1953-12-07

PRIVILEGE


Mr. Erharl Regier (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. My attention has been called to an article entitled "Ottawa Day by Day" appearing in the Gazette of Saturday last. This article places me as a supporter of the Social Credit group. I merely wish to say that I am very happy to remain a supporter of the C.C.F. group.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Armand Dumas (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Associate Minister of National Defence. Has the minister's attention been drawn to a Canadian Press dispatch quoted in the Montreal Gazette of Friday last indicating that the Department of National Defence has decided to replace Lancaster planes with Britannias for use in coastal reconnaissance? If so, can the minister say anything about that matter?


Hon. R. O. Campney (Associate Minister of National Defence):: I thank the hon. member for giving me notice of his question. I have read the article in question and I may say that it is largely speculative in character.
Hon. members will appreciate that in the event of another war, Canada's role in connection with protection of our shipping lanes will require, as it did in the last war, air operations for the detection and destruction of enemy submarines. As was proven in the last war this requires, among other elements, the services of shore-based aeroplanes.
The aircraft at present being used in this field are Lancasters built during world war II and since overhauled and modernized. In the not too distant future these planes will have to be replaced by new types capable of carrying and operating newly developed detection equipment and armament. The 83276-41J
Department of National Defence therefore has been engaged for some time in investigating various types of aircraft which might be suitable successors to the Lancasters. These studies indicate that, for the long-range task, the most suitable aircraft is an aircraft having the general characteristics of the Bristol 175 popularly known as the Britannia.
The complex devices required for antisubmarine work and the problems connected with fitting them into a new aircraft in the most effective way, as well as other modifications to the aircraft, naturally require further considerable time and study.
Design studies have been under way already for some time by Royal Canadian Air Force engineers looking to adaptation of the Britannia for the special role to which I have referred. It is now proposed that further study be carried out jointly by officials of the Department of National Defence, the Department of Defence Production and Canadair Limited. In accordance with normal aircraft production practice this will lead, in due course, to the production of a prototype for testing and proving purposes.



POST OFFICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. George H. Hees (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Postmaster General, or in his absence to his parliamentary assistant. Has the government decided to issue a special stamp to commemorate the opening of Canada's first subway transit system next March? I asked this question last February, and I am hopeful of receiving a favourable answer today.


Mr. T. A. M. Kirk (Parliamentary Assistant to the Postmaster General):: May I thank the hon. gentleman for sending me notice of this question and say that according to the records in the office the Postmaster General has been giving this matter consideration. If the hon. member will be so kind as to wait three or four more days until the return of the Postmaster General, I am sure he will be pleased to give him a definite answer.
644	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry HOUSE OF COMMONS



INQUIRY AS TO CHRISTMAS RECESS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. S. Harkness (Calgary North):: I
should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister able to indicate to the house the date of the Christmas recess? I >miay say that this matter is of some concern to those who come from a considerable distance. I understand that train and plane reservations are already difficult to obtain.


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the latest date we have been contemplating would be Friday, December 18; but it was hoped that we might clean up the order paper so as to adjourn the previous evening, on December 17. Of course the house makes its decision in that respect, but we would suggest that the adjournment be taken then until the second Monday of January, which would be January 11.



CROP LOSSES IN NORTHWESTERN MANITOBA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. S. Zaplilny (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker,
I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture, but in his absence I would direct it to his parliamentary assistant. Has the department received a request from the province of Manitoba for emergency assistance on behalf of the farmers who suffered crop losses in northwestern Manitoba? If so, has any decision been reached as to what action is to be taken?


Mr. Robert McCubbin (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member was kind enough to send me notice of his question. Other hon. members from Manitoba have mentioned the same thing to me. Though no formal request has come from Manitoba, nevertheless discussions have been taking place with respect to the plight of these farmers. A survey is being made by officials of our department and the report of that survey will be handed to the board of review -of the P.F.A.A. on Saturday next when -a -decision will be reached with regard to the matter.


Mr. Argue:: Is a similar survey going to be made -of flooded areas in Saskatchewan? I am thinking particularly of the Regina -plains area.


Robert McCubbin: I am not in a position to answer that question today.



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: I
should	like	to	address	a	question to theMinister of Transport. In view of the concern being expressed on the west coast with respect to the unexplained delay in the hearing of	the	application	of	Pacific Western
Airlines Limited for establishment of a scheduled air service to points on the west coast of Vancouver island, will the minister make a further statement on this situation, as he suggested he would when replying to a question on December 2 last?


