expediency.
I doubt if the public of Canada have any apprehension of the way in which this redistribution has been carried on. As far as I was able to make out, the procedure in most 55704-248
Redistribution
of the subcommittees was to have a certain amount of discussion and then the Liberal members of the subcommittee would bring in a plan prepared by a Liberal caucus or by the Liberal headquarters of the province concerned and the members of the subcommittee were practically told, "There it is". Following that there would be a long or short discussion. In the case of some subcommittees the discussion went on for weeks; in the case of other subcommittees it lasted only one or two meetings. But it did not matter whether there was a long or short discussion, it ended always with: "There is the plan".
Ordinarily the result was a deadlock of opposition members versus Liberal members. Then the chairman of the main committee, the minister, or the deputy chairman, the hon. member for St. Boniface, was brought in to act as chairman of the subcommittee and break the tie, as it were. That is when the axe fell. As far as I know the vote was always in favour of what the Liberal majority of the subcommittee had laid down as the plan. As far qs I can find out there was no disposition to make what might be called reasonable concessions.
Then the report of the subcommittee was presented to the main committee. In the main committee opposition members would move amendments to carry out the proposals they had made in the subcommittee. But the result was always the same. It did not matter what good arguments were presented, the decision of the Liberal members was always the same. As I have said, the arguments they used were the exact opposite of the ones that had been used in the subcommittee which had just reported, but the majority of the members of the main committee coming from other provinces would pay no attention to the arguments because they knew the way they were going to vote before they came into the committee. They may have been using exactly the same argument the opposition members used as far as another province was concerned, but they would just stand up and vote as a phalanx in favour of what the Liberal members from that particular province recommended.
In other words the thing did not work in a democratic fashion. I do not think there is any question but that the present procedure is not fair. I do not believe the people of Canada relish having this important matter of redistribution dealt with in the way it has been dealt with and is being dealt with. I think the people of Canada would welcome the setting up of a commission such as is asked for in the motion moved by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew). I believe the

Redistribution
government would be much better off under such a system from the point of view of their own survival, rather than to have a gerrymander of the country in the way that is being done. In the long run activities along that line are not going to do any good to the party which carries them out.


Mr. Jean Francois Poulioi (Temiscouata):: Mr. Speaker, I have been a political survivor for 21 years and I believe the suggestion of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) is wrong. As members of parliament we have to assume our responsibility. We have been told often enough that we have to make a decision. I have looked at the reports of the redistribution committee, and I have found that the decisions reached by the committee have been fair. Unfortunately it is impossible to please everybody, but the members of the committee have done their best to be just as fair as humanly possible.
Therefore, sir, I will vote against the amendment of the leader of the opposition. It is untimely and uncalled for.


George Matheson Murray: As one of the members from British Columbia I would be doing myself a great injury to sit here and listen to the condemnation which has been offered for the last hour or so of those who tried to work out a sane and sensible arrangement of the seats in British Columbia, for instance. The committee for British Columbia worked conscientiously, and consultations were held with all interested parties. The proposed redistribution as outlined by that committee is fair and honest, and should have the approval and in the main does have the approval of all parties. There was no effort whatsoever to take any advantage by running boundary lines in such a way as to include this group or that group. I think it is clear that there was a unanimous opinion with regard to Yukon-Mackenzie River-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Robinson):: Order. May I ask the hon. member not to refer to the ridings, as they have not yet appeared before us in the schedules of the bill.


George Matheson Murray: Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely unfair to say there was any subterfuge, any effort, any trick or anything that was not in the general interest of the province of British Columbia. I can only speak for myself, but I am sure I am expressing the opinion of my colleagues when I say the task was tackled in a way which would be creditable to the province of British Columbia and beneficial to all Canada.
The fact that we were creating four new ridings within the province of British Columbia gave us a rather difficult position, in

that certain boundaries had to be extended.
I think it was to the credit of everyone that they worked conscientiously to carry out the task which was entrusted to them.


Mr. J. W. Murphy (Lambion West):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take part in this debate on a non-political basis, as usual.


James Garfield Gardiner: Hear, hear.


Joseph Warner Murphy: I happened to be a member of the Ontario subcommittee, like Your Honour, and I am going to be quite frank. From the experience I had during this last month I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that if I had the opportunity of being offered that job tomorrow I would tell my whip in not very parliamentary language where he might reside. It would be a place a good deal hotter than Ottawa will be in the next two weeks if we are going to finish this debate.
When I hear the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) say that he thought the committees were as fair as humanly possible, I must tell him without any hesitation that there was not very much humanity exhibited so far as we in Ontario were concerned. I heard the hon. member who just preceded me say that as far as British Columbia was concerned the task was tackled in a creditable manner. I only wish that statement would apply to the other provinces in this dominion. Sitting on the committee was a disillusionment for me as I think it was to most of us, because it was not our experience to have been on a committee of that sort before. I have always considered it an honour to be on a committee and to do what I possibly could on that particular committee. As far as the opposition members of this committee were concerned we might as well have been a bunch of wooden men. Our representations did not mean one thing, and I can say that with all sincerity. What I do not like about the set-up is the unfairness of it. Let no one in this house think for one moment that decisions were reached on an impartial basis; they were all reached on a partial basis.
The Aciing Speaker (Mr. Robinson): Order. May I remind the hon. member that we are discussing Bill No. 393, an act to readjust the representation in the House of Commons. I do not think remarks such as those which have just been made with regard to the workings of a committee are in order at this time.


Joseph Warner Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I simply wish to say that from my experience on that committee there must be some other way of arriving at a decent or sensible method of having redistribution effected, and most certainly it could not be worse than what

we are enjoying or having to put up with now. That is my argument precisely, without prolonging the debate; because we can play some of these forty-minute records next week when we will not be restricted as we are today.
Under the system proposed by my leader we would not have members of parliament having maps printed in various papers from coast to coast showing what the ridings are going to be. Nor would we have statements in the press by members of the committee, or statements in the committee by the chairman to the effect that no plans were prepared thus far; and yet on the same day the statement was made out came a press report in an Ottawa paper giving details of the three ridings in Ottawa. Under a proper system we would not have that, and that is what I am complaining about.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Robinson):: Order. Once again I must draw the attention of the hon. member to the fact that he is referring to work which was done in the committee and to particular ridings which are not before us at this time.


Joseph Warner Murphy: I do not intend to mention ridings, Mr. Speaker, and I hope to abide by your decision, with all due respect; but I am saying the principles we must be guided by under the present method are entirely unfair. I used an illustration to show that some other method must be devised in order that the people of this country may be properly represented, not the method that exists at the present time.
There are political considerations under the present system, and you cannot dispute that. That was pointed out by the leader of the opposition this morning, and he referred even to a former leader of our own party. I think it has been emphasized particularly by members of my own party today that if we were in power and had the opportunity of appointing a committee we would probably do pretty much the same as the method that is being adopted today, and that is why I say we must get away from the present method. I can speak from some experience and I am frank in saying that it is ridiculous.
I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, without talking at any great length, that in connection with setting up a commission we have in this country a very large number of highly respected organizations. I refer, for instance, to the farm federations. I am not one of those who would say we should have five, six, or seven judges on the commission, because after all most of those judges, in spite of some refutations, have had some political affiliation.
Redistribution
With all due respect to them and to their integrity, I believe there are other large organizations in this country from which we could select the members of a commission. Regardless of what party was in power, I would not like the idea of having the appointment of members of the committee made without due regard to classification.
For that reason I am going to make this suggestion. We will suppose there would be five members on that commission. I have not had the opportunity of giving the subject a great deal of thought, but one member could be selected from the farm federations. We have a Canadian Chamber of Commerce, so let it select a man. It is also a non-political organization. There is a dominion-wide organization known as the mayors and reeves association. Let them select a member for the commission. Then we have the manufacturers' association, which represents vital interests and would naturally be non-political. We have the labour organizations, which I think affect every riding in the Dominion of Canada. At least five men could be drawn from these organizations, and then a distinguished jurist could act as chairman.
In fairness to the members of this house and the people of this country, this suggestion should be accepted. I hope that we, as members of the house, never again have to go through this ordeal, the results of which will be unfair when it is completed.


Mr. J. H. Rooney (St. Paul's):: I did not
intend to take part in this debate on redistribution, but after sitting here listening to all this talk from the opposition I may say that it reminds me very much of the Hitler regime; the larger the lie the more people will believe it.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


James Hendrick Rooney: I should like to say-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


James Hendrick Rooney: With reference to Toronto, I should like to say that the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) was the only member from that city on the redistribution committee. We did not have a Liberal representative, and we have never made any complaints.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Robinson):: Order. May I remind the hon. member of the previous ruling that references to the committee are not in order in this debate.


James Hendrick Rooney: I shall not refer to that mailer again, Mr. Speaker. I would say that the

Redistribution
hon. member for Eglinton has not been disturbed in anything he has wished to do in Toronto and the Yorks.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I defended your interests. I defended the interests of all the Liberal members from Toronto.


George Harris Hees: Donald for a square deal.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: should like to make a few comments on this matter. In the first place I am glad that this morning my leader was quite frank in referring to the cynical remark of a former leader of this party, when he said he was not suggesting the present method was unsatisfactory because it would be used by one party in a way that another party would scorn to do. He made no pretence of that kind. He dealt with the thing on what he considered to be its merits. He quoted at length from a former Liberal prime minister of this country.
My own feeling is that the events of the last few weeks have pointed up the difficulties of this method in a way that I, for one, had not fully realized before. I have to confess that within the last few weeks I argued against the appointment of a commission. I said that the difficulties of creating a commission and giving it instruction would be almost insuperable. I made that argument, and I am not denying that I think the difficulties will be very great. The only reason I am voting for this amendment-I hope the member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) will not rise to a point of privilege when I say this-is that I have been through somewhat the same mental processes which he described himself as going through. I have felt, from all I could see of the operations of the present system, that it was so unsatisfactory that we should try something else.
It is not as if something else was not being tried elsewhere. Apparently it has been tried elsewhere, and with considerable success. I was not a member of the committee, which in one way is a great disadvantage and in another way is an advantage, because while I will not go the length of saying I speak non-politically-I do not know that any man is ever sure when he is speaking non-politically-nevertheless I have not had the overwhelmingly sense of frustration which has been experienced by some of the members of the committee.
The hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) pointed out, very fairly I thought, that we in this parliament work on the basis that there is a government majority on committees; that is the practice. I do not see how we can complain about it; nevertheless it obviously does produce certain results.
[Mr. Rooney. 1
Here we have a situation, whether we like it or not, where we really have 262 members of parliament each with a vested interest, or hoping to have a vested interest, in a constituency. I think the difficulty of dealing with the thing impartially under such conditions becomes almost insuperable.
I do not know how they manage it in England, but apparently there is some tradition they follow which enables them to have committees which are not government-controlled. In the reports of the British parliament for 1948, during a debate on the representation bill, I find that Mr. Churchill referred to an incident which happened in 1944. I read it only to point out the difference, and to show that if that sort of thing could happen here we might not be facing the difficulty we are facing today. It does not happen here, however, and we might as well be honest with ourselves and say that it will not happen here. This is what he says referring to a committee discussing representation in 1944:
Although the Conservatives at that time had a majority of 150 over all parties in this house, the representation which we agreed to on the Speaker's conference

By the way, Mr. Speaker, apparently in Britain the Speaker presides over these conferences.
-was in a very different proportion. There were 15 Conservatives and 11 Socialists out of a total of 32, and when the Liberals and the few Independents were added, the Conservatives did not even have a majority on the conference, although they had a majority in the house of 150 over all parties. It was not dealt with entirely on the basis of House of Commons majorities.
I say that if we were prepared to do that sort of thing, then this situation might not arise. But we do not do it, and I think we should be honest with ourselves and admit that we do not do it. There is no sign that we will do it.
I feel that in the last few weeks, even since we failed to approve the motion of June 12, the situation has changed. It has, so to speak, sharpened. I have not been on the committee but, I am sure like every other hon. member, I have had indications every day of the difficulties which were being met, the sense of frustration and, what was worst of all, the feeling that in the end there was not going to be anything which could commend itself as fair. It would be just a bunch of bits and pieces. It would be the result of horse trading. When I say that I do not wish to suggest that this is a slur on anyone. As I said, we have 262 people with vested interests, and it is horse trading.
Again I revert to the suggestion of a commission. It would be extremely difficult. We

cannot just give them the population of Canada and ask them to divide it by 262 because, as I say, we recognize that there are other bases. I remember years ago reading a speech by Sir Wilfrid Laurier in which he argued that we had to have regard not only to the extent of the territory- which certainly has a practical bearing-but also that the existing political associations, like counties and so on, should be respected in so far as it is practically possible. Therefore I am not for one moment suggesting that this matter of redistribution will be an easy thing. I am only putting the suggestion forward, as the hon. member for Eglinton said, because I feel that anything will be better than what we are doing now; or at any rate I should like to try it to see if it is not better.
In passing I might say that I hope we shall not have to have recourse to the judges. Mr. Hackett, who sat in the last parliament, constantly harped on that point and I always thought he was right. He asserted that the judges should be kept as far as possible out of anything which might have a political aspect because such an association would tend to lessen that remoteness and impartiality which we so much desire them not only to have but to appear to have.
This point also occurs to me, Mr. Speaker. There are some men who are facing the elimination, or virtual elimination, of their constituencies. I myself had some small experience of that kind of thing five years ago, and I can understand what it means to a man who has represented a constituency for perhaps three or four parliaments to find that it is disappearing under his feet. Situations no doubt will arise where that has to take place. If it takes place as the result of a recommendation of a commission which the member feels has tried to look at the thing fairly, that is one thing; and he will just have to grin and bear it. But if in fact he has no such feeling; if in fact he looks about and sees that his constituency is eliminated whereas others have been left which look almost like pocket boroughs and which have populations less than his own, it seems to me it is utterly impossible for him to feel that he has been treated in a fair manner. I therefore come back, Mr. Speaker, and say that it seems to me the present situation is so unsatisfactory, so incapable of achieving a measure of fairness which will be respected by all concerned, that we should no longer continue with but should rather seek another method and at least give it a fair trial.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the extent of the argument that
Redistribution
might be advanced on an occasion like this has been limited by the ruling made by the Speaker; and all I propose to do on this occasion is deal in some detail with the recommendations made by the leader of the opposition with reference to the setting up of a commission to determine this vexed question of redistribution that comes to the House of Commons for decision every ten years.
On this occasion I am not going into any detail in reference to any constituency. I am going to confine myself entirely to a discussion of the merits of and the need for a commission to determine this matter. I shall also deal in particular with some of those countries which have adopted this system and have found it to be both efficacious and nonpolitical.
I commence by reading the amendment, which is as follows:
. . . that it be resolved that in the opinion of this house consideration should be given to the enactment of a measure to provide for the appointment of a commission to effect the redistribution of electoral ridings in accordance with the census of 1951 and pursuant to the provisions of the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1952 inclusive; such commission to be instructed to make its report to this session of parliament upon the resumption of its sitting.
As the leader of the opposition pointed out, there is no difficulty in the way of adopting this suggestion at this time, for the reason that the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) has introduced, and this house has passed, a motion to the effect that the sittings of the house will be adjourned' until November. In anything the Prime Minister said in the course of his remarks there was certainly no indication of the possibility, much less the probability, of an election being called within the next three or four months. Indeed, all editorial writers have been unanimous to date in their opinion that the meaning of the Prime Minister's statement yesterday was that no election is in the offing and that, in any event, there would be none before the months following the coronation. The fact that the Prime Minister moved that motion gives added weight and importance to the proposition advanced by the leader of the opposition this morning, when he set forth the benefits of removing once and for all from the cockpit of partisanship the determination of a matter which is not directly the concern of members of parliament but is particularly that of the Canadian people.
I commence by saying that I am not one of those who believe that anyone has rights to any constituency. I believe that the changing events, the movements of population and the alteration in economic development all require a change from time to time in the

Redistribution
determination of the boundaries of constituencies. We in Saskatchewan-and this applies also to Manitoba-find ourselves in a different position from that of other provinces by reason of the amendment to the British North America Act, which was passed, by virtue of which Saskatchewan, instead of losing five seats, will lose three. In other words, in Saskatchewan and in Manitoba the basis of population will be different in the determination of constituency lines from that in any other provinces in the dominion affected directly by population considerations.
I know one can read the story of parliament and its actions through the years with regard to redistribution. Every ten years there is a recurring and ever-stronger feeling of resentment against the use, by abuse, of the power given to the House of Commons to determine the areas and the territorial limits of constituencies. I have read the debates through the years, and in each ten-year period the feeling has become stronger and stronger. I go back no further than 1932; and I do not believe any party-and that applies as well to my hon. friends of the C.C.F.-can wrap itself in the garb of political piety when it comes to looking at the question of redistribution. For in the province of Saskatchewan there was a redistribution within the last year or a year and a half that in several constituencies violated the principle of fairness that should have been in effect. I say that not by way of criticism but simply to accentuate my view that the time has come for parliament to determine whether or not we shall forever retain in parliament the power to determine boundaries.
The only reason we would want to retain it would be the political advantage of the party with the majority at the time. After all, the setting up of a commission will not remove from parliament the right and duty to determine the question once and for all. But, Mr. Speaker, the experience in Britain and elsewhere has been that when an independent commission speaks no parliament anywhere within this commonwealth has ever dared to alter the boundary lines of any constituency in a way which would have the result of liquidating a political opponent. In other words the commission system would provide a scientific means whereby redistribution would be determined on the only basis on which it should be determined, namely the question of population, subject of course in every case to these peculiar exigencies that occur in various constituencies where, by reason of the industrialization, the urban nature of a constituency, the rural nature of another, there has been

recognized at all times the' principle that population shall not be equal in all constituencies.
Having said that, I am going to make this one reference to the subcommittee for the province of Saskatchewan. It is going to be entirely objective, because I am not going to
discuss in any way any of the problems peculiar to Saskatchewan. I point out this. The subcommittee was set up some five or six weeks ago.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Robinson):: Order. The hon. member was in the house, I think, when a previous ruling was made in regard to discussion of the committee at this time. We are now on the principle of the bill.


John George Diefenbaker: With the greatest deference, I am presenting arguments why the commission form should be set up. If I cannot point out the situation as I found it, I am in the position of being unable to advance arguments why a commission would be preferable to the present haphazard system that is a denial of justice in so many constituencies. I would also point out this. When the hon. member for Russell (Mr. Gour) and the hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. Murray) were speaking they both spoke in the highest and most unprejudicially commendable terms of the subcommittees on which they served. All I want to do, sir, is to follow the same constructive lead they gave during the course of their remarks.


Mr. Cote (Verdun-La Salle):: They were called to order.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, you will make the declaration whether I am out of order. There are not eight or nine Speakers here.


James Garfield Gardiner: He has already told you that.


John George Diefenbaker: I am simply pointing out that the commission form is infinitely better than any committee would be which for six weeks had no sittings, and which in all its sittings met for one hour and five minutes and produced a map, a plan for the province of Saskatchewan, with no discussion whatever regarding lines or territorial limitations.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: On a point of order, I would submit that the hon. member for Lake Centre should submit to the rules of the house in the same way as any other member.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker-


James Garfield Gardiner: On a question of privilege, I would call attention to the fact that the statement made is not correct, there were meetings. There was a meeting of the committee at which the hon. gentleman was

present and at which they decided to postpone the meetings for three weeks.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Robinson):: Order.
I must ask the hon. member for Lake Centre to adhere to the rules of the debate. We are discussing the principle of Bill No. 393, an act to readjust the representation in the House of Commons, and more particularly the amendment to the motion for second reading, moved by the leader of the opposition, for the appointment of a commission. I must ask the hon. member to confine his remarks to the principle as set forth.


John George Diefenbaker: All right, Mr. Speaker. Then may I say this, sir, that as a hypothetical case a commission is preferable to a committee of parliament prejudged and prejudiced in its decision. Now, sir, having said that-


Austin Edwin Dewar: The hon. gentleman has just used the term "prejudged". I would say that I handed him a blank sheet and asked him to draw his own map, and to date he has not done anything.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Robinson):: As I
apprehend it, the hon. member was stating a hypothetical case.


John George Diefenbaker: What surprises me is that the hon. member for Qu'Appelle should have been so quick to grasp a hypothetical case. May I now leave the hypothetical case and deal with some of the suggestions made by a committee of parliament in 1939. As my leader said today, the former prime minister of Canada on more than one occasion gave his highest approbation to the idea that for the preservation of our democratic system a commission be set up unpolitical, unprejudiced and unprejudged in so far as its membership is concerned. The last occasion on which the then prime minister dealt with this very matter, as I remember it, was in 1947, at which time he went at length into the reasons he was in favour of a commission system. I do not think the leader of the opposition dealt with the then prime minister's remarks, and I shall therefore place them on Hansard.


Mr. Mackenzie King:: What I was reading from
at the moment was the statement I made in 1933. I was going to go on to say that I agreed with my hon. friend from Lake Centre that we have an excellent precedent in the act which was passed by the United Kingdom in 1944. But what I was quoting was what I had said in 1933. The British act was enacted subsequently. I myself would have welcomed this House of Commons adopting such a measure at this session, but this House of Commons did not share my view, and I am not a dictator in
Redistribution
this House of Commons. I made that very clear at the time. I spoke to my own following both in the government and in this house.
Then he went on to set out in detail the various statements he had made, and in particular his suggestion on February 3, 1947, of a commission composed of judges. At that time he made this statement:
I believe I have covered all that I think it desirable to say at present, beyond giving my hon. friend an assurance that the redistribution measure will be brought in at an early date in this session.
I still hold the view which I expressed before. I personally would prefer a commission of judges to make the redistribution of seats in this house, but I do not believe that the majority of hon. members take that view, and in that particular I am prepared to accept the will of the majority.
Then on that occasion in 1947 he used these significant words, which he had repeated on previous occasions. Let me say that had it not been for the advent of war in 1939 Mr. Mackenzie King would have had introduced in the House of Commons a draft bill which had been prepared and which was available for presentation in May of 1940; and was intended to be introduced, as I understand it, by the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power).
On that occasion in 1947 he went on to say:
I hope, however, the day will come when the House of Commons of Canada will see the wisdom of allowing its redistribution to be made by some impartial tribunal and not by the members of the house themselves dealing with the matter in committee as it has been dealt with in former years.
And then, as Mr. King often did, he quoted with approval statements he had previously made, with a view to consolidating and reinforcing his argument. He quoted what he had said in 1933, as follows:
My own view, and I have come to it after observing pretty carefully what has been taking place and what has been said in debate in this house as well as in the corridors, is that redistribution should be taken out of the hands of the House of Commons-
I shall not quote further from that, because the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) quoted it. During the course of that debate in 1947 I brought to the attention of the house the position in the United Kingdom. I did so because I believed it deserved to be canvassed. I am not by any means wedded to the idea of a judicial tribunal, for I know the argument can be advanced-and I have been one who for years has advanced it- that in any matter that concerns political partisanship, or may even have a suspicion of political partisanship, the judiciary should be kept from it in order that their position may remain as inviolate as it is possible to have it.
But, of course, the question of the type of commission to be set up is not dealt with in

Redistribution
the amendment offered by the leader of the opposition. After all, that is for determination by the government of the day, and ratification by parliament of the stand taken by the cabinet after it has made a decision in this regard.
On that occasion I made reference to the British system, in these words:
I suggest this, and I do so only in passing because the Prime Minister in 1933 indicated that some method must be found whereby fairness will be achieved and the liquidation of political opponents prevented or denied. I suggest consideration of the Redistribution Act of the United Kingdom. It is a matter which might well come up. It cannot come up at this session, but it might be considered.
It will be recalled that in that year the redistribution measure came in within the last two days of the session. Then I continued: It is entitled the "House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act, 1944". In the United Kingdom the matter of redistribution is under continuous review; a permanent boundary commission has been set up. There are several boundary commissions, one in England and one for the several other parts of the United Kingdom.
At that point the then hon. member for Davenport, who was such an authority on these matters, interrupted by saying, "There are four", following which I continued:
Yes. A report is made to the house from time to time. It is a continuing activity which, of course, would be different from the procedure here in Canada. Provision is made that-and I read from the act-
Then I read from the act to indicate the means whereby, by continuing the activity, the constituency picture within the United Kingdom would be changed, based on transitions in population and the like. I quoted from the act as follows:
A report of a boundary commission under this act showing the constituencies into which they recommend that any area should be divided shall state, as respects each constituency, the name by which they recommend that it should be known, and whether they recommend that it should be a parliamentary county or division of a parliamentary county or a parliamentary borough or division of a parliamentary borough.
Then I went on to point out that in no way would the setting up of a commission be an abdication of the responsibility of parliament, and went on to say:
Then the draft is approved by resolution of each house of parliament. That commission is one which is above partisanship. Parliament still rules; parliament still controls; but parliament would not act unfairly against a political opponent.
Then I referred to the personnel of the commission in the United Kingdom in charge of this responsibility in these words:
The commission for England consists of the chairman, the registrar general, the director general of the ordnance survey and two other members, one appointed by the secretary of state and the other by the minister of health; and no member
IMr. Diefenbaker.]
of the House of Commons or of either house of parliament of Northern Ireland is permitted to act on such committee.
In other words the British found that a judicial commission was not in keeping with the finer traditions of an inviolate, independent judiciary. In Great Britain in 1944 the system I have indicated was set up.
Similar commissions have been set up in other parts of the commonwealth for the determination of the distribution of constituencies. Canada, indeed, is the only one of the self-governing dominions within the British commonwealth that adheres to the present archaic system, which is dangerous in the extreme if applied by an overwhelming and aggressive majority. No other part of the commonwealth adheres to this system.
As the leader of the opposition said this morning, in a world where democracy is challenged changes must inevitably take place. The fact that in the 1860's, 70's, 80's and 90's this system was regarded as a means whereby political opponents could be removed, and the fact that it has continued since, is no reason for maintaining a system that is the very negation of democratic principles, namely the application of equity and fairness within statutory limitations as provided by law.
I am going to read from a report made in 1939, for which I sent out a while ago. This is a report made by a special committee on electoral matters, headed by Mr. C. E. Both-well, the then member for Swift Current, who was a very distinguished member of the bar and of parliament.
It reads:
Your committee was instructed by order of reference dated March 13, 1939, to study and report on "Methods used to effect a redistribution of electoral districts in Canada and in other countries, and to make suggestions to the house in connection therewith," but regrets that it has been unable to give this order of reference the consideration It merits, owing to the number of meetings necessarily devoted to consideration of suggested amendments to the Dominion Elections Act, 1938, the last of which meetings was held on the second instant.
That report was dated May 10, 1939. The report concludes:
Your committee therefore submits, without further comment, a statement of the methods employed in other countries, and the suggestions made, for the consideration of the house.
I have pointed out already that so effective was the study made by that committee that a' bill would have been introduced by the then prime minister, Mr. King, in order to remove this record of partisanship which for too long has been the lot of the House of Commons every ten years, or even oftener in so far as the western provinces are concerned.

I should like to refer for a moment to the various systems in effect in other parts of the commonwealth. I have already given the house a not very detailed but I think sufficient summation to indicate what the plan is in Great Britain. I should lie to refer now to the Australian system which is set out in more detail in the minutes of evidence attached to the report made by Mr. Bothwell to which I allude4 a few moments ago. Here is the system followed in Australia:
A distribution commission is set up. Each state returns the number of members of the House of Representatives to which it is entitled on a population basis, but subject to the provision that each original state shall be entitled to be represented by five members.
The representation of each state is determined after each decennial census, and at an intermediate intercensal period five years thereafter, in the following manner-
In each state a commission is set up composed of the surveyor general and the chief electoral officer, with a chairman nominated by the governor general. In making a distribution the commissioners are instructed to give consideration to community or diversity of interest, means of communication, physical features, existing boundaries of divisions and subdivisions and state electoral boundaries. Objections or suggestions in writing may be lodged with the commissioners at any time during the thirty days following advertisement in the Gazette. After the thirty days mentioned the commissioners are required to submit their report and the minister must lay the report before both houses of parliament. If both houses of parliament pass a resolution approving the distribution, a proclamation is issued declaring the names and boundaries of the divisions. That in general is the system in effect in the commonwealth of Australia.
In the case of New Zealand two commissions are set up to provide for periodical readjustment of representation, one for each island. Each commission is composed of five members. That of north island consists of the surveyor general, two commissioners of crown lands who are named by their title of office, and two members not being members of the public service or members of the general assembly, as the House of Representatives nominates from time to time. One of the five is a permanent commissioner. Again in that case certain regulations are followed. A report is made and within ten days thereof the governor general is required to submit the report to the House of Representatives to be dealt with.
In South Africa they have a judicial system under which three superior court judges determine the matter subject to regulations.
Redistribution Each individual state reapportions its constituencies and determines what the representation shall be on the basis of constitutional or statutory provisions.
I have referred to these systems in order to indicate my support of the amendment moved by the leader of the opposition and because I feel that in the interests of equity and fairness and in order to preserve the highest principles of representation in a democratic assembly the time has come to do that which Mr. King would have done had war not come and to which throughout the years he gave undivided support. At that time he was supported by two great leaders of his party, the late Colonel Ralston and the late Right Hon. Ernest Lapointe, both of whom joined with him in the House of Commons in proclaiming the need of forever placing in the pages of history the record of the past and determining that parliament should once and for all assure that the bickering and prejudice which undermine our democracy every ten years when this question comes up could well be removed from partisanship as it has not been throughout the entire period of our confederation.


Mr. Calherwood:: I was paired with the hon.
member for Kent, Ont. (Mr. Huffman). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. Cardiff:: I was paired. Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Mr. Casselman:: No; on division.
Motion agreed to on division and bill read the second time.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, I move:
That Bill No. 393, an act to readjust the representation in the House of Commons, be referred to the special committee appointed to consider the results of the census of 1951 and the readjustment of the representation in the House of Commons necessitated thereby, with instructions to prepare schedules to contain and describe the several electoral districts entitled to return members to this House of Commons.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Donald Methuen Fleming: On division.
Motion agreed to on division.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Speaker:: Is it the intention to go into committee of supply at eight o'clock?


Alphonse Fournier: It is the intention to go into supply at eight o'clock, Mr. Speaker, and take up the estimates of agriculture, post office and the other departments mentioned last night.


Mr. Speaker:: If it meets with approval of the house, we could go into supply now and then call it six o'clock.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Robinson in the chair.


William Alfred Robinson: May I call it six o'clock?
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at eight o'clock.