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport):: I am grateful to the hon. member for having sent me notice of his question, although I	just	received	it	a few momentsago. I	do	not	know that	I indicated on
December 2 that I would make a statement except in this way, that to the extent that I could I said I would. However, in view of the manner in which my hon. friend states his question, I think I should tell him that I am not aware of any concern on the west coast in connection with this application save on the part of the applicants themselves. Then again, I should say that there has been no undue delay other than the fact that the official of the air transport board was unable to obtain the information he required under section 7(a) or (b) of the Aeronautics Act, and because of the legal proceedings which have been taken against him I am afraid that until the injunction is disposed of it will be impossible for the air transport board to dispose of the hearing.



POLIOMYELITIS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: On Thursday last the hon. member for Moose Mountain asked me a question which in part reads as follows:
. . . would the government consider the present outbreak of polio in Alberta a national emergency and give assistance on that basis?
Then he went on to say:
Since there do not appear to be sufficient doctors available, would the government give consideration to making doctors and other personnel from the armed services available in this emergency?
I pointed out to the hon. member that just the day before I had tabled a rather complete reply to his earlier question regarding the current polio epidemic in the country.

Since that time I have been in communication with the government of Alberta, and I can say that the advice of the government of Alberta is that the situation there is well in hand. The province of Alberta is not suffering from a shortage of professional personnel. The armed forces have rendered great assistance, so we have been advised, in the movement of equipment and of patients, and the province of Alberta is satisfied with the supplies of gamma globulin that have been provided by the federal government.



PRIVATE BILLS

[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Second reading of Bill No. 12 (letter D of the Senate), Intituled:	"An act for the relief of
Catherine Miller Mary Harris Dawson Coutts".- Mr. Weir.
Mr. Speaker:: There are several divorce
bills on the order paper. Is it agreed that they all be taken in the one motion?


Mr. Knowles:: Take them one at a time,
please, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Mr. Weir moves, seconded
by Mr. Croll-


Mr. Hansell:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I must put the question.


Ernest George Hansell: I am rising on a point of
order. I think we should object to the introduction of these bills for second reading at the present time because hon. members have not yet received the evidence pertaining to these cases.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If the hon. member
wishes to object to the house proceeding with these bills, the procedure is to put the motion for second reading and then he will have to renew his objection after the motion for second reading has been proposed by the chair.



CATHERINE MILLER MARY HARRIS DAWSON COUTTS

Mr. W. G. Weir (Porlage-Neepawa) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 12, for the relief of Catherine Miller Mary Harris Dawson Coutts.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to
take more than a few minutes with respect to this bill.


An hon. Member:: Good.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But I should like to comment first of all on the circumstances under
Private Bills-Divorce
which it comes before us. A moment ago the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell), even if he was jumping the gun a bit, made a point that we have made in previous sessions, that it hardly seems proper to ask the house to proceed with a bill when we do not have the printed evidence in our hands. I may not feel satisfied with the ruling that was made but I have to recognize the fact that it was ruled in the last parliament that a bill could not be held up merely because the printed evidence was not in our hands.
On the other hand, it is quite clear from the rules that the bill itself must be printed in both languages before it can be proceeded with. Some hon. members may be aware of the fact that these bills have not yet been placed in our boxes and they may take it from that that the bills have not been printed, but my information is that all of the bills on the order paper today have been printed and are available in the distribution office. Therefore it becomes difficult for any of us to object on technical or procedural grounds to the house proceeding with these bills. Some of us might object for other reasons, as I do, but it would appear that it is in order for the hon. member for Portage-Neepawa (Mr. Weir) to move second reading of this bill at the present time if he wishes to do so.
However, it seems to me that with this very first divorce bill in this first session of a new parliament we should stop and take a look at it and ask ourselves whether we want to deal with this divorce bill and others that may come after it in the same manner that we have dealt with such bills in previous parliaments. Hon. members are aware of an alternative suggestion that I have made from time to time. I am not making that alternative suggestion at this particular moment or in relation to this particular bill. The fact of the matter is that some hon. members in the last parliament who may have disliked the method we are following also had a dislike for the alternative method that I proposed.
But it does seem to me that parliament should take a look at the whole matter and ask some committee on our behalf to review the question as to the procedure under which divorce bills are handled. It is for tnat reason that I rise to move an amendment to the motion for second reading of this bill. I ask hon. members generally and the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) in particular to note that I have tried to word my amendment in such a way that it does not commit the house to any specific alternative. Perhaps the best way to indicate to the house

Private Bills-Divorce
what I have in mind is to read the terms of the amendment that I wish to move. It reads in this way:
That this bill be not now read a second time but that the subject matter thereof be referred to the special committee on procedure which was agreed to by this house on November 27, 1953, for consideration and report.
That type of amendment, Mr. Speaker, is well known to hon. members and has been moved on a number of occasions. I think of two examples in particular. On May 15, 1944, Mr. Ilsley moved an amendment of that type to the Alberta provincial bank act bill which had been introduced by the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore). Similarly on February 3 of this year the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg) introduced that type of amendment to a bill of mine having to do with the check-off of trade union dues. When an amendment of this type is carried it has the effect for the time being at any rate of removing the particular bill from the order paper. An amendment of this type does not refer the bill itself to the suggested committee, but merely refers the subject matter of the bill so that that committee can consider the whole question and make any report it wishes.
We agreed, on November 27, 1953, to set up a special committee of this house to consider the rules and procedures of this house and to consider any changes that might be desirable for the more expeditious dispatch of business. It seems to me it might be a good idea to have that special committee, under the chairmanship of Your Honour, look at this question of divorce procedure before we start on it at all in this first session of this new parliament. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that my suggestion will commend itself to the house. I hope it will commend itself to the Prime Minister as a reasonable and responsible suggestion. I have my ideas as to what should be done, but I have not included them in this amendment.
It seems to me that if something like this is not done, if my amendment is turned down and we go on with the method which we have been using since these parliamentary divorces were commenced, that is expressing satisfaction with the present method. I am sure that no one is satisfied with the present method. Those who vote against any precise change do so because they dislike the alternative more than they do the present method. This amendment, as I suggest, merely asks that an important committee, sitting under the chairmanship of Your Honour, review this question on our behalf so far as the procedural aspects of it are concerned. I would hope the government might see merit in my suggestion and agree to it, thus permitting the committee to consider this matter for 
a while. If the house is prepared to accept this amendment to this first divorce bill, I would hope the sponsor of the remaining divorce bills would agree to permit them to stand on the order paper until the committee has reported back to the house.
The committee might recommend against any change, in which case the house could go on with the bills in the old way. On the other hand, the committee may, as a result of its deliberations and discussions, make some suggestions that might improve this situation. In these remarks I have tried to avoid anything provocative or anything that suggests I am wedded to any particular idea. But I do plead with the house that we take a look at this whole question of divorce procedure in this parliament before we start on this first case to be brought before us this session.
I move, therefore, seconded by my colleague the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Knight):
That this bill be not now read a second time but that the subject matter thereof be referred to the special committee on procedure which was agreed to by this house on November 27, 1953, for consideration and report.


Hon. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: I believe, Mr. Speaker, that this motion is one which will probably commend itself to many of the members as providing an opportunity to examine some alternative procedure to that which has caused so much concern to many of the members. We all recognize that there are divergent views, not only in regard to the procedure itself but in regard to whether or not the house should be engaged in dealing with these measures at all. Those members who have been here in earlier sessions will recall the length of time that has been devoted to discussions which hon. members have quite frankly indicated were for the purpose of delaying these divorce bills so that there would be further consideration of the methods used.
I believe we all must consider whether or not it is appropriate that this house should be called upon to deal with any bill when the members of the house have no evidence before them upon which to form their judgment. I do not believe it is sufficient to say that a committee from the other place has devoted a good deal of time and earnest attention to the evidence available, and has come to certain conclusions. Either that should be the stage at which the final decision takes place or else this house, in turn, should have the opportunity of considering the application upon its merits if this procedure is to be continued.
You have indicated, Mr. Speaker, that following earlier rulings it is your opinion