[Stage Direction]
Special-
41.	To provide for assistance to encourage the improvement of cheese and cheese factories, $1,000,000.
Mr. Corry:: As the representative of a constituency whose citizens are vitally interested in the production of cheese, I should like to say a few words on this item. The cheese industry has had a good deal of consideration during this session. I do not wish to deal at any length with the difficulties which face the producers. Our inability to sell cheese on the British market has been a great disappointment to our producers; and the curtailment of our outlet in the United States, through the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease, has also contributed to the difficulty.
There was some good news yesterday. I read a press report which stated that the restrictions in the United States may be modified. We hope for some kind of beneficial effect on our industry. If every citizen of Canada would consume, on an average, one-half pound of cheese more than he has been consuming in the past the difficulty would be resolved immediately. Our cheese is the best in the world. We have improved our quality so that it is exceeded by none.
I should like to ask a question of the minister in connection with this estimate. I notice that two years ago the amount appropriated for this purpose was $1,400,000. Last year it was $1,100,000. This year I notice the estimate is $1 million. I should like to ask whether the reduction has been in the amount which was provided for assistance to encourage the improvement of cheese or the improvement of cheese factories.


James Garfield Gardiner: The quantity of cheese is down considerably. The amount of cheese that was being produced a few years ago was approximately 125 million pounds. Last

year it was about 80 million pounds. Of course the amount of money paid out is less.


Mr. Charlton:: The hon. member for Perth mentioned reading a newspaper article dealing with this industry. There is something in the press this morning with regard to the Ontario government doing something about the 15 million pound surplus. I wonder if the minister knows anything about that.


James Garfield Gardiner: I hesitate to make a report about it. It is really a provincial matter. It was dealt with in Toronto yesterday, I think, by Mr. Kennedy at a meeting with the cheese producers. My information, although it is more or less indirect, is that they were successful in getting rid of the cheese. I should not like to make that as a definite announcement, however, or even as an announcement at all.


John Alpheus Charlton: Is it entirely the provincial government that is doing that, or is it in cooperation with the dominion?


James Garfield Gardiner: It is entirely provincial, apart from this consideration; that they are organized under the federal co-operative act, which only means that we guarantee them against loss up to 80 per cent of the average price over the last three years. But all the transactions are carried on by the co-operative itself and largely under Ontario legislation.


John Alpheus Charlton: Is it a one hundred per cent responsibility of the provincial government now to look after surplus farm products across the country?


James Garfield Gardiner: It always has been their responsibility to look after them if they could sell them within the province; and cheese is largely sold within the province.


Mr. Fulford:: I have just one suggestion to make. Would it be possible for the Minister of Agriculture to persuade the Minister of National Health and Welfare to use some of the advertising which seems to be at his command to advertise cheese as one of the best and most healthful foods we can eat? We see a great deal of advertising by that department; and I know of nothing better on which to spend money than on something to get our own Canadian people to eat one of the most healthful foods produced.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Does that mean the hon. member for Leeds agrees with me that some of the present expenditures of the Department of National Health and Welfare are being wasted and could be much better spent in such ways as the hon. member has indicated?


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Supply-Agriculture
Special-
42.	To provide assistance for the replacement of maple production equipment, $500,000.
Mr. Wright:: What is the total amount that has been voted to date under this item? I notice it has been in the estimates for a number of years now. How long is it expected that it will take to replace this equipment?


James Garfield Gardiner: The Quebec government is expecting it will take two or three years yet in order to complete the expenditures that are necessary to make the change.


Percy Ellis Wright: What is the total of the payments that have been made under this item over the years? In what year did they start and what have been the amounts paid each year?


James Garfield Gardiner: They started in 1940, and the amount has been $2,250,000; that is, our share of it is $2,250,000. We pay one-third.


John Alpheus Charlton: I believe the minister told us back in 1949 that it started in 1936, carried on for a year or so, skipped the war period and then started again just after the war. There had been some money spent at that time.


James Garfield Gardiner: I think that is right, that it was started before the war began.


Percy Ellis Wright: Can we get the exact figures?


James Garfield Gardiner: The exact figures are here. We shut it off just at the beginning of the war for a time, but it had been going on for a short period. This record here is from 1940, which is for the war period.


John Alpheus Charlton: As I understand it, this item is for maple sugar equipment that was defective in some way.


James Garfield Gardiner: Those who are familiar with the maple sugar industry will remember that we used to be accustomed to see rusty pails hanging on trees. Someone conceived the idea of covering them with something which prevented them from rusting. It was a sort of lead covering, and the effect of the sap standing in the pails at times resulted in lead being taken into the sap and eventually appearing in the syrup, constituting a form of lead poisoning that condemned the syrup. The syrup that came out of those utensils was utilized largely in the making of cigarettes. The Americans objected to the syrup being shipped into the United States for human consumption.
We entered into an arrangement prior to the war; I think it is probably correct to say that we started discussing it in 1936. We did not get down to making payments until

Supply-Agriculture
1939-40. Payments up to the present have totalled $2,250,000 so far as we are concerned. It is a three-way arrangement under which the province pays one-third, we pay one-third and the people who are interested in the equipment take care of the other one-third.


John Alpheus Charlton: The minister says only $2,250,000 has been spent by the dominion government?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, that is right.


John Alpheus Charlton: A total of $2,250,000?


James Garfield Gardiner: Which is a lot of money.


Mr. McCann:: It is $8 million altogether.


Donald Methuen Fleming: One of your colleagues does not think it is a lot of money.


John Alpheus Charlton: How much longer are you going to continue this?


James Garfield Gardiner: The work is done by the Quebec government. We simply undertake to pay one-third of the cost and the Quebec government does the actual administration. They tell us it will take another two or three years, but I must admit to the committee that I think it has taken a long time now. We are not carrying on the administration; the Quebec government is, and we shall probably have to check up sooner or later as to whether we should continue.


John Alpheus Charlton: Is the Ontario government taking advantage of it also?


James Garfield Gardiner: No; it is only in Quebec.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
43.	For assistance in construction of potato warehouses under terms and conditions to be approved by the governor in council, $50,000.
A. Earl Catherwood: What is the principle upon which assistance is given under this item?


James Garfield Gardiner: Those co-operative organizations which have set up storages for potatoes started first in Prince Edward Island, and it has been taken on in some of the other provinces. The provision was that the province, or at least the co-operative, pays up to 25 per cent of the cost of putting up the storage and the province and the federal government split the other part equally between them.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
44.	Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act and water storage, $3,249,270.
Mr. Knight:: What is the estimate of the damage to the P.F.R.A. dams in the southwestern part of Saskatchewan owing to flooding conditions this spring?


James Garfield Gardiner: An order for return was brought down quite recently, or an answer to a question was given, I have forgotten which, showing the total amount, which is something over $300,000.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Are repairs to those dams being undertaken at the present time?


James Garfield Gardiner: Oh, yes, it is under way, and I imagine in connection with some of them pretty well completed.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Can the minister give any
estimate of the damage that has been done to the surrounding country in the loss of farms and livestock?


James Garfield Gardiner: We had an increase in our estimates, including the supplementaries, which amounts to about $500,000, in order to take care of the damage done around about and to make some improvements in the structures.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: The point I want to make is this. Does this vote include any compensation to the people who had losses in that flood?


James Garfield Gardiner: Well, it includes compensation in this way. We put some of the structures back in action that were on people's property and were destroyed.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I know the provincial government is making itself responsible for some portion of that cost. The dominion government is not working in co-operation with the provincial government on any scheme of that kind?


James Garfield Gardiner: Well, we are working in co-operation in this sense. I understand the provincial government put an inspector in at Eastend, for example, to inspect the houses that had been damaged, and to report upon possible improvements, and I think possibly putting some money in it as well. The federal government has done a great deal of work in Eastend and elsewhere through that area in putting the streets back in condition and putting the lots around the people's houses back in condition, pumping water out of their basements and re-establishing the situation in general. That is of course one of the reasons for the expenditure of that extra amount of money.


Mr. Bryce:: Is any of the money in this item for P.F.R.A. work in connection with cuts in the Assiniboine river?
There is only $50,000 in the supplementary estimates.


James Garfield Gardiner: Item No. 50 deals with the Assiniboine river, diking and cut-off.


Robert Fair: Will the minister tell me whether consideration has been given to extending the benefits of P.F.R.A. north of the present line west of Lloydminster and extending as far north as the North Saskatchewan river? I asked this question during discussion of item No. 1.


James Garfield Gardiner: Well, it is involved in the larger question that we were discussing yesterday, as to whether we are going to extend P.F.R.A. work outside the Palliser triangle. That has not been done up to now, and I do not know whether it will be given further consideration until we apply the decision to all Canada rather than just to that area.


Major James William Coldwell: I should like to follow the hon. member for Saskatoon with one further question. With regard to some of these big fires and so on that have occurred in various places in the country, the federal government has assumed some responsibility for rehabilitation and aid. What strikes me about this Eastend situation is that it resulted from the destruction of a government project, a dam. It seems to me there is some responsibility for compensation to individuals who have suffered losses as well as the town of Eastend and the surrounding territory because of the failure of a government project which caused the inundation of the town and the country around that town. I should like the minister to comment. The very fact that the department felt it should use its facilities to pump water out of basements, to repair the streets, to rebuild the lots around the houses and so on would indicate that the department at least felt that it had some responsibility. The point I am making is that it would appear to me that the responsibility is not recognized to the extent it should be to the individuals who have suffered. Has that been given consideration by the department and by the government?


James Garfield Gardiner: Well, yes, it has been given consideration. I think I explained here on one previous occasion the fact that it was given consideration; but there is a difference of opinion as to whether building the dam that was erected and placing the storage there, and also placing the controls at Cypress lake, which is above that, resulted in making it more likely that there would have been damage, or less likely. There was a dam there before the government stepped in at all, of course. The Watson estate had irrigation carried on at Eastend before the government *took any part in it. Later on the government took that project over and enlarged it. Our engineers maintain that anything that was done there did not increase the damage that would have been done in any case this year.
S upp ly-A griculture
There was a much greater flow of water in the stream this year than is usual. Damage would have been done in any case. I quite understand that one will never be able to settle that; there will always be arguments as between one group and another. We have equipment there which is working on irrigation all the time, in other words it is handling water. It is just a reasonable thing-it is not a matter of admitting anything at all- that when we have equipment there, and people's basements fill up, we pump them out. The fact is that we simply put the pumps to work, and pumped them out. That was the natural thing to do. However, it cost money to do it; and we require to have a vote to cover it.
The irrigation that was carried on there was not only in the country but was also done in respect of people's lots in the village itself. The water coming down through the village took some of the lots almost entirely away, at least it took away the top covering of earth. We used our equipment to put it back again. In some cases streets were torn up by the water, and we used our equipment in that connection, too. In other words, when we were putting in the ditches, the boxes, and all that sort of thing associated with irrigation, we completed the job in a way that was helpful to everyone.


Mr. Laing:: Mr. Chairman, I do not think this item should be allowed to pass without some expression of appreciation for the splendid work the department is doing through the expenditure of this money. I have no doubt the great number of relatively small works throughout the prairie provinces are of benefit to agriculture out of all proportion to the amount of money invested in them.


Major James William Coldwell: I agree with that.


Arthur Laing: We in British Columbia do appreciate the minister's entry, through this branch of his department, into one or two relatively small projects, the largest of which was a river containment plan at Pemberton. The hon. member for Kamloops is not in his seat to thank the minister, so I shall do so. There is some work being done on the west bench at Penticton and some work at West-bank in the Okanagan.
I was wondering if that expenditure would come under this item, and if we in British Columbia are officially acknowledged as one of the areas for P.F.R.A. assistance. I am wondering if we may expect the minister's engineers to continue their investigations within British Columbia, because in that

Supply-Agriculture
province there are a number of additional points where this sort of help would be of great benefit to us.


James Garfield Gardiner: The expenditures we are making in British Columbia would come under item 47 which deals with land protection and reclamation. However, it was as a result of the P.F.R.A. work we have done on the prairies that this work in British Columbia was undertaken some years ago. The first was in the Pemberton area, and it has been pretty well completed. I believe this season will complete what was undertaken there. There is the possibility of doing other work. We are undertaking further projects in the Okanagan valley and elsewhere, under this item.


William Duncan McKay Wylie: I listened carefully to the minister's statement a few moments ago about Eastend. It must also be remembered that Medicine Hat suffered a serious flood this year. Whether it was occasioned by the going out of the Seven Persons dam, I cannot say. We know, however, that the spillway of the dam went out, and that the results were disastrous. If Medicine Hat is to be treated in the same way as Eastend, then Medicine Hat should be given some compensation for the damage caused through the going out of the spillway. Is it the policy of the government to give assistance in cases of this kind?


James Garfield Gardiner: I should imagine the hon. member would know as much as anyone about the situation out there. My officials say they have not received a report about any serious damage at that point. We realize that there is damage, of course, in the event of a big run-off of water in the spring of the year.


William Duncan McKay Wylie: As a result of the spillway of the Seven Persons dam going out, the city of Medicine Hat was flooded. Hundreds of families were kept out of their homes.
I am sure all hon. members will recall reading about it in the newspapers. Today we are still taking up subscriptions to assist in putting the lots back into proper condition, pumping out the basements and other work of that kind. Many of the homes are damaged beyond repair. Would the policy that applied to respect of Eastend also apply to Medicine Hat?


James Garfield Gardiner: The Seven Persons dam is a small stock-watering dam. I can scarcely understand how it would do that much damage. However, we will check and find out whether it was the cause of the damage. I would imagine, however, that 
any damage for which we would be responsible would only be that having to do with the stock-watering end of it, at the dam itself.


Percy Ellis Wright: Under which of these items is work being carried on at The Pas in northern Manitoba in connection with the raising of dikes and reclamation of land?


James Garfield Gardiner: It would be under item 48.


James Neilson Corry: Mr. Chairman, I rise at this time as a result of the comments made the other day by the minister in connection with the possibility of the provisions of P.F.R.A. being extended to other parts of Canada. As the minister and hon. members will know, in Ontario we have a number of persons engaged in conservation work. While this is in its earlier stages, public opinion is gradually being awakened to a realization of its importance. I feel sure I am voicing the sentiments of many farmers in Ontario when I say we would be deeply interested in having set up, perhaps under different auspices, a body similar to P.F.R.A. to take care of this problem in Ontario.


Mr. Quelch:: Mr. Chairman, the people in the area I represent deeply appreciate the help that has been given to them in the past through the construction of dugouts. A good deal of irrigation has been carried on from these dugouts through the use of sprinkler systems. A short time ago the board of trade of Hanna passed a resolution, of which I believe the minister was sent a copy, asking that a grant be made toward the purchase of a sprinkler system. I raised this matter I think three years ago. At that time some confusion was created in the minds of the people out there as to whether or not it was possible to get a grant under the P.F.R.A. for the purpose of purchasing a sprinkler outfit. The minister said that it was not, but I believe there was an understanding that if a farmer paid the full cost of building a dam or constructing a dugout it would be possible for him to get a grant from the government for the sprinkler system in lieu of the money that would have been paid on the dam. I do not know whether that is correct, but I think the minister will agree that it is a reasonable proposition. If a farmer has constructed a dam or paid the whole cost of constructing a dugout he should be able to get the amount of money he would have got from the government for that purpose.


James Garfield Gardiner: It has not been our policy to assist in the purchase of sprinkler outfits. We do assist farmers to put in dugouts or dams. I suppose the dams the hon. member has in mind were put in before this policy was first in effect, which would be some

seventeen years ago. I doubt if since that time there have been many dugouts constructed for which assistance was not given. I would hesitate to go back seventeen years and start to give special assistance in connection with dams or dugouts constructed before that time.


Victor Quelch: Apparently the farmers were not aware that they could get grants and they went ahead and constructed the dams and then found that a grant could have been obtained. They were advised by the local agricultural authorities to use a sprinkler system, and they now wonder whether they can get money for that purpose when they did not ask for any assistance in the construction of the dams.