that we can proceed to deal with this bill, and presumably with subsequent bills, without the evidence before us. Quite apart from the views that may be held in regard to particular aspects of this problem, and they are held with deep conviction, it does seem to me that this raises a question of procedure as to whether it is appropriate that this house deal with these measures in this way, which suggests that this resolution might well commend itself to the members of this house.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I think all hon. members of the house will be glad to have as careful a consideration as possible given to this matter which has been one that has troubled the houses of parliament ever since confederation. The hon. member realizes quite well, however, that the adoption of this motion would kill this bill for this session. That is the effect of refusing the second reading of a bill, even though the subject matter be referred to a committee for consideration.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the Prime Minister permit an interruption at this point? I do not want to be argumentative but as a matter of fact a session or two ago a divorce bill was denied second reading and the subject matter was referred back to the private bills committee. That committee recommended the re-introduction of the bill, and the bill was passed at that session. I think it is correct to say the adoption of an amendment of this kind kills the bill for the time being, but with due respect I do not believe the bill is necessarily killed for the session.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No, but the hon. member knows that the introduction of a private bill has to follow a whole series of rules, and in order to enable the same petitioner to introduce a similar bill at this session there would have to be unanimous consent to a waiver of the rules applicable to private bills. Now, whether or not that could be done or whether that was done in the case the hon. member mentions, I am not in a position to say. I have not looked at that special record.
This committee on the rules has been set up, and it is probable that the hon. member will be one of those recommended by his group to take part in the committee discussions. All the rules of this house applying to procedure will be before that committee, and I think it would be very desirable that this special matter be on the agenda for study by that committee. I do not know that hon. members who are not opposed in principle to divorce being granted would wish at this time to do something that would render
Private Bills-Divorce
nugatory the procedures that have been adopted by those who have been following a practice which extends over many years.
I believe the hon. member has been a member of former committees that have dealt with and studied the rules of the house. It is unusual, I think, for the recommendations of that committee, even if they lead to modifications of the rules, to be applicable during the session in which those recommendations are made. There may be temporary procedures adopted consequent upon a report. But in my experience the recommendations for alterations in rules, when they have been agreed to, have been agreed to so as to become applicable in a subsequent session.
The hon. member knows that in two provinces there is no other way in which parties can obtain divorces; and if the way that has been available up to the present time were denied them, I think there would be considerable controversy over the matter, and that that is probably something that the committee would also wish to consider. The hon. member knows that this question has been seriously studied at various times and, though this method has objectionable features, there has been none other suggested that would not have as many or perhaps even more objectionable features than would this one.
I thought it would be desirable to mention that this amendment would dispose of this bill for the present session, and that no other bill by that petitioner could be introduced without a waiver of all the rules applying to private legislation, a waiver that would require unanimous consent.


Mr. Fleming:: May I ask the Prime Minister a question?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. May I interject a word at this point. I do not think this amendment is in order. The purpose of the amendment is to refer the subject matter of a bill to grant a divorce to Catherine Miller Mary Harris Dawson Coutts. If the subject matter of this bill were referred to a committee on procedure the committee could not deal with the very matter which the hon. member has in mind, certainly not by virtue of the subject matter of the bill being referred to it. Because what is the subject matter of the bill? There is the preamble to the effect that the adultery has been proven and the request that the marriage be dissolved and then, second, the request for the right to marry again.
The hon. member does not propose to interfere with the points raised by the subject matter of the bill. In a previous session he had a bill before the house having to do with the method to be followed in connection with

Private Bills-Divorce
the study of these bills. If that bill were now before the house, and he were referring the subject matter of that bill to a committee on procedure, I would say very well. When he refers to previous occasions when subject matters of bills have been referred to a committee on procedure, I would point out to him that at one time he had before the house a bill pertaining to the quorum of this house.
Hon. members will see in Votes and Proceedings for January 23, 1953, at page 179 that a committee had been moved to study procedure. Later the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) seconded by Mr. Wright moved that Bill No. 18, an act to amend the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1952, with respect to the quorum of the House of Commons be now read a second time. Then it was moved by the hon. member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Harris) and seconded by Mr. Fournier of Hull that the subject matter be referred to the special committee on house procedure.
Now, there is no relationship between the subject matter of this divorce bill and the committee on procedure which has been set up. Furthermore I should like to submit to hon. members that on Friday, November 27, 1953, it was resolved that a select committee to be designated be appointed to consider with Mr. Speaker the procedure of this house, and so on.
Is a special committee definitely appointed even if the members who are to sit on the committee have not been designated by the house? The house can proceed in one of two ways, either by putting a motion on the order paper, including the names of the members to compose the committee; or it can do it in two steps, the first of which is to move that a committee be set up and, later, that a number of hon. members listed by name shall be members of that committee.
Let us suppose, for instance, that the motion to appoint the members to the committee which was approved on November 27 were never made in this house. If it were never made, anything referred to it could never be considered.
I suggest that the hon. member should withdraw his amendment. We would proceed with the divorce bill. Then, when the members of the select committee are appointed, he could go before that committee if he is a member, and I am sure he would do all he could in order to improve our methods of procedure on divorce.


Donald Methuen Fleming: May I ask the Prime Minister a question which I had endeavoured to ask before. Do I understand that it is the Prime

Minister's view that the terms of reference of the rules committee are broad enough to include a review of the procedure of the house with reference to bills of this type?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Oh, I think so. I think it would study not only the standing orders but the rules that govern procedure in the house. That would be the object of study by the committee-which of course has no power other than to make recommendations. But I think it would be entitled to study this matter and make recommendations about it to the house; and the house would then pass upon the recommendations.