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not think the government would want to adopt a plan of that kind. It would seem a considerable expenditure of money for something similar to a lot of other equipment on the farm with which we might be asked to help as well.


Mr. MacKenzie:: It seems to me that we are in a rather precarious position. The government builds a dam to store water; then when the dam goes out the government must compensate the people for building the dam. It looks like a kind of vicious circle. Where do the provinces enter into these rehabilitation and protection schemes?


James Garfield Gardiner: The P.F.R.A. is handled by our own organization which spends the federal money. Personally I am a strong believer in the principle that the people who raise the money should spend it. In this particular case we raise the money and we spend it. I think we get better results that way. As far as a vicious circle is concerned, we probably do put back the dams when they go out. I suppose the principle is that they should have been put in well enough to stay there. We were talking about bridges earlier along somewhat the same lines. We have had no difficulty at all with by far the greater number that have been put in.


William Duncan McKay Wylie: I want to say that we do appreciate what the P.F.R.A. has done in the way of water storage, but many times a good dam is constructed and then the spillway is left uncompleted. I suggest to the minister and his parliamentary assistant that when dams are put in the spillways should be completed. We have had several instances of this kind, and I mention the Ross creek irrigation project in particular. The P.F.R.A. and the Alberta government spent considerable money on that project. The material was all there but it was not completed, and will
Supply-Agriculture
now cost the dominion government about three or four times as much as it would in the first place.
Then the spillway was not completed in connection with the Eagle Butte dam. We were all afraid that dam would go out this year, but fortunately it did not. It seems to me that when the P.F.R.A. undertakes one of these projects the spillway should be completed, because that is very important in the storage of water. I do not mean this as criticism; I am simple offering advice and suggesting that these spillways should be completed so that what happened this year, last year and the year before cannot happen again.
I am glad to see that the department is spending some money in connection with water storage because we need water out there, especially in the summertime. But when a good dam is built, see that the spillway is completed so the dam will be protected when the spring run-off occurs.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: I have been listening to the discussion, particularly that of the hon. member for Medicine Hat; and to a maritimer it would appear that when these dams are built, they are built by the P.F.R.A., and then when they do not work properly, it is still the fault of parliament. It would seem to me that it works both ways. If it works, it is the fault of parliament, and if it does not work, it is still the fault of parliament. P.F.R.A. then means parliament's fault regardless of action. It looks pretty hard to determine whether these projects should be undertaken.


Percy Ellis Wright: I would point out to the hon. member that when a wharf is built in Nova Scotia and for some reason it is washed out, naturally they want it replaced. They holler their heads off if it is not replaced.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: That is not the point. If the wharf is built and something around it is damaged, we would not expect the government to come back and repair it. Following your argument it would look as though after they were built it was still parliament's fault regardless of what happens.


Mr. Hosking:: I have listened with interest to the debate, but I would like to ask the minister who puts up the money if these dams require maintenance.


Mr. Blackmore:: I wonder if the hon. member would speak louder.


James Garfield Gardiner: If the others would keep quiet it would be all right.


Henry Alfred Hosking: I know that when these dams get into disrepair the farmers say, let it wash

Supply-Agriculture
out; we won't bother maintaining it because the dominion government will replace it if it does go out. I do not think that is a sound idea, and I would like the minister to tell us whether the taxes we pay in the province of Ontario are used to maintain these dams that are not properly maintained by the farmers.


James Garfield Gardiner: Very few of them go out, but unfortunately you only hear about the ones that do. The dams are maintained by the people who have been assisted. There is a general impression that we build these dams and dugouts and so on, but we don't. We simply make a subscription towards their cost. We pay what is presumed to be about one-third of the cost and the farmers pay the remainder themselves. When a farmer puts a considerable amount of money into a project of that kind he does his best to maintain it. He does not want to put it back in and the government does not want to put it back in if it goes out; so the people who are interested in the water maintain the structure.


George Matheson Murray: May I point out that P.F.R.A. assistance ceases beyond a certain triangle on the prairies. We feel that the benefits of the act should be extended in British Columbia, and in fact it is already being applied at Pemberton and Kamloops through the very good offices of the Minister of Agriculture. The conservation of water is very important in the Peace river country, and I hope the Minister of Agriculture will extend the benefits of the P.F.R.A. to the Peace river country of British Columbia. It is a vast agricultural country which last year shipped 5 million bushels of wheat to the markets of the world.
In this connection I want to pay tribute to the minister for having started P.F.R.A. at Pemberton, where a vast area was reclaimed and where many soldier settlers, Indian settlers and others were enabled to establish farms. We feel that a great tribute should be paid him and that a very great debt is owing to him for having instituted that assistance at Pemberton in British Columbia.
We are steadily advancing with the Pacific Great Eastern Railway, and we hope the minister will extend the benefits of P.F.R.A. to the Peace river bloc of British Columbia so that cereals, grains and other products from that area may be made available to the lower Cariboo and Pemberton area. In short,
I want to pay tribute to the Minister of Agriculture for having foreseen the development of the Pacific slope and that one part
[Mr. Hosking.j
of that great area may supply the other in the agricultural development of that part of the country.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
45.	Major irrigation and reclamation projects in the prairie provinces, $7,064,630.
Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: It is perhaps trite to say that the people of Saskatchewan are very disappointed at the tardiness with which the dominion government is proceeding with the work on what is commonly called the South Saskatchewan dam. I think the right hon. minister must bear some of the responsibility for that disappointment, because he has constantly painted glowing pictures of what the dam would mean to the province of Saskatchewan. He has said it would create a great agricultural revolution in that province, and I think with that I can agree at this time. The fact is, however, that this project has been delayed beyond all expectation, and indeed beyond all reason.
As I said, the minister himself has created glowing pictures of what that dam will mean to us as security against drought. I am afraid that in many of his pre-election speeches particularly he has made unfulfilled promises and we are very disappointed at the delay. I will not go into the history of the project.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: The hon. member for Lethbridge gave us a very interesting background of the story of that part of the country the other day, and the minister told him that when we got to this item he would be prepared to discuss it. I feel it is simply my duty to say that the people of Saskatoon, who are looking forward to the results of the building of this dam, if it is indeed ever built, would expect me to register the protests they have made. Representations of course are constantly made to me as their member. I have for instance in front of me a letter from the Saskatoon board of trade dated June 4, 1951, addressed to the Prime Minister expressing their desire in the matter and their disappointment that action has been delayed.
There is in that part of the country, as the minister well knows, an organization known as the Saskatchewan rivers development association, which is doing valuable publicity work in regard to the matter. They have an annual meeting, and I am well aware that annually at least they send the minister an expression of their desires. I have in my hand such an expression under date of June

15, 1951, in the form of a wire addressed to the Prime Minister. I think I should read this one:
Knowing that the irrigation of central Saskatchewan will raise the economic standards of our province to their proper place in our national economy and being assured that the South Saskatchewan river project is both feasible and practicable, we, the S.R.D.A. in annual meeting today, record our regret that the government has seen fit to delay approval of construction pending further consideration by a committee of experts; but in view of this decision we strongly urge the government to make this selection of experts without delay and that they be requested to hasten their report in order that an approval of the project may be entertained by the government at the coming fall session. So urgent is the need we ask that the project be proceeded with immediately.
I would also like to quote from the newspaper in our city, which certainly cannot be accused of doing anything but supporting this government and its kindred Liberal party in the province of Saskatchewan. I may say that is particularly true before elections; and if the minister read, as I have no doubt he did, the copies of the Star-Phoenix for the month previous to the recent provincial elections I think he will bear me out in that regard. I have not criticized the minister very severely, nor indeed the government, but this paper is more severe in its criticism. The article or editorial is entitled "No argument". It is contained in the June 2nd Star-Phoenix and it says among other things:
The federal government's decision to pigeonhole the South Saskatchewan dam project is only less amazing than Mr. Gardiner's reasons for doing so. The project has been studied, surveyed, analysed, discussed and debated for more than four years.
I think that is an understatement, because I heard the minister, as I have reminded him before, make a very eloquent speech at the technical school in Saskatoon in 1944 in which he promised untold millions for the construction of water projects in the province of Saskatchewan.


James Garfield Gardiner: The only part that is wrong is your last statement.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: The article continues:
On June 24, 1950, Mr. Gardiner assured an audience at Outlook that "I can tell you tonight that we know, that our engineers are satisfied the dam is feasible." He intimated that an arrangement between Ottawa and the provincial government for sharing the cost was the only thing then holding up a start on the project.
That is a very Gardiner-like statement.
That arrangement has since been made. And now Mr. Gardiner says more experts are to be called in to study, survey, analyse and debate, because, he implies, some of his colleagues in the government are still doubtful. Has the government lost confidence in its own engineers, we wonder? Or has it some other reason for stalling?
If Mr. Gardiner had used the international situation and the defence program as a pretext for delay-
Supply-Agriculture


George Matheson Murray: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I think it is quite out of order for an hon. member to quote reams and columns of things that have been printed in newspapers. The hon. member may easily state his own views or he might insert quotations from Eaton's catalogue. At this late stage in the session it is quite out of order for an hon. member to quote columns and columns.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: If the hon. member is challenging me to make a forty-minute speech I may take him up on it. I am quoting this editorial because I thought it was concise and would save the time of the committee. I continue to quote with your permission, Mr. Chairman, and without the permission of the hon. member who has just taken his seat. I shall finish in a moment.
If Mr. Gardiner had used the international situation and the defence program as a pretext for delay he would at least have had an argument. The dam project, spread over a 10-year period, would be a drop in the federal treasury bucket, despite the burden of the defence program; but it would do much to ease the effects of a dislocated, defence contract period on this province, not to say strengthen the economy of Saskatchewan and thus of the whole country, for peace or war. Still, if the government had used this argument it might have had some grounds for rebuttal.


George Matheson Murray: On a point of
order-


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: The argument it has used amounts to a direct slap in the face for the people of Saskatchewan.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Chairman, might I say-


The Chairman:: Order. The hon. member for Cariboo raised a point of order a moment ago, and the hon. member for Saskatoon explained that his quotation would be very short. As he was finishing his quotation, the hon. member for Cariboo rose again, and I thought it was to ask me to rule on the point of order he had raised. If it is true that the hon. member has now concluded his quotation, the point of order has been settled.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: At this late date in the session, Mr. Chairman, I shall not carry out my threat to make a forty-minute speech giving my own ideas, although I assure the hon. member that on this subject I could speak for forty minutes with the greatest of ease. I shall say this, and it is not a quotation. We understand well enough that this is a long-term project. We do not want this government to enter into a national proposition, as this certainly is, without due care and consideration. But I do violently object to having this thing made into an election political football. I do violently

Supply-Agriculture
object to being promised the project at every election, and then finding after the election is over that the government is pussyfooting and delaying getting on with the project. That is what I wanted to say.
I am going to make the prediction, Mr. Chairman, that before the next election comes there will be lots of dam building machinery down around the project. If the machinery is not there, then the minister will be there himself telling us once more that if the Liberal government is just returned to power in this country we will have the dam project in no time.


John Horne Blackmore: Would it not be wise for the minister to give us that outline of the project which he promised?


James Garfield Gardiner: I might say, Mr. Chairman-


John George Diefenbaker: Before the minister
speaks, I have only a few brief remarks I should like to make. I do not want to repeat anything that has been said. I believe the situation is that the commission has not reported as yet; therefore I may not be as critical as I might otherwise be. I should like to ask the minister to do what he can to get an early report. Certainly the postponements that have taken place and the excuses that have been made in the last two years for not proceeding with the work have aroused a feeling of antagonism which was clearly evident at the meeting which took place last week at Outlook, to which the hon.. member referred.
One interesting feature that was brought to the attention of the gathering there was a preview of the irrigation project which was given to those who were in attendance at this function, numbering some 243. I read from the Regina Leader-Post, in which it is stated:
A preview of what south central Saskatchewan may expect in the way of crops and crop yields when irrigation replaces dry farming here was given to about 100 visitors who toured the P.F.R.A. pre-development farm at Outlook Friday.
Dr. Thomson told delegates that it was a 1948 S.R.D.A. resolution that had been responsible for the government setting up the pre-development farm two years ago. And since that time the farm had been experimenting with a variety of crops to determine their suitability under irrigation.
The farm-160 acres-had 60 acres under the sprinkler system and the balance under gravity irrigation.
From the experiments that have taken place there, some indication was given as to the extent to which -crop rotation could be proceeded with in that area. I think that was a most commendable piece of work on the part of the department and one that deserves the support of all the members, particularly from Saskatchewan. We realize that if this
[Mr. Knight.l
project is proceeded with it will mean irrigation being made available to some 500,000 acres or even more, in an area that throughout the years has suffered, from recurrent drought. Certainly it is rather difficult to understand why it became necessary to set up a commission to review the conclusions arrived at by the engineers of the Department of Agriculture and those connected with the P.F.R.A. Those engineers know conditions in Saskatchewan. Their experience is practical; and more than three years ago, if my recollection is correct, they determined that this scheme was practicable and that in addition to the irrigation possibilities and the probable improvement of production- in that area, it would also provide a power development for Saskatchewan. Without such a development Saskatchewan could never hope to achieve a basis of industrial equality with the other provinces.
I think, in addition to the irrigation possibilities, the development of power there will be of material advantage in placing that province in a position to take advantage of some of its industrial potentialities. When you realize all the hundreds of millions of dollars being spent on defence, and the small drop as it were, finding its way into Saskatchewan, -and that it would be otherwise if there were a power development, the necessity for something being done immediately in this connection is apparent.
The commission was set up composed- of Dr. Hogg and two other distinguished gentlemen, Dr. Widtsoe and the president of the Calgary Power whose name I forget. That commission has had its ups and downs, and one chairman was ill. But the postponement and the procrastination that have taken place in connection with this matter are difficult to understand. The minister himself stated more than two years ago that this scheme had been found to be practicable and that there was no doubt as to the potentialities that were apparent in the province provided the plan was gone ahead with. For some reason-apparently the other ministers in the cabinet do not share the view taken by the Minister of Agriculture-the commission is set up. The commission now has been sitting for several months, or at least it has been in the process of sitting from time to time; yet we are apparently no nearer a solution to this problem than we were last year.
I feel that the delegates to this association were justified in the conclusions to which they came and to which the hon. member for Saskatoon made reference. He quoted from the resolutions or the general attitude adopted by the membership of this association; and no one can criticize them for taking the

stand they now take, namely that the time has come-to use the words of Dr. Tufts-to take off the kid gloves and let Ottawa know that Saskatchewan is fed up with delays and excuses.
With all the hundreds of millions and billions of dollars being spent for defence and with this being a project that is needed in Saskatchewan, one that will be self-liquidating, one that in the years to come will pay dividends far in excess of any cost, the latest delay or the latest reason for delay, namely that engineers have to be called in to ascertain what the cost would now be, is scarcely in keeping with the kind of action the people of Saskatchewan have the right to expect.
I look back to 1944 and just prior to the election of 1945. Many teams and outfits started to work there. They were in the investigatory stage. After the election we passed to an expenditure of about $1 million a year; but since 1949 there has been nothing but delay. Small expenditures have been made, but we in the province of Saskatchewan certainly believe that the views expressed by the association and by Dr. Tufts are representative of a viewpoint held without regard to party considerations. All we want the minister to know is that we are with him in what he has told us he is endeavouring to do, namely to get this work under way with as little delay as possible.


George Matheson Murray: In reference to the position in Saskatchewan, I would point out that none of us object to bringing as much prosperity as possible to the farms of Saskatchewan. But we are paying a large sum of money in order to indemnify freight from Saskatchewan to the various sources where animals are fed in Ontario, Quebec, British Columbia and elsewhere. I want to say that I have a brother in Saskatoon who is feeding 500 cattle. I have another brother in the province of Ontario who is also feeding cattle, either a lesser or a larger number. The one in Ontario receives the benefit of free freight on feed from Saskatchewan to Ontario and is, as it were, in competition with the other brother who, at Saskatoon, at the very source of this feed, is handling his cattle. I say the various parts of our country depend one upon the other. We must remember that a great sum of money is going out from the treasury of Canada to indemnify those who are shipping cheap feed from Saskatchewan to British Columbia, Ontario, Quebec and elsewhere in Canada.


Major James William Coldwell: I want to say a word on this item. If I looked at the map for the proposed new constituency of Rosetown-Big-gar, I think I could say that probably my
Supply-Agriculture
constituents will have a still greater interest in it than they have had previously; because if the redistribution is made in the way it seems it is going to be, Rosetown-Biggar will comprise the whole of west central Saskatchewan, and both sides of the great river; thus the irrigation project on the South Saskatchewan river will be almost entirely in the new constituency of Rosetown-Biggar. However, I do not mind that because, as a matter of fact, if this irrigation plan goes through it will irrigate one of the finest sections of Saskatchewan. Already those who have a knowledge of soils and irrigation tell me that the area to be irrigated, or at least 450,000 acres of it, is far above the average in the potential production and fertility usually associated with irrigation projects.
I have always been in favour of this plan and, like the members who have spoken, I hope it will not be delayed further. When the commission was appointed a year ago I was rather surprised at the personnel. This is essentially an irrigation project, with power important perhaps but incidental to it. Whether the development of power on the river is feasible or economic should not in any respect interfere with the carrying out of what is essentially an irrigation project, power being I repeat relatively incidental. I was therefore greatly surprised when only one outstanding irrigation man was included on that commission of three, namely Dr. Widtsoe of Salt Lake City who, as we know, is one of the outstanding authorities on this continent with respect to irrigation projects. The other two gentlemen, Dr. Hogg, the former chairman of the Hydro Electric Power Commission of Ontario, and Mr. Gaherty, president of the Calgary Power Limited, were both primarily interested in electric development. When a project was primarily for irrigation and power Was merely incidental thereto, and it was only in the power aspect that any doubt has been cast upon the project, as far as I know, I found it difficult to understand why a commission of that type should have been set up. I should have liked to have seen the commission weighted the other way, namely with two outstanding irrigation men and one power man.
This project has been a long time in prospect. As a matter of fact it was discussed a long time before 1944. I remember distinctly moving a resolution in this house in 1947.


James Garfield Gardiner: 1937.


Major James William Coldwell: Yes, 1937. I remember moving a resolution in this house dealing

Supply-Agriculture
with irrigation projects in Saskatchewan-it was during the drought period-and spending quite a little time on the possibility of using the rivers which flow through Saskatchewan and more particularly, of course, the southern branch of the great Saskatchewan river which we know as the South Saskatchewan. This project was in prospect long before that time, of course. There was the Pearce report and the Pearce plan. I have forgotten what year that was but it was in the early part of this century; I believe it was in 1922. I remember the hon. member for Acadia discussing that plan and the irrigation possibilities of these western rivers.
The government may take the attitude that there is not the pressing need for it at the present time because there is plenty of water on the prairies. As a matter of fact I have never seen as much water in the 43 years I have been on the prairies as we have there at the present time. But we all know that the history of the prairies proves that is only a temporary condition, and at some time or other that water will go and the prairies will be subject to dry conditions again.
That has been the history of the prairies; it is to be found recorded in the soils, and if you look at the rings of the trees you can find it written in the trees that grow in the prairie regions. I say to hon. members who are not from the prairies that in my opinion this is one of the great insurance projects , for all Canada and the economy of all Canada. By the time this dam is built and the irrigation ditches finished and the country irrigated we may once again enter upon a period of dry years. We do not know, but that has been the history of our prairie country.
I am most anxious to see this project proceeded with. I know it is a considerable project; I know the government and the country must be satisfied that the dam can be built; that the foundations must be such as to carry the dam and keep back the water and see that no seepage underneath will undermine the dam. 1 say that because I wondered why the minister introduced a doubt in Saskatoon quite recently: warning that in the event of the dam going out the city of Saskatoon would be the one city which would be wiped out.


James Garfield Gardiner: I did not introduce that recently. My hon. friend sitting behind the hon. member is able to tell him that I have been saying that for many years.


Major James William Coldwell: Well, this was the first time I had seen it played up to the extent it was played up on June 9 in the city of

Saskatoon. It almost looked as though the minister were trying to frighten the people away from the project. That was the way it looked to me when I read the newspaper report. But I am convinced of this, that the engineers who have surveyed the dam site know full well that a dam can be built with perfect safety and with security for the city of Saskatoon, and I have been satisfied that that could be done for a number of years now.
I certainly would like to see the report of the commission tabled in the house so we might know exactly what they had to say about it. I know that one of the reasons for the delay in the report is the illness of Dr. Hogg. Dr. Hogg I was sorry to learn has been apparently in ill health for a very considerable time. If I may say this with all due respect to Dr. Hogg- I know the difficulties the government would have in adopting the suggestion, but I am going to make it-in the interest of this project, if Dr. Hogg is to continue in ill health, extending over a long period of time, he should hand his resignation to the government in order that he might be replaced by someone who could carry forward this investigation, because delay is holding up the development of a whole section of Canada, in this prairie region, a region which has great potential production. Nothing else is holding it up.
I know it was said in this house, and I was rather surprised-I am not blaming the Prime Minister because the answer to the question of the hon. member for Kindersley would have been provided by his advisers- sometime in March that the delay was owing to the fact that the Saskatchewan government had not submitted a brief. Well, I happened to know from the secretary of the commission at that time, whom I met casually a short time before, that it had been agreed with the commission that no further brief was necessary, and that until the public hearings, if they ever were held, were undertaken, nothing more was expected from the government of Saskatchewan. I knew that at the time. I say I knew that from the secretary of the commission, and obtained the information in a casual conversation. Therefore I say, Mr. Chairman, that these excuses will no longer hold water. What we want is the dam to hold water, and I have no doubt that if the dam were built, it would hold water. As the hon. member for -is it still Lake Centre?


John George Diefenbaker: Yes.


Major James William Coldwell: As the hon. member for Lake Centre indicated a few moments ago the demonstration that has been prepared

at Outlook has illustrated what irrigation will mean to the area. Incidentally, the town of Outlook was across the river from the rest of my constituency in 1935; and I always wondered why it was included in Rosetown-Biggar at that time. Well, now it will be right in the very centre of the constituency because of the manner in which it is to be enlarged, so I shall have a beautiful garden in the middle of my constituency to demonstrate the feasibility and desirability of the South Saskatchewan river scheme.
When the minister rises I hope he will answer the request of the hon. member for Lethbridge and give us the information requested; but most of all I hope he will be able to tell us that the final report is about to be made, and that when the report is made-I hope it will be a satisfactory one- the appropriations will be made to proceed with this project.
It is quite true, as the hon. member for Lake Centre said a few moments ago, that we can find billions of dollars when we have to, and we have to find billions of dollars, for defence. I am not criticizing that; but when we have to find it for defence we can find those billions of dollars. Here is a plan which is a defence plan too.


John George Diefenbaker: And self-liquidating.


Major James William Coldwell: And self-liquidating, not a wasting expense as defence expenditures usually are. It is a self-liquidating defence plan, a defence plan against what? Against possible drought and impoverishment of a large section of the country, and needed in the production of quantities of food-and food may in the long run be the very best means of defence the democratic world can find in this period of the world's history. Therefore I want to join not only with members of the Conservative party and my own party and the Social Credit party, but I am quite sure with many members of the minister's own party, in urging the immediate undertaking of this great irrigation project in the province of Saskatchewan.


George Alexander Drew: Before the minister speaks on this I wish to add some comments to what has been said about this project. I do so because I think it would be unfortunate if the impression were unintentionally conveyed that this is something of interest only to the people of Saskatchewan. It is something of very great interest to the people of the whole of Canada.
One of the subjects that have been causing hon. members some concern in the past few days is the impact of the reduction of population in the province of Saskatchewan. That has been partly the result of changing
Supply-Agriculture
methods of agricultural production with the effect of greater mechanization, but also it has been very largely the result of the failure to deal with this problem years ago. Look at the areas where there has been a heavy reduction of population, and you will find some of the greatest reductions in the very area that would have been served by this irrigation project if it had been undertaken some fifteen years ago when it was first proposed and first regarded as a satisfactory project.
When I say this is something of concern to every member of the house and to every Canadian, I do so at a time when members are asked to regard the St. Lawrence deep waterway as a subject of interest to every Canadian. Those who live in the area where the most immediate benefit from the St. Lawrence deep waterway and power project would be felt ask the people from other parts of Canada to regard this as a national project, and not one that would be of interest only to that part of the country which will benefit most directly from the result of what is done in the area, at very considerable cost to all Canadian taxpayers.
May I say that the St. Lawrence project has been regarded in that light. I would like to see every member of the House of Commons regard the South Saskatchewan development in the same light, as a development which should be undertaken not only in the interests of Saskatchewan but in the interests of Canada as a whole, and as part of the general development of this country.
Having said that I do wish to emphasize the fact that this is naturally a subject of very great concern to the people of Saskatchewan living in that area. I am however impressed with the difference in the approach to this subject as compared with the approach to the St. Lawrence deep waterway. This government has committed itself irrevocably to the construction of the St. Lawrence deep waterway and the development of the power projects associated with it, although there are still uncertainties as to all the details connected with the carrying out of that immense project at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars. The government expressed no unwillingness to commit the Canadian taxpayers as a whole to this project, though it was clear that there were certain details still to be worked out. They recognized the principle as sound, and the government and members of the house have committed themselves to the fulfilment of the project, though certain details must still be carried out.


Mr. Low:: To the tune of $800 million.

Supply-Agriculture


George Alexander Drew: I believe that long ago the House of Commons should have been given the opportunity to express its acceptance of the principle of this project, and should then have said to the engineers, "This job needs to be done." I am not saying that any project of this kind should be undertaken recklessly or without adequate consideration. We have had adequate engineering advice to the effect that this is a sound project.
First of all, there is clear evidence to be seen by anyone who visits that part of the country that this irrigation area, now almost a dust-bowl, can become one of the most productive agricultural areas in Canada. It has already been pointed out that near Outlook there is an experimental area which has been irrigated. In that area one will see as rich production and as fresh growth as can be seen anywhere in Canada. In that area one can see evidence of what irrigation of this kind would mean.
I do not want to take issue with the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar in anything he has said, because I agree with the general views he expressed. But there is one feature of this project that I believe requires emphasis. While the first concern, naturally, is the restoration of the productive capacity of tlm soil in that area, and to that extent irrigation is the primary consideration, it should be remembered that it will only be with electrical power that the irrigation can be carried out. It will take a very substantial part-perhaps a third or a half-of the primary electrical power to carry out the full project, and to provide the power for the pumping stations which will be needed to carry the water to the most distant points. Of course I admit that other types of power could be employed, fuel oil or gas, perhaps. But the project I have heard discussed when I have visited that area, and the plans I have seen, have been based upon the use of electrical power for the irrigation project itself.


Major James William Coldwell: I do not wish to be misunderstood; what I meant was that primarily this is an irrigation project.


George Alexander Drew: As I said, I am not taking issue with the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar. I was simply pointing out that the development of power is an essential feature of this development, unless fuel oil or natural gas were employed for that purpose. Conceivably at some time that might be a desirable development; but in the first instance it would seem -that electrical energy is the most economical method of carrying out this development.

I do not claim expert knowledge beyond the fact that I have been associated with some decisions connected with power development of one kind or another, but I think it is safe to say that there are few places in Canada today where construction would be easier in connection with the erection of a dam for holding back the water for purposes of irrigation, and also for the provision of the necessary headwaters for the production of power in that area.
As I understand it, the engineers have agreed on a site where a dam can be constructed satisfactorily. There are no great rock cuts; there are no diversions of rivers or anything of that kind involved. It is a straight filling proposition between even, river banks, one of the simplest engineering projects that could be imagined for the purpose of carrying out this great undertaking.
I am convinced that those who have been associated with the advancement of this project over the years have been working on a perfectly sound basis. Dr. Tufts, at Outlook, who has headed the local organization, has at all times spoken with moderation in regard to the project, and has at all times, along with those associated with him, sought to rely upon expert engineering reports in the proposals he has made. I mention this now because, while the effect of anything that is done will naturally be felt immediately by the people of Saskatchewan, I think all of us in the house should regard it as the responsibility of Canada as a whole, and we should ask the government to commit itself without further delay to the decision to proceed with this project. There is plenty of evidence that it is a sound project, and the engineering details can be worked out by those who are entrusted with the fulfilment of the undertaking.


Mr. Si. Laurent:: The government will not commit itself to this project until there has been a report that it is sound economically, and that it would be a proper investment of the money of the people of Canada. But if that is established-and I hope it will be established, as I have said before in the house-I think it is a project that is not merely in the interests of Saskatchewan but is in the interests of the Canadian nation.
There have been many engineering reports that it is physically possible to build a dam there that will stand, although it is a very high earthen embankment that is required, and not just as simple as the leader of the opposition, in his remarks, would represent it to be. There have been engineering reports upon it, and it has been established to our

satisfaction that it is physically possible as an engineering proposition.
There remains the question as to whether that would be a proper capital investment for the people to make in view of its cost and the benefits to be derived from it. With respect to the production of electrical power there is still a question as to whether it could be produced more economically from the water that would thus be stored up or from low-grade fuels which are abundant in that part of Canada. That is a question upon which the leader of the opposition may have an opinion based upon data available to him; I have not. I have seen the reports made by those who hold conflicting views upon it, and I am not in position to form an opinion as to whether it would be better to produce hydro power or to use low-grade fuel to produce the same amount of electricity.
There is a considerable area that it is considered would be made much more productive. I do not remember the exact acreage, but I know it is substantial. It would represent a capital cost of many dollars per acre to provide the necessary reservoir. But I do not think that should frighten us. When our ancestors went ahead and built a railroad across the continent from one ocean to the other there were those who said that it would never earn its axle grease, but I think events have proved that that kind of investment and the spirit of adventure that made that investment possible was the kind of thing that has brought Canada to the position we enjoy today.
Hon. gentlemen will remember that in the speech from the throne in the session preceding this session three projects of national importance were put forward and lumped together. There was the St. Lawrence seaway project which will run into a large sum of money. A major portion of the hundreds of millions required for that project will be devoted to the production of hydroelectric power. I have been informed by reliable sources that the production of that power will mean to the people of Ontario, over and above the interest and amortization and the cost of operation of the hydroelectric plant, a saving of at least $25 million per year when compared with the cost of producing power by any other means that would be available.
The other half of the hydroelectric development will be paid for and taken care of by the agency to be appointed by the government of the United States to develop its share of the waterpower available. There will still be two or three hundred million dollars required to provide a seaway through the reservoir that will have been created for
Supply

Agriculture
hydroelectric purposes. That is a lot, but I do not think that scheme is any more venturesome in this day than whs the construction 75 years ago of a transcontinental railroad.
The second scheme put forward at the same time was the Canso causeway. The industrial development of central Canada has been more rapid and spectacular than that of the maritime provinces, but I think the portion of the maritime provinces which offers perhaps the best possibilities for large-scale development of natural resources is Cape Breton island. Though a causeway will be a costly undertaking I think it is of national interest to link Cape Breton island to the rest of Canada in such a way that its potentialities can be developed to the fullest extent.
The third project was the South Saskatchewan river project. This is of particular interest to the central prairies, but it is also of interest to the whole of Canada to have Canada developed in such a manner that there will be no depressed areas in this country.
These three projects appear to fill out the picture, because we know what huge developments are taking place in British Columbia; we know what huge developments are taking place in Alberta; we know what developments are in prospect in northern Manitoba for the promotion of which authority was given at the last session of parliament to the Canadian National Railways to construct a line of railway. I think all members of this house realize that these projects, though located in particular areas, are of national importance if they are sound and if we can get evidence reasonable men will accept that they constitute a proper investment of the capital of this country.
I hope this commission will find that the South Saskatchewan project would constitute a proper investment of the amount of capital required to bring it into existence. If it does there will be a commitment by this government, and I am sure there would be a commitment by any government in office, to carry out the project provided there are satisfactory reports that will justify us in saying to the people of Canada, "We think this is sound, and we think the future will demonstrate that this is going to help to maintain our agricultural development in balance with our industrial development."
Our population has increased two and a half times in the last fifty years; from five and a quarter millions it has become 14 millions and is increasing now as rapidly as at any time this century. This means that at

Supply-Agriculture
the end of the century there will be no less than 35 million people for whom the country will have to provide agricultural sustenance. That means that agriculture will have to be able to produce from the same areas two or three times as much as it is producing at the present time.
I am sure all those who envisage the future of this country with the confidence which I think our resources warrant would wish to see all sound capital investment made that will do for the generations to come what the investment made by our forefathers have done for us, the Canadians of this year 1952.