Mr. Speaker:: I would not wish to have this develop into a general debate as to the powers of the committee. What is before the house is a motion for the second reading of a divorce bill, and anything further in my opinion would not be in order. Let us hear from the mover.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I think it is unnecessary for me to say that I would be only too glad to discuss the point of order Your Honour has raised but I intend to resist the temptation. As a matter of fact, while I have views with respect to the point Your Honour has raised, that really does not matter now, because before Your Honour rose to speak, following the Prime Minister, I had pretty well made up my mind that the amendment I had moved half an hour ago had served its purpose. Obviously my desire was to get this question of divorce procedure in parliament discussed by the special committee on procedure, which it was agreed on November 27 should be established and which, despite Your Honour's pessimism, I hope will be set up before long.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I am prepared, if I have the consent of the house, to withdraw my motion, on the understanding that the Prime Minister has stated the case correctly, and that the terms of reference of that committee are wide enough for this question of procedure with respect to parliamentary divorce to appear on the agenda of the committee.
While I do not make it as a condition, I hope that the sponsors of the divorce bills on the order paper might consider letting those bills stand until we have had a chance to consider this matter in the committee on procedure. I do not make that as a condition; it is just a suggestion. If I may have the consent of the house I will withdraw the motion, because I am sure now that the matter will be discussed in the special committee on procedure.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. member leave to withdraw his amendment?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Amendment withdrawn.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall this bill be read a second time?


Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roselown-Biggar):: think that before we give second reading to any bill, as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) said a moment ago, we should have in our hands all the evidence supporting that bill. We do not have it. It is true that in the last session it was ruled that that was not necessary. I do think however that these bills are of primary importance to the people involved in them. I do not think any member in the house is called upon even to accept the principle of a bill on second reading without having before him more than just the names of the parties as they appear on the order paper.
As hon. members know, from time to time I have objected to this procedure. The Prime Minister today said something which is perfectly true, and that is that there are two provinces in which there are no facilities for divorce other than this parliament.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am afraid I cannot allow debate on the procedure being followed in respect of divorce bills.


Major James William Coldwell: I am not debating the procedure.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is talking about the procedure which is being followed as far as these divorce bills are concerned.
What is before us is second reading of a bill. The hon. member says he does not think he should be called upon to approve the principle, unless he has the evidence. Well, on private bills the approval of the principle is merely given on a conditional basis, and the committee to which these bills are referred is the one which has to concern itself with the facts, with the evidence. That is so with respect to every private bill. Therefore I do not see why the second reading of a bill should be held up because of that point.
It is the practice and it is the rule of this house that when private bills come up for second reading approval of the principle is merely conditional, conditional upon the facts contained in the bill being asserted before the standing committee. That is why another standing order reads that as soon as second reading has been given the bills are to be referred to that standing committee.
Private Bills-Divorce


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, I shall bow to your ruling, of course, but I do feel that we should not accept the principle of these bills on the order paper today without having the evidence before us. I am going to suggest to the sponsor of this bill that he let these bills stand until we have the printed evidence in our hands.
To me it is a distasteful matter at any stage to have to vote for dissolution of marriages about which I know nothing, and I regret they have to come before the house. I am not going to discuss procedure but I do not think that we should be called upon even to approve the second reading of a bill the principle of which is the dissolution of a marriage, knowing nothing whatsoever about it. I would ask the sponsor of the bill to let it stand until the evidence has been distributed.


Ernest George Hansell: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support what has been said and what I intimated at the commencement of the debate before you read the bill, namely, that we have no evidence now. I do not quite see that these divorce bills are exactly the same as other private bills in respect to evidence. The principle of other private bills might be accepted without the committee hearing evidence, but here are bills that propose to dissolve the marriages of certain parties. That is the principle. How do we know whether or not the principle should be approved unless we have the evidence to know whether or not the marriage should be dissolved? When you called the bill itself you asked whether it should be taken separately or whether the bills should be taken en bloc? If we have not the evidence we may as well take them en bloc because there is no difference. It is only by reason of the evidence that we may want to discuss each bill separately.
There have been occasions in the house in previous sessions when we have taken so many en bloc and left perhaps the next one and then taken another group en bloc. Why have we done that? We have done that because we wanted to discuss a particular one as the individual bill contained certain matters that required to be discussed on the basis of evidence. We do not know what the evidence is here.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I should like to point out to the hon. member that even if he had the evidence before him he could not discuss it on the second reading. All that is before the house now is the principle of the bill. As he knows, the practice of calling several divorce bills at one time is carried out because they are all of the same nature; they all contain the same number of clauses,

Private Bills-Divorce
and it is always up to an hon. member to say: Well, Mr. Speaker, let us take them one at a time, or let us take three in one motion and one in another and then five. It is a matter of hon. members accommodating themselves; but as for refusing second reading on the ground that is now being advanced, I would like to refer hon. members to citation 770 of Beauchesne's third edition at page 295:
The house does not profess to decide upon the second reading as to the truth or otherwise of the allegations of fact upon which a proposed bill is based, and in conceding a second reading to a private bill, the house is regarded as merely giving its sanction to its general principle on the hypothesis that the committee to which it is afterwards referred finds those allegations proved. It is usual, therefore, to allow a second reading, except where the bill enunciates some principle which the house is not prepared to affirm.
If hon. members are against the principle, they can vote against the bill. I can put the question and collect the voices and then we may have a division, if that is the wish of the house. But if hon. members object to the evidence not being before us, I would say that their arguments are not sound because as our rules stand now a bill is only approved conditionally on second reading and it has to be referred to a standing committee where the evidence must be produced.


Mr. Winch:: On a point of order-


William Gilbert Weir: My
name happens to appear on certain of these bills on the order paper. If I may digress for a moment to explain the reason for that, it is very simple, a matter of convenience. Hon. members know that these bills cannot come before the house unless they are sponsored by some member of the House of Commons. If other people want to sponsor these bills I shall be very glad to send the staff of the house around to visit my hon. friends and get them to put their names on these bills. It is a matter of convenience so far as these bills are concerned.
Considerable discussion has taken place over the procedure to be followed at this stage with respect to these bills. So far as the bills that have my name on them are concerned, I am quite prepared to have them stand ot this time.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall these bills stand?


Harold Edward Winch: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Ii \t is agreed that the bills should stand, there are no more points to be discussed. Hon. members should welcome that. They have been asking to have these bills stand.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Harold Edward Winch: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker; I understand what you have just said, but we are discussing the second reading of a bill which appears on the order paper. My understanding is that on second reading a bill must be in printed form before hon. members. I have no bill in front of me.


Mr. Abbott:: Send down to the distribution office and you will get them.


Harold Edward Winch: I understand that on second reading the bills must be before us.


Mr. Speaker:: For the information of the hon. member, the bill may be printed and put on the table for distribution to hon. members, but not necessarily in the boxes underneath their desks. Therefore there is no defect there. Is it agreed that these bills do now stand?


Mr. MacDougall:: No.


Mr. Fulton:: The sponsor wishes it to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: If objection is taken to that, then I shall have to put the question.


Ernest George Hansell: Hon. gentlemen who are
objecting to it standing ought to accommodate those of us who want it to stand. There is no particular rush about it. We are going to have a few private members' days, and if they are going to insist that it be read now, then we can call for a standing vote on every bill, and it will not be any further ahead.


Mr. Speaker:: I would point out that, as a matter of courtesy, when the mover of the bills asks that they be allowed to stand, consent is usually given. I would imagine that hon. members will agree to that procedure. Shall they stand? Agreed.



QUESTIONS


Mr. Noseworthy:: 1.	How many pensioners, who were in the regular forces prior to June 1, 1944, have been released from the forces since September 1, 1946, with less than 20 years service?
2.	What is the total over-all reduction in the pensions paid to these pensioners to date by reason of the one-third reduction authorized by section 46 (d) of the Defence Services Pension Act?


Mr. Blanchette:: 1.	The number of pensioners who were serving in the regular forces before June 1, 1944, and who have been released since September 1, 1946, with less than twenty years service is 145.
2.	The provisions of the Defence Services Pension Act attempt to ensure that benefits payable under the act are granted on an equitable basis to individuals whose periods

and conditions of service vary greatly. To qualify for a pension, an individual must have served ten years in the regular forces. The act provides that if an individual, after twenty years service in the regular forces, is compulsorily retired for administrative reasons, either because of a reduction in establishment or to promote economy and efficiency, he is entitled to a full pension. But, if an individual with ten years, but less than twenty years, service in the regular forces is compulsorily retired for administrative reasons, chapter 63, section 49, subparagraph (g), Revised Statutes (1952), provides that his pension will be reduced by a third until he reaches the age of 65, after which he will receive a full pension. As at November 30, 1953, the total reduction in pensions paid to the group of pensioners referred to in question 1 above amounted to $246,723.77.


PROTECTION WORKS, CHAMPLAIN COUNTY, QUE.
Mr. Balcer:: 1.	What total amount was spent by the Department of Public Works, during the year 1953, for the construction of walls and other protection works along the shores of the St. Lawrence in the county of Champlain?
2.	To what contractor and for what amount was the contract awarded?


Mr. Bourgei:: 1.	$41,253.75, for the fiscal year 1952-53.
2.	Work done by day labour.