Solon Earl Low: Mr. Chairman, I think this has been the finest debate I have heard in this house on the subject of the South Saskatchewan river project. I was delighted to hear both the leader of the opposition and the right hon. Prime Minister express views on the subject tonight. It seems to me that in their cogent statements can be found great comfort and hope for the people, not only of Saskatchewan but of all Canada, who have been wanting to see this great project completed at the earliest possible time. I want merely to stand as a sort of second witness to some of the things that have been said- not, Mr. Chairman, to take time unnecessarily but because I believe what I have to say will be quite important and quite pertinent to the subject under discussion.
I am glad to see the Minister of Finance here tonight because some of the things I have to say are going to be directed right to him. He is the main person on the treasury board and I want him to pay particular attention to one or two things I shall have to say.
We in the province of Alberta, Mr. Chairman, have proved the value of irrigation in the west. We started in that province as far back as 1889, and I have witnessed in my lifetime what can happen to a farm on that very dry Palliser triangle when water is applied to it. I have also witnessed-and this bears out what the Prime Minister said a moment ago-the development of a small scheme in southern Alberta where the Alberta Railway and Irrigation Company in 1889 built a project at its own expense, settled the area, colonized, developed and eventually practically gave the whole project to the settlers, because they found that settlement and development was contributing so much to their traffic and freight income that it was possible for them to do that very thing.


George Matheson Murray: Mr. Chairman,
Brigham Young was a hundred years too soon.


Solon Earl Low: You were a hundred years too late. My hon. friend from Cariboo must be feeling pretty good again tonight, but I can appreciate that and I can shake off his remarks.
I also saw the Canadian Pacific Railway develop a project in central Alberta, colonize it and eventually hand it over to the settlers for the sum of $1; and in addition they gave those settlers a considerable sum of money- if I remember correctly it was pushing up to half a million dollars in cash-to help them, finance the works and so on that in time [DOT]were expected to be completed. If they could do that it simply evidences what the Prime Minister has already said; that the cost of development of these great national projects to strengthen our production can be reaped many times over in the revenue received by the railways, by the federal treasury, and in a good many instances by business concerns.
Now, Mr. Chairman, as I said we have demonstrated all that. Although the province of Alberta has had to carry some pretty heavy costs in the past that was due to the fact that up until comparatively recently there was no such thing as an agreement between the provinces and the dominion for sharing the costs of irrigation. In Alberta the Lethbridge northern irrigation district was formed in 1918 or 1919, if I remember correctly. I recall only too well the history of that project and what it involved. As I remember, it cost them $50 an acre of irrigable land to build the project. That cost was presumed to have been attached to the land itself and the settlers were supposed to be able to pay the capital cost and to make out in time from the profit.


Arthur Laing: Is that the E.I.D.?


Solon Earl Low: No, that is up in central Alberta. I am speaking about the Lethbridge northern irrigation district in and around the city of Lethbridge.
The government of the province of Alberta had to guarantee the bonds of the Lethbridge northern irrigation district to the full extent of the $50 an acre cost. It was about 1919 or 1920 that they got under way. The bonds were sold under a guarantee of the province; but, Mr. Chairman, in spite of the fact that the land was good, that the system itself was good, that the works were excellent and that the farmers put on the land learned quickly how to use the water, it took a good many years before that project began to return sufficient to the settlers that they could pay off the indebtedness; and then not until the province of Alberta finally took over and assumed the full cost of the project

they had guaranteed. Since that date they have been paying interest on the bonds and paying off the bonds-


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Solon Earl Low: Yes.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: When did this land come into production and what was the state of prices at that time? Did they come in at a bad year?


Solon Earl Low: No, the land began to come under ditches in about 1925, if I remember correctly, and that would be in the heyday of the buoyancy of this country. It is the Lethbridge northern I am speaking about; and at that time it was presumed that the total value of the land, including the $50 per acre cost of putting the water on it, would be approximately $100 to $125 an acre. Well, the settlers were presumed to be able to pay the $100 to $125 an acre, but it was demonstrated for at least some years in the hard times that they could not do so. If I remember correctly, about 1933 or 1934 it was necessary for the government of the province to assume the indebtedness against the project and start paying the interest on the bonds themselves.
Now, Mr. Chairman, that project will cost the government of the province of Alberta, before they are finished with it, $11 to $12 million, I believe; but it has proved its value many times over and the province does not regret the dollars they have spent on it. The project has become a wealthy project that is producing in tremendous abundance and does contribute immeasurably to the stability of our province. The Picture Butte sugar refinery is built on that project and is producing something like 100 million pounds of sugar per year. That in itself, together with the auxiliary industries like the feed industry in that area, makes it a very important project indeed.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I am grateful for this. Eventually the federal government came to realize that these irrigation schemes were national development projects, and they are now recognizing that fact more than ever. The Prime Minister informed us of that tonight when speaking of the South Saskatchewan dam. But it has taken some years to come to that point of view, and now in the province of Alberta we have one or two fairly large schemes under way that are based upon a contribution of about 50 per cent federal and 50 per cent provincial money. That is all to the good and we in Alberta are not complaining about it. In fact 55704-249
Supply-Agriculture
we are very thankful that the Minister of Agriculture and his associates in the dominion government have seen fit to value those projects highly enough that they will contribute 50 per cent of the cost.
There is just one thing I would like to say by way of encouragement to my friends in Saskatchewan. I want to see Saskatchewan get that project on the South Saskatchewan river as quickly as they can because I know what it will do for their province and for the rest of Canada as a whole. We in the province of Alberta have recognized so fully the value of that project to Saskatchewan and to the west that we have been prepared for some years to share our waters that rise on the eastern slopes of the Rockies in our province. We have already arranged that allocation of water through an agreement made with the federal government in 1948.
Having said that, Mr. Chairman, let me emphasize this important point. I suspect that one of the things that may-I am not saying will but may-hold that project up or delay it, and I am speaking now of the Outlook project for irrigation and power production in Saskatchewan, is that the federal government may insist on an agreement with the province of Saskatchewan on a fifty-fifty cost basis.
While it is perfectly true that in Alberta we have been making out quite successfully under a fifty-fifty arrangement on the Lethbridge southeastern and other projects, we feel that this project in Saskatchewan is not only a national development project but in some respects, Mr. Chairman, a reimbursement project. When I say that I mean that for a good many years Saskatchewan has been shouldering a heavy burden of cost as a consequence of dominion settlement policies prior to 1931 when the resources were handed over to that province. The people of the province were carrying the burden even before it was organized in 1905. I think the hon. member for Lethbridge made that quite clear when he described the Palliser triangle settlement and the problems involved as a consequence of that rather blind policy, as it seemed to me under the circumstances.
I want to declare my conviction that Saskatchewan should not be required to bear half of the cost of the Outlook project as is required under national development projects, some of which we have in Alberta and some of which are elsewhere in this country. I say that for this reason. The Saskatchewan economy simply cannot under present circumstances carry that 50 per cent of the cost. I am convinced of that. Let us look at three important reasons why I say

Supply-Agriculture
that. In the first place, remember that Saskatchewan has largely a prairie wheat economy, even today. That has been so ever since Saskatchewan was known; therefore the province carries all the disability of such an economy. It has good years when production is at the very peak, and years when the rainfall is bad, when wind, grasshoppers and drought cause poor crop conditions. At such times the economy of the province can hardly carry the ordinary services of government. I say that is a great disability.
The second reason Saskatchewan could not be expected to carry 50 per cent of the cost of that tremendous scheme, which I understand will be something like $100 million, is that the province is already carrying tremendous burdens by reason of its geography, population and so on. Let me give you one or two illustrations that help explain what I mean. In Saskatchewan today the number of miles of highway the province has to build and maintain per thousand of population is 169. Please note that, 169 miles of highway in Saskatchewan has to be built and maintained per thousand of population. How does that compare with Ontario for example? Ontario has to build and maintain 20 miles of highway per thousand of population. I understand that 38 per cent-I believe that is close to being correct, -of all the surveyed roads can be found in Saskatchewan, and there is only 7 per cent of the population. I am getting plenty of help from those around me, Mr. Chairman, and that indicates the importance of this subject.


Mr. Darroch:: Do you live in Saskatchewan?


Solon Earl Low: I am a neighbour of Saskatchewan, and I love those people, just as I love the people of Ontario. I want to see them get along. Saskatchewan, Mr. Chairman, has 850 per cent more miles of highway per thousand people than Ontario, and 400 per cent more than Canada generally. Just think of that for a little while, and then imagine the burden upon the economy of a province with less than 800,000 people. Those figures are correct, and if hon. members will take the time to look them up they will see that is true.
The same sort of illustration is provided by the telephone lines. The miles of telephone wire that have to be maintained per telephone unit in that province is 5 22/100, as compared with Ontario's 4 31/100. The acreage for the province of Saskatchewan compared to the population is 60-4, while in the province of Ontario it is only 6 * 6. Those figures tell a story; they indicate something
rMr. Low.]
of the terrific burden the people of that province do have to carry financially. I could go on and give innumerable examples of the burdens the province has to carry.
Let me point out, Mr. Chairman, a third reason why I feel Saskatchewan cannot possibly be expected to pay 50 per cent of the total cost of the project. There is a comparatively small population in this very large area, and they have a total budget of only $66 million a year to carry all the services for their people, pay interest on their debt, the amortization of the debt itself, and build public works and other projects. This $66 million is about equivalent to $33 million, as of the 1939 value of the dollar. This does not indicate very much in the way of financial resources.
Let us not forget this. If the population of that province is ever to be materially increased, that increase must be stimulated by industrialization and by large irrigation projects such as we are discussing right now. If the Outlook project is built we shall find the population of Saskatchewan going up very quickly, I have no doubt about that. Industrialization will proceed much more quickly than it has in the past.
I have given reasons, Mr. Chairman, why I feel that when it comes time to make a deal with Saskatchewan we ought to take into consideration those facts I have presented. I believe we should not feel that we have established a pattern by asking the province of Saskatchewan to pay 50 per cent of the total cost of the irrigation projects in that province. I think perhaps we have been fortunate in being in a position to carry our 50 per cent. I do not believe we should impose that sort of agreement on the province of Saskatchewan.
I do not want to take too much of the time of the committee tonight, but I did want to present that case because I am genuinely interested in the extension and development of irrigation in this country. I want to see Saskatchewan enjoy the benefits we have enjoyed in Alberta for years, but for which we have paid rather dearly.


James Garfield Gardiner: I believe the hon. member for Lethbridge performed a real service for the committee and the country in general by giving two days' notice of this debate. In this house we have a general rule to the effect that anything we want to bring up should have two days' notice. Usually it turns out to be a fair sort of rule, and one that is most helpful. At no time has it been any more helpful than on this occasion. Although it is not just in accordance with the rules, we did have two days' notice of the discussion. The other day the member

for Lethbridge suggested that we have a statement on the larger irrigation projects during this discussion, and at that time I said it should be made on item 45. We have been two days in reaching item 45, and we have had the discussion.
Two things have come out of the discussion which I think are most helpful, not only in connection with this debate but in connection with another very important debate that has been taking place. The first is that at least one member from the province of Saskatchewan is satisfied with his constituency in the redistribution.


Major James William Coldwell: Who is that?


James Garfield Gardiner: I think it is the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar.


Major James William Coldwell: I am happy to have the river in my constituency.


James Garfield Gardiner: He expects that the proposed dam, if it is built, will be in about the centre of his constituency. I of course hope that by the time it is built it will not be his constituency; nevertheless it is a good constituency in any case.
In addition to that, I think we have had tonight a fair demonstration of the advantage of not being in too much of a hurry. I have stated before in the house that I have been attempting to promote the South Saskatchewan river dam for the greater part of ten years now. The only objection I make to the statements that are referred to here from time to time in connection with speeches I have made is this. I do not object to anyone saying that the speeches have been eloquent, though I have not tried to make them eloquent. I do not object to anyone demonstrating that he remembers the speeches after they have been made. I certainly object, however, to anyone adding a little bit to them and saying I have ever promised anything in connection with them.
Those with whom I have been dealing, both in Alberta and in Saskatchewan, in connection with irrigation will, I think, be the first to say that I have never promised anything. I have continuously worked along with them to try to get everyone to the point where there will be acceptance of what we are proposing, and then to have it done. I have done my best at all times to promote the idea that the South Saskatchewan river dam is something that is worth while and ought to be constructed. I agree with those who have said that it was demonstrated about two years ago-perhaps it is a little more than two years ago-that the dam could be built with safety to Saskatoon and other areas, and it was in explaining that it has 55704-2491
Supply-Agriculture
been well established that the question was discussed in Saskatoon recently.
No later than during the last two months the final conclusions were reached in connection with that matter, through discussions which took place with some of the foremost engineers. Those discussions took place in Washington. The engineers were gathered from various points in the United States. What I agreed to do the other day was give a short outline of what we call the larger irrigation projects in western Canada.


Major James William Coldwell: As to that meeting in Washington the other day, has a report been issued? Is it available?


James Garfield Gardiner: I am coming back to that matter in a minute or two. First, I want to cover the four projects.


Major James William Coldwell: All right.