DREDGE P.W.D. 117
Mr. Coyle:: 1.	What are the total expenditures to date incurred in efforts to salvage dredge P.W.D. No. 117, which sank in Port Stanley harbour?
2.	Were these efforts successful?
3.	Has the dredge been sold or disposed of and, if so. to whom and for what price?
4.	What were the conditions of sale or disposal of the dredge?


Mr. Bourgei:: 1.	$44,200.
2.	No.
3.	Yes, through the Crown Assets Disposal Corporation to McNamara Construction Co., Ltd., Toronto.
Price unknown.
4.	Hulk to be dismantled and removed by June 30, 1954.



LOTTERIES


Mr. Diefenbaker:: 1.	Have any letters in the mails been seized since the 1st of January, 1952, on the ground that same have been suspected of being in contravention of the lottery sections of the Criminal Code?
2.	If so, how many letters have been seized and what was the total amount of currency, money orders, cheques or other securities, (a) found to be enclosed in such letters (b) and of such, how much was forfeited?
Questions
3.	How many prosecutions have taken place since the 1st of January, 1952, by provinces, with respect of alleged infraction of the lottery sections of the Criminal Code, and how many convictions were secured?


Mr. Kirk (Shelburne-Yarmoulh-Clare):: 

GOLD MINES


Mr. Noseworthy:: 1.	What gold mines in northern Ontario have used the facilities and services of the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys?
2.	What is the nature of the facilities or services that each of these mines have used?
3.	What is the estimated cost to the government in each case?


Mr. Prudham:: 1.	Approximately 90 per cent of the ores from the gold mines in northern Ontario have been examined and reported on and all mines have benefited from the studies made in relation to ore treatment for maximum recovery of metal at minimum cost.
2.	The services given are in connection with ore dressing and metallurgy in providing information for an efficient flow sheet in relation to the recovery of metals.
3.	No charge has been made for work done in relation to problems of ore dressing and processing and hence no breakdown of costs of services to individual mines is available.

Orders for Returns QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS



FEDERAL BUILDINGS, OTTAWA  COAL

Mr. Gillis:: 1.	Has the federal government awarded a contract for supplying coal to heat the parliament buildings and other government buildings in Ottawa for the current season?
2.	If so, what were the terms laid down in the call for tenders?
3.	How many tenders were received?
4.	What are the names of the firms which submitted tenders?
5.	What were the amounts and terms of each tender submitted?
6.	To whom was the contract awarded?


Mr. Bourgel:: Return tabled.



GAGETOWN TRAINING AREA-LEGAL FEES

Mr. Brooks:: 1.	What amount has been paid to date by the federal government in legal fees in connection with the taking over and purchasing of the Gagetown military training area?
2.	What are the names of and the amounts paid to individual law firms?
3.	How much of this has been paid for the searching of titles of properties purchased by the department?
4.	How many titles have been searched?



PORK-AMOUNT PACKED, SALES

Mrs. Fairclough:: 1.	Since March 1, 1952, what number of pounds of pork was packed for the Department of Agriculture?
2.	By what companies and at what prices?
3.	What amount was sold for the department and at what prices, (a) under private label, quantity for each label, (i) on domestic market; (ii) on export market; (b) under national label, (i) on domestic market; (ii) on export market?
4.	Were tenders called for export sales?
5.	If not, how were prices arrived at?
6.	Were any private label products sold by the department direct, (a) for the domestic market; (b) for export?
7.	What quantity is now held by or for the department, (a) private label; (b) national label?
8.	What is the loss on sales to date?
9.	Was a gross margin of profit allowed to packing companies on the re-sale of those goods which passed through their hands?
10.	Is pork still being packed for the department, (a) under private label; (b) under national label?
11.	If not, at what date did the department terminate the packing for government account?



HEALTH INSURANCE STUDIES

Mr. Knowles:: 1. Have any papers, memoranda, studies, etc., been prepared, compiled or collected in the Department of National Health and Welfare, since January 1, 1945, with respect to health insurance, including material dealing with health insurance in other countries and material relating to any possible programs of health insurance in Canada?
2.	If so, how many?
3.	What are the titles and dates of each of the said items?

4.	How many of the said items were prepared, compiled or collected after June 21, 1951?
5.	What use is the government now making of this material?



TYPEWRITERS

Mr. Ellis:: 1.	What was the total number of standard typewriters of each make purchased by the government in the year (a) 1952; (b) to November 1, 1953?
2.	What was the price paid for each make of standard typewriter, during the year (a) 1952; (b) to November 1, 1953?


Mr. Pickersgill:: Return tabled.



PUBLIC WORKS, WINNIPEG  WOMEN CLEANERS

Mr. Knowles:: 1.	What was the number of hours per week worked by women cleaners employed by the Department of Public Works, at Winnipeg, prior to the institution of the five-day week for federal civil servants in that city?
2.	What was (a) the total amount of pay received per week, and (b) the net take-home pay per week, received by women cleaners employed by the Department of Public Works, at Winnipeg, just prior to the said women cleaners being put on the five-day week?
3.	What is the total amount of pay per week being received by the said women cleaners since going on the five-day week?
4.	Did any other group of federal civil servants, at Winnipeg, suffer a reduction in (a) their total pay, or (b) their take-home pay as a result of the institution of the five-day week? If so, what group or groups?
5.	Have representations been received by the government urging that there be an adjustment in the pay of the said women cleaners so that the five-day week might cause no reduction in their weekly pay? If so, from whom?
6.	What consideration was given to any such representations?
7.	Is further consideration being given to this matter?



MEAT PACKERS

Mr. Diefenbaker:: 1.	How many meat packers received pork contracts from the agricultural prices support board, during the year 1952?
2.	What is the name and location of each of said packers together with the respective amounts paid to them, and the total tonnage of the contracts of each of them?
3.	Did any of said packers store pork for government account in packing plants other than their own?
4.	If so, which of them did and what was the value thereof in: (a) storage other than their own within the urban area in which slaughter took place; (b) plants located elsewhere than the area in which slaughter took place?
5.	Did any of such packers receive payment for freight charges or handling charges in transporting such pork to storages within the same urban area or beyond?
6.	If so, what are the names of such packers and the amount paid to each of them?



BARRISTERS, SOLICITORS, ETC.

Mr. Diefenbaker:: What are the names and addresses of barristers, solicitors, and advocates to whom fees which total in excess of $1,000 have been paid, by all departments of government, giving amount paid to each of them, since the 1st of January, 1953?



TELEVISION SETS SOLD

Mr. Fraser (Peterborough):: 1.	What was the total number of television sets sold in Canada, during the first ten months of 1953?
2.	What was the total amount of excise tax collected on these sets?
3.	What was the total amount paid to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation?
4.	What was the total number of radios sold in Canada, during the first ten months of 1953?
5.	What was the total amount of excise tax collected on these radios?
6.	What was the total amount paid to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation?



CANADAIR LIMITED

Mr. Cameron (Nanaimo):: What was the total value of contracts awarded Canadair Limited by all government departments and crown corporations, since January 31, 1952?
EMERGENCY GOLD MINING ASSISTANCE ACT Mr. Noseworihy:
1.	How many employees are engaged in the government's administration of the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act?
2.	In what capacity are they employed and what salary are they paid?
3.	What is the total annual cost to the government of the administration of that act, since 1948?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. Brooks:: For a copy of all correspondence, communications and agreements between any department of the federal government and the city of Fredericton concerning any housing scheme in connection with the Gagetown military training area.


Ralph Osborne Campney: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the mover of this motion I would ask that it stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the motion stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion stands.
HOLLINGER CONSOLIDATED GOLD MINES Mr. Noseworthy:
For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams and other documents that passed between the federal government or any department thereof and the Hollinger Consolidated Gold Mines Limited, with regard to that mine's application for cost aid for the year 1951 under the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act, and also a copy of all auditors' and inspectors' reports and all other documents pertaining to the cost of mining, milling, smelting,
Orders for Returns
refining, transportation and administration, depreciation, amortization, pre-production, deferred development, exploration and development costs at the Hollinger Consolidated Gold Mines Limited, for the year 1951 on which both the "rate of assistance" and the number of "assistance ounces" were calculated as a basis for the payment of cost aid to the Hollinger Consolidated Gold Mines Limited, for the year 1951.



ALLUMETTE ISLAND


Mr. Proudfoot:: For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents, dated from June 1, 1951, in the possession of the Department of Public Works, exchanged between the provincial governments of Ontario and Quebec and the federal government, relative to the proposed Allumette island-Pembroke bridge.


Mr. Winters:: Subject to the usual reservation about the obtaining of permission from the provincial governments concerned.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the motion carry subject to the reservation stated by the Minister of Public Works?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
PRINCE ALBERT, SASK., BRIDGE Mr. Diefenbaker:
For a copy of all letters and telegrams that have been received by any department of government or minister of the crown from the government of Saskatchewan, organizations or individuals, and all replies to such letters and telegrams, in connection with the sharing by the federal government of the costs of construction of a traffic bridge across the North Saskatchewan river at Prince Albert, Saskatchewan, from the first of January, 1952 to date.


Stanley Howard Knowles: For a copy of the declaration of the tariff board with respect to appeal No. 301, dealing with power plants used for general lighting, heating