James Garfield Gardiner: What I agreed to do the other day was give a short outline of what we call the large irrigation projects in western Canada. About nine or ten years ago we started out to make a systematic survey of the water projects in the west, and more particularly those associated with the Saskatchewan river system. Out of those investigations we developed four projects, three of them in Alberta and one in Saskatchewan. The one in Alberta that has had the greatest amount of publicity has been the St. Mary dam project. Behind the St. Mary dam is another one known as the Waterton dam which is still to be constructed and which we must construct if we are going to have made available a sufficient amount of water for the other projects which are being discussed from time to time in western Canada. We have already undertaken that that is a part of that project, when completed, and is associated with the international relationships in connection with water.
The St. Mary dam. itself has been built at a cost of about $12 million, in round figures, with connecting ditches between that and the storages all through the area that is to be irrigated. The province has undertaken to arrange for the expenditure of a similar amount of money to complete the ditches and storages throughout what is known as the irrigation district. That irrigation district extends roughly from the neighbourhood of Taber, I think, on toward Medicine Hat. The result of the operations, when completed, will be that some 500,000 acres of land, or something approaching that figure, will be under irrigation.
One has only to travel from Medicine Hat to Lethbridge, either by air or by car, at this time of year in order to realize just what

Supp ly-A griculture
that irrigation has meant up until now. One passes over a road allowance near Taber, and one would think that one is in an entirely different country or in an entirely different area. The growth is great. The industry in the towns and villages is far more than comparable with that which can be found in some of the areas farther south where rainfall makes possible similar development. If one flies over it, one is moved to the conclusion that at least three times as many people live where the irrigation is as live where there is no irrigation.


An hon. Member:: That is right.


James Garfield Gardiner: To fly over the farm homes and villages in that area makes one feel that even the one-third of the people who are in the less densely populated area are too many for that area. They are not living under conditions which people should be living under. Immediately water is put on the land these people benefit to an extent that one who has not seen it can scarcely realize. I only want to say that much with regard to the matter in order to emphasize the fact that it is a good thing for a country to be irrigated, irrespective of what the cost may be.
As has been suggested, the general cost of getting that land under water is something over $50. It is about $54. It stands to reason that the farmer who is going to live on the land is not in a position to pay that cost in addition to paying for the land, and for those other costs of operation, and paying taxation in connection with the building of roads and all that kind of thing. He is just not in a position to do that. It has therefore been thought that some authority ought to take some responsibility for it.
Some years ago-back in 1941 or 1942, I think it was-we had a report made. It was called the Meek report. That report was compiled by five or six individuals, some of whom were engineers. A few moments ago the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar suggested that he was somewhat at a loss to know why the men who had been selected to be on the committee which is now investigating should have been chosen. This is all I am going to say about it at the moment; I will say a little more about it later.
One of the men, namely Mr. Gaherty, was on that committee. He was one of those who reported in favour of the irrigation schemes that are being developed or that are being talked about out in western Canada. He therefore has had experience which is of some value. There is not much need for discussing the St. Mary project any further than that. We have spent about $12 million

on it. The province is in the process of spending about an equal amount in order to get water on the land that is now being irrigated through the building of the St. Mary dam, and it will be necessary to spend another few million in order to put in the Waterton dam in order to provide further waters for utilization through that system.
The next system that has been under consideration is the Bow river. That is an old project which was started through the investment of British capital. Some $13 million were spent by a British company in order to start irrigation in that country. They started out with the idea that they could make the farmers pay all the money back. At one time they thought they could get them to pay $75 an acre. They realized before very long that they were just driving people off the land by attempting that. Later on they reduced it to the neighbourhood of $50 an acre, and still it was too much. Finally they got it down to $27 an acre, and I think they are still asking them to pay $27.
My opinion is that prior to the war it was impossible for these farmers to pay $27 an acre. None of them was clearing his land. But the last time I was there and discussed it with them about half had their land absolutely clear as a result of the fact that we have had high prices and high production during the war period and since. But even when one went there three or four years ago and took a look at that area one was disappointed. When one compared that with what one would see down around Taber and in that country one was disappointed, because the surroundings of the homes were not very much better than they were out on the dry lands of the prairie country. The reason was that too much was being taken out of the persons who were living on the land, and they were not able to maintain their homes in the way they should be maintained.
To make a long story short, the government decided to buy out the interest of those who had been in the project before. We paid $2,225,000 for it, and we are improving the ditches. We are now developing or levelling the lands and making it possible for people to settle on some 40,000 acres more in that area; and we are bringing the people to settle on it from the lands that we are developing into pastures elsewhere, in order to take them off dry land.
That development is going along and I do not need to say any more about it than that we had financial arrangement from the beginning with the Alberta governments with whom we started to make agreements; and it is written into our correspondence in connection with those agreements that we would

develop first the St. Mary project; that is, we would put in the storages in the St. Mary project; that we would adopt the same method and develop the Canada Land and Irrigation or the Bow river project. I should say before leaving that, that associated with it are some lands that the province is developing, as well as the lands which we are developing, and the number of people who will be served by that is much greater than the number we are placing on the land.
Well, then, there is the third project in the province of Alberta that has been fully investigated, and that we would be in a position to proceed with at any time if it were once determined that those projects are going to be gone ahead with; that is the Red Deer project. The lands that we are concerned with are largely around Hanna. Some 400,000 or 500,000 acres of land in that project could be irrigated. I am not going into the details as to how it could be done. Dams would have to be built; siphons would have to be built; ditches would have to be dug in order to take the water down closer to the area, and the costs could be on about the same basis as they are down in the St. Mary area. The costs there work out at about 50 per cent by the province and about 50 per cent by the federal government if we once undertake to go ahead with the project in co-operation with the provincial government. The costs of that project would be considerably less than the St. Mary dam project.
There is one difficulty about the discussion of the question recently, and it is that some of those who have been discussing the matter, and some of those who have been placing it before this commission that has been sitting have again started to discuss the old Pearce scheme of years ago. That was a scheme I heard discussed when I became a minister seventeen years ago and went to Hanna. At a public meeting that was being held that scheme was still being talked about. That scheme envisages the digging of an open ditch from Hanna to Saskatoon, about 500 miles long, through country much of which is sandy, where there would be great leakage of water from the ditch out over the areas, and where the costs of getting the water down there would be very great.
To make a long story short, at that meeting the engineers who were present convinced themselves and convinced everyone there that we should drop the idea of the Pearce scheme, of this ditch running all the way to Saskatoon and irrigating not only 500,000 acres of land at Hanna but some million acres of land between that and Saskatoon, including the lands now spoken of in connection with the
Supply-Agriculture
South Saskatchewan river. But unfortunately a few parties have started talking about that project all over again, and putting it forward as something that would get better results than putting in the South Saskatchewan river project. I want to say that so far as I am concerned, and so far as the people of western Canada are concerned, I think we were convinced long ago that that was not a project which was feasible. They are still convinced of that, and are not asking the government here or the government of Saskatchewan to proceed with a project of that kind. Therefore I suggest we are pretty well convinced that the Red Deer project could be carried out. It is a possibility, and the expenditure there is not sufficiently high to warrant anyone saying there is any question about it from any point of view except irrigation; that from the irrigation point of view it is as feasible a scheme as the St. Mary or the Bow river project.
The South Saskatchewan is in a different class. In the first place it is much more costly. We are talking about $25 million in the St. Mary; we are talking about $12 million or $15 million in the Bow river; we are talking about a similar amount on the Red Deer. But when you come to the South Saskatchewan project it is at least $103 million. There is some question as to whether it can be done at the present time for $103 million. In 1947 it was estimated by engineers that it could be done for $103 million. Some people say it could not be done for that now. In any case, it would take ten years to construct. One cannot be sure whether costs will be up or down over the ten years, but in any event it will cost at least $103 million, and that is a lot of money.
It has been suggested that we have the wrong type of individuals on the commission that is investigating the whole matter. It has been suggested also that probably it was not necessary to investigate the whole matter. I should like to say that I am fairly well convinced-I am convinced-that the dam can be built. I am convinced that the engineers we have developed over the years in connection with this kind of work are the best engineers in Canada at least, the best engineers that can be found anywhere to deal with water development. As a matter of fact I think they are the only engineers that have the ability, because of their experience and training, either to examine into or to give a final answer to the question whether a dam can be built and what the results of building a dam would be in so far as that area is concerned. But we were not satisfied to rely upon these men, and so we went down to the United States

Supply-Agriculture
and got three of the best engineers that are known, one of them being Mr. Ferguson, who was associated with the building of large dams down there, and associated with the army throughout the war. Another was a professor at Harvard university, who is the best authority in the United States on such matters. Another was an engineer in the city of Chicago, who has been associated with these larger projects. We got the opinions of those men two years ago with regard to the feasibility of the dam, and there was not any question about their opinions. There was no question in their minds. Well, it was those men who were approached in Washington a short time ago, and they have again given opinions just as strong as or stronger than they gave two years ago; and their opinions of two years ago are on the record.
It has been said that we ought to have a different type of men on the commission. I would just like to say that men are not as easily got at the present time as they were some years ago. Some people wondered why it took us so long to get the commission set up. We tried to get-and when I say "we" I mean the government did-four of the top-notch engineers in the United States and, one at a time, offered to appoint them. The first of those who were recommended did not find it possible to take it on. Then when that one did not find it possible to do it, he recommended still another one, until we had been in touch with the four of them.
It took some considerable time to give these men the opportunity to determine whether or not they would take the position. Finally they all turned it down. They said they had other work which was taking up all their time, and for that reason they could not take on this work. So eventually we got back to using Canadian engineers, in so far as the power end of it was concerned. So we have two men. And, as has been said by others, one of them became sick early in the year. He had two or three operations and was not able to get back on the job until April. So that accounts for some of the delay.


Major James William Coldwell: Is he back on the job now?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, and he has been back since April. That, as I say, accounts for some of the delay. But may I say that what we have heard tonight is an indication that that time was not wasted. I think the leader of the opposition will be the first to agree that when he went out west at first, after having been chosen leader of his party, he stated to the press that he was not informed with regard to the matter, and on that occasion he did not discuss it very freely. He

went back later and became better acquainted with it, and on that occasion discussed it more freely.
More recently he has been stating quite openly that he is in favour of the construction of that dam. Others have taken a similar position; some had taken it before, and some have taken it since. But the most hopeful fact of all was what the Prime Minister said tonight. I think if hon. members will go back over the story they will realize that was not a new sentiment expressed by the Prime Minister. Before he became Prime Minister he expressed exactly the same opinion with regard to the St. Lawrence and related to it the South Saskatchewan river project, as he did tonight. He expressed that opinion in the city of Quebec, I believe it was, a year or two before he became Prime Minister. Since that time, on every occasion he has discussed the question he has shown sympathy with the idea.
But at the same time, being at the head of the government of the country, and the one who must take the responsibility eventually for any expenditures made, he has taken the position that we ought to remove any doubt with regard to the matter, if it can possibly be removed, before undertaking the project itself. I have not been inclined to hurry the Prime Minister or to hurry other members of the government, as they will agree. I have been inclined to say that I am still convinced myself that the project is a good project; I am still convinced that it would be one of the most helpful things for the people of Saskatchewan that could possibly be done by this government; and, through the people of Saskatchewan, also most helpful to the people of all Canada.
At the same time I must admit that what the Prime Minister said tonight was that some question had been raised as to whether the most feasible way of developing power is by developing it from water. That idea was not raised by our engineers; it was raised by an engineer engaged by the provincial government; and let me say that I am not criticizing them for engaging him. We get all the information we can in all these matters. Nevertheless he did raise the question whether the power could not be developed more cheaply from coal than through the damming up of these waters. He even raised the question of gas, too, which arose from the fact that gas was found in the neighbourhood of Rosetown, and it was thought possible even at the time he was making his report that that might be a possibility. Gas has been found there, and it has been suggested that it might be used for the purpose.

But what those of us who are in favour of the dam have been saying persistently and consistently is that it does not make any difference how you get the power; it does not make any difference whether you have power from the water that is there, or whether you have power from coal, or whether you have power from gas, or whether you get all the power you require from oil. The fact is that the power is not any good in that country unless you get water first. There has to be water before there can be any industry. It does not matter whether there is power or not. You cannot put industry in an area where there is no possibility of having a water supply. That would be not only for the purpose of developing power, but for the purpose of supplying water for all the uses to which water would be put in industry.
So we have always contended that the lake must be there. After that we have said power can be developed from that lake, and that the development of the power itself could be charged up to the land that is going to be irrigated. What the report actually does say is that if you charge the proper amount of the cost up to the power that will be developed, then the cost that will be charged against the irrigated land is almost exactly the same as the cost that is charged up in the Lethbridge area, and that is about $54 an acre. So the contention is that the dam should be built and the power should be developed. One of the reasons for having on the committee men who are associated with the development of power is to satisfy everyone that that is a possibility.
When you have satisfied them that it is a possibility, there is still one other question. Is the development of industry which would be associated with the development of power and the finding of gas, and everything else associated with it that is made possible by having a lake in the middle of the area, something that is worth while for the people of this country? I must say that is one feature which the Prime Minister emphasized tonight. He hoped the result of the investigation would be such that we could all come to the conclusion that that is a fact, that the putting of a dam there and the making of a lake 145 miles long and 180 feet deep in the middle of an area short of water practically all the year round, and one year after the other, would be helpful to the whole of the Dominion of Canada. Once convinced of that, then he has suggested to us that there would not be any question, no matter what government is in power, as to whether that project would be proceeded with.
Supply-Agriculture
So I say the time has been well taken, first by the hon. member for Lethbridge bringing up the question at the beginning of the debate and, secondly, through the discussion we have had tonight. I think the time has been well taken, too, in having the question so carefully looked into. I am not sure that I want to hurry the commissioners; I am not sure what they would say if they were hurried too much. I want the commissioners before they report to have all the facts in front of them and to have the views of people right across Canada as to what they think about it. To hear men talking as they have talked here tonight, saying that other parts of Canada are just as much concerned with having this dam built as we in Saskatchewan, is worth all the waiting anyone has done. The more they keep on saying it, the better it will be. I remember when Mr. MacNicol used to sit over there. He never let a session go by without hammering into all of us that the most important thing to do in so far as the west was concerned was to utilize every drop of water that could be obtained in this country. It is nice to know that after he has gone there are others who are taking up the cudgels and saying the same thing.
Some suggestion was made in the editorial read a while ago that I may have said in Saskatoon that the reason we have delayed is the expenditures upon defence. The reason I did not say that was that I did not think it was true. That is not the reason there was delay. No one has ever said to me that is the reason why there was delay in connection with this. The suggestion has been that we want to be absolutely certain, first that the dam could be put there and kept there, which I think is pretty clearly established now; and second, that when it was put there the water would be utilized for irrigation purposes by the farmers who were on the land in that area. When we know that situation exists we will hope the project will be a good thing for all Canada.
Something has been said with regard to what the department has done in connection with an experimental farm. There is a small quarter section farm near where the dam will be which has been demonstrating what irrigation can do. I do not place as much importance upon that as do some who have spoken. It has been known for a long time that if you can put water on the land in western Canada it will grow more than any other land I know of in the world and in a shorter period of time. If we did pump water and distribute it on the land with sprays it was more to indicate to the people the methods they will have to follow if

Supply-Agriculture
irrigation is brought in. They would then know in advance what they would have to do and be ready to go ahead immediately the project was under way. I am quite sure *the discussion which has taken place will be helpful, and I hope that what has been said tonight will give some encouragement to those who have been hoping for the completion of this project.


Victor Quelch: Mr. Chairman, I was somewhat surprised to hear the minister say that certain people in Alberta are advocating the Pearce scheme in the place of the Red Deer project. That certainly is not the desire of the people in the Hanna area.


James Garfield Gardiner: I did not use the term "Alberta". I said some people out west. I was not thinking in terms of Alberta.


Victor Quelch: I am glad to hear the minister say that, because I would not like any confusion to arise. The people in the area around Hanna are still strongly behind the Red Deer diversion project. One reason for that is that they realize there is a great deal of opposition to the original project known as the William Pearce project which later became known as the North Saskatchewan project. As the minister has pointed out, that was a very ambitious project. It meant carrying water by canals to Saskatchewan where one million acres would have been irrigated, with half a million acres in Alberta. The cost would have been around $100 million. The project would have required the diversion of water from the North Saskatchewan river to the Red Deer river. A great deal of opposition arose to the proposal to divert that water.
When I was in Hanna several years ago I suggested that it would be better if they would adopt a modified project which would utilize the waters of the Red Deer alone. The Red Deer diversion project provides for the diverting of water from the Red Deer river by means of a canal to the Hanna area where approximately half a million acres would be irrigated. That would probably be one of the cheapest projects per acre of any in Alberta because it would cost only in the neighbourhood of $15 million and would, as I say, irrigate half a million acres.
The Alberta government are strongly behind this project. I am not going to say what perhaps has been said with regard to certain other projects, that the minister has played politics with this. During the last election he was quite frank when he spoke at Hanna. He told them that regardless of what the election might bring forth it was the intention of the federal government to 
proceed with the program that had been outlined. I very much appreciate the fact that he made that clear. Since that time the federal government has spent a good deal of money on engineering details with regard to the project and also on the actual construction of dams on Berry creek and Sounding creek.
However, these dams are dependent upon the run-off of surface water. Some years water accumulates behind the dams and other years no water runs off at all. When the Red Deer diversion project is completed water will be diverted from the Red Deer river down to Berry creek and Sounding creek. In other words these lesser projects will become part and parcel of the major project. I know that in the past it has been said that the area around Hanna is submarginal, but I think what has happened in the last few years has proved that it is good land. All it needs is water. During the past two years when we have had good rains the crops have ranged from 30 to 40 bushels per acre. All the land needs is water in order to produce heavy crops.
In addition the project will flood 1,200 miles of creeks which are dry, at the present time, and will help provide for the watering of stock being carried in that area. As I say, the people in that area appreciate what has been done, but they are becoming quite anxious as to the exact intentions of the government in regard to the project. As has been mentioned, the project originated back in 1922. It has been modified several times, and people have been hoping ever since that time that they would get irrigation. All they have so far is the number of small dams on Berry creek and Sounding creek. The minister has made it clear, however, that when the St. Mary river and Bow river projects have been completed the federal government, in co-operation with the provincial government, will be ready to go ahead with the Red Deer diversion. I was glad to hear him mention these projects in that way today.
I realize some people may fear that Alberta will take more than its share of the water from the rivers that flow down from the Rocky mountains and that perhaps not sufficient water will be left for irrigation in Saskatchewan and Manitoba. I understand, however, that a good deal of thought has been given to diverting rivers that flow into the Arctic to have them flow into Hudson bay. I have here a publication put out by the Alberta government entitled "Within our Borders" which reads:
Four rivers could be diverted into North Saskatchewan.

Plan of water resources office envisages diversion from Arctic watershed to compensate for irrigation drain on South Saskatchewan.
Water destined by nature to flow into the Arctic ocean may some day find itself in the Hudson's bay if a plan drafted by the water resources office is put into effect.
In a report entitled "Possible diversion from the Arctic watershed to the Saskatchewan (Hudson's bay) drainage basin," a plan is presented whereby the McLeod, Pembina, Lobstick and Wolf rivers would be diverted into the North Saskatchewan river.
Of course if that is carried out there will be no difficulty about a shortage of water, because that would provide ample water for the completion of the various projects contemplated in Alberta, and for any projects that may be contemplated in Saskatchewan or any other parts of the country. So, as I say, 1 was very glad to hear the minister mention that these projects were still being actively contemplated, and I hope it will not be too long before actual construction will be started on the Red Deer project.


Mr. Hodgson:: I would like to ask the
minister if there is going to be something doing in this project this year in the way of the commission sitting. I see in the estimates of the privy council an amount of $70,000 for that very thing.


James Garfield Gardiner: Seven million dollars.


Douglas Charles Abbott: No, $70,000.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is just for the commission costs.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: It was not in last year but it is in this year, and I wondered whether they were going to start sitting on this project.


James Garfield Gardiner: The amounts were not paid in this department last year, but we are providing for the payment this year.


John Horne Blackmore: Just before the item carries I should like to thank the minister for the excellent review he has given of the whole system of irrigation projects and their resulting use which will benefit the whole country. The dominion government is to be highly commended for this attack on the Palliser triangle, which is Canada's problem.
I think there might be just one point which should be emphasized finally and it is this. In my opening remarks I said and the member for Peace River said that we in Canada could not escape the fact that settlement of the Palliser triangle between 1900 and 1915 by the federal authorities then in charge of Canada incurred for Canada as a whole a responsibility to the provinces or to the administrations that were going to be under the necessity of assuming responsibility for the administra-55704-250
Supply-Agriculture
tion of the local affairs of the provinces that were to be formed from that area.
May I just review what I said the other day. It was well known from the days of Captain John Palliser in 1857 to 1860, by everyone who had a right to claim to be well informed, that the Palliser triangle area was not suitable for settlement by people intending to farm. It was acceptable only as ranching country where herds could be moved from place to place. For people who were settling down to live on the land it was absolutely unsuitable because of the altogether unpredictable nature of the rainfall in that area. Notwithstanding that, Mr. Chairman, those in parliament then advocated bringing in settlers and placing them in that area.
What was the reason for wanting settlers there? There were three reasons. The first was that the settlers would buy goods many of which would be brought in from the United States and on which they would pay duty, that duty constituting revenue for the federal government at Ottawa. Second, those people on the land would buy goods that would be produced in eastern Canada, and consequently they would provide a market for the goods of eastern Canada. Third, the bringing of those goods from eastern Canada would give the railroads business.
Although I have not the quotations before me, and I do not think it would be fitting at this late hour to read them, it is quite clear and it can easily be shown from the Hansard record of those days that those were the objects which were in the minds of the men who instituted the immigration policies under which settlers were placed in that area. Obviously then the main consideration in the minds of those men was the well-being of central Canada. I am not laying any blame on anybody, and I believe those men were wise notwithstanding the ultimate cost of the policies to the provinces concerned, but is it not about time to make up to the provinces that came to have the responsibility of governing those areas, the losses inflicted on them thereby?
There is one other thing. Really there are many things, but I do not wish to hold the house up long. The one thing is that I am very anxious that the people of Canada should get to realize from those of us who have grown up there what the facts are. Other members of the house have a right to look to us for information about that area, just as we have a right to look to the hon. member for Charlotte and the other splendid people from the maritimes for information about those provinces. If we do not tell them we are remiss in our duty.

Supply-Agriculture
So let me point this out. When the time came for the building of the Canadian Pacific Railway across the nation, the obvious place to run the railway would have been up through what we call the "good" areas in the north; the bushland, where crops are almost certainly assured. That route was shorter; that route was bound to be more profitable; yet it was deemed advisable to run the C.P.R. down along the southern border where it now is, right through this Palliser triangle where there would only be a meagre opportunity for the C.P.R. to make a profitable business out of its activities. Well, what was the result? The tendency was to bring the settlement in the prairie provinces down into that Palliser triangle. Once the settlers were there, there was a responsibility for providing them with roads, schools, and all manner of social services. That responsibility had to be assumed by the provincial governments. It had to be assumed in areas where there was likely to be a crop failure any year. It was wise to run the railway down along the southern portion. Why? Because the United States railways were beginning to show a disposition to tap into Canada with their lines. Manifestly that was not in the best interests of Canada nationally. But let us remember the fact that the railroad was put there and it indirectly placed an additional financial responsibility of considerable magnitude on the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta. Now when we contemplate the cost of building this dam and who is going to pay it, shall we say that we should require those provinces, and Saskatchewan in particular, to pay the full half of the cost of installing that dam? Can we look upon that as being equitable? I fail to see how we can.
There is another important matter, Mr. Chairman, that has a bearing on this whole thing. When the time came for the C.P.R. to be paid for building the railroad across Canada, paid with gifts of land, where was the land selected? It was selected in such a way that it scattered the population of Saskatchewan and Alberta all over these areas making it much more expensive to build roads to serve the people, to build telephone lines, to provide school facilities, and later much more expensive to provide health facilities. These two provinces, Saskatchewan and Alberta, have found it necessary for example to establish travelling clinics to bring medical aid to the people in more remote areas of the provinces. All those things have constituted a tremendous disproportionate financial drain on the resources of those two provinces. Alberta by good fortune, because of the resources she has, has been placed in a better position financially than Saskatchewan. In

my judgment Saskatchewan has done the very best she could with the resources at her disposal. The Minister of Agriculture knows, better than any other person in Canada, how meagre those financial resources are compared with the tremendous responsibilities that rest upon the government of Saskatchewan. I believe the minister will bear me out in that.
I thought it well to make those three or four comments before closing, just to reinforce what the hon. member for Peace River said. I shall back the member for Peace River every inch of the way. I too do not believe that it is in any degree fair to the people of Saskatchewan to ask them to assume half the cost of building this great irrigation project.
I should like also to express appreciation to all the members who have participated in this debate. I believe that as a result of this debate it will be made easier for the minister to get the support from all over Canada which he ought to have. As a result of bringing together the support from all of Canada, we shall be able to get this great project completed at an early date and put what we might call the capstone on these irrigation projects as well. This would show our intention, as a nation, to reimburse to some extent at least the people who have settled in that area of the Palliser triangle.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
47. Land protection, reclamation and development in British Columbia under such terms and conditions as may be approved by the governor in council, $184,996.
Mr. Fulton:: On item 47 I should like to ask the minister if he would answer today a question I asked him yesterday with respect to the possibility of extending to British Columbia the prairie farm rehabilitation administration, on a basis which would make it of general application to the province. Yesterday we reviewed briefly some of the earlier discussions, and the minister said it had been in his mind for a number of years to introduce legislation which would have that effect but that for various reasons it had been postponed from time to time. I asked him yesterday if he would give us a word about the relationship between the priority that must be given to defence requirements, and the possibility of introducing legislation.
In passing the minister referred to a very similar situation tonight when he mentioned an editorial which apparently alleged that the reason for deferring the Saskatchewan river project was because of the greater priority of defence requirements. They are obviously closely related subjects, and I

wonder if the minister could give us a general word on that aspect of it.


James Garfield Gardiner: There have been two reasons why the suggestion has been postponed from time to time. One had to do with provincial financial arrangements, and the other had to do with defence expenditures. It has not been considered wise to proceed with larger expenditure relationships with the provinces at this time. The idea has not been turned down; it has been postponed for discussion later.


Edmund Davie Fulton: There are one or two particular questions I should like to ask the minister with respect to British Columbia, just before leaving the general subject. As the minister knows, British Columbia in general has a great interest in the development within the Fraser river system of a general program of flood control, irrigation and power development. I refer again, merely in a general way, to the study which is now going forward there, and which I believe is under the over-all supervision of the Minister of Public Works. Prairie farm rehabilitation engineers are taking part in the study, so I should like to ask the minister whether it is contemplated that eventually that administration will take over the federal side of whatever project may be put forward. It seems to me it is very much the same sort of thing that is contemplated with respect to the South Saskatchewan, though if I may take the liberty of saying so I think the potentialities in that area are as great as if not greater than the other.


James Garfield Gardiner: The proposal that is to be made is one, of course, which would have to wait for legislation such as that to which I referred. Under the constitution as it is now the responsibility is upon the province, whether it is British Columbia or any other province, for that kind of thing. Until we have legislation covering it, it is not likely that we would go into the province and take part in that development. The Department of Public Works put up the diking, and it is not the usual thing to expect to have both diking and irrigation in the same area. The Fraser river valley is fairly well watered. It is perhaps the highest rainfall area we have in any section of Canada. Talk of irrigation in that same district is rather difficult to promote here.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Evidently I have not made myself clear to the minister. The Fraser river, as he knows, goes through two entirely different areas. In the interior or dry belt area where the problem is irrigation, the river is confined to a narrow channel with large areas containing many thousands of acres 55704-250i
Supp ly-A griculture
of bench lands anywhere from 100 to perhaps 400 feet above the actual river itself. The problem is raising the water by pumping, which requires the cheap power to which I have referred, so the water can be used to irrigate the bench lands in the upper stretches of the river and its tributaries, the Thompson and various other rivers. The farm lands or flat lands to which the minister has referred are found only in the lower reaches of the Fraser. My question is related to the study which is going forward under an organization known as the dominion-provincial board, Fraser river basin, which is surveying the whole stream and studying the possibilities of a joint power, irrigation and flood control project.
What I wanted to know was, what is the real interest of the prairie farm rehabilitation people in that work? They have engineers who are participating in that study. I have expressed the hope, and I repeat it here now, that eventually a real impetus would be given to working out a project which would provide for the three things, power development, flood control and irrigation. I am asking the minister whether there is any concrete proposal or program in his mind or the mind of the prairie farm rehabilitation administration in that regard?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Eleven o'clock.


Edmund Davie Fulton: If the minister desires, he can answer that on Monday.


James Garfield Gardiner: This item is for a small amount. It is not nearly large enough to cover any such proposal as is made. This small amount is being used in an experimental way. We are going into certain valleys and doing certain works with regard to rather small projects, but if we were going to do anything as extensive as is suggested in the remarks made there would have to be a much larger vote than this. So I say that, irrespective of what investigation we make into the possibilities at present, I think that kind of development-that is, any larger development-would have to await other legislation which would cover not only that area but British Columbia and other provinces as well.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Shall this item carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I had one or
two other questions to ask.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Shall I report progress and ask leave to sit again?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.
Item stands.
Progress reported.

Business of the House REDISTRIBUTION



TABLING OF FOURTH AND FIFTH REPORTS OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE

Mr. Fernand Viau (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, may I revert to motions in order to table the fourth and fifth reports of the special committee appointed to consider the results of the census of 1951 and the readjustment of the representation in the House of Commons?


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Alphonse Fournier: On Monday as the first item we will take up Bill No. 393, to readjust the representation in the House of Commons.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Period.


Alphonse Fournier: Then we will consider the estimates.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: Not on Monday; not as long as I am here.


Alphonse Fournier: We shall start with post office estimates and then take agriculture, national revenue and the balance of the items.


George Alexander Drew: Just so hon. members may make their arrangements accordingly, what is the government planning with regard to July 1?


An hon. Member:: Work.


Alphonse Fournier: Adjourning at 11 o'clock, I suppose. This is for Monday.


George Alexander Drew: I know. But what about July 1?


Alphonse Fournier: Oh, July 1?


Donald Methuen Fleming: You have heard of that day, I suppose?


Alphonse Fournier: I thought we would adjourn for good Monday night.


An hon. Member:: Oh, no.


Alphonse Fournier: If we do not, we shall continue to sit on Dominion day. That will be one way of celebrating the day.


George Alexander Drew: I asked the question having regard to the fact that I believe a number of members may perhaps be making arrangements with regard to the official garden party.


Alphonse Fournier: The intention was to sit on July 1.


[Stage Direction]
It being five minutes after eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[The following items were passed in committee of supply]:

[Stage Direction]
39.	To provide for quality premiums on high grade hog carcasses and administration costs, $6,224,590.
Special-
40.	Agricultural products board administration, $10,000.
41.	To provide for assistance to encourage the improvement of cheese and cheese factories, $1,000,000.
42.	To provide assistance for the replacement of maple production equipment, $500,000.
43.	For assistance in construction of potato warehouses under terms and conditions to be approved by the governor in council, $50,000.
44.	Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act and water storage, $3,249,270.
45.	Major irrigation and reclamation projects in the prairie provinces, $7,064,630.
46.	Prairie Farm Assistance Act administration, $528,744.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, June 30, 1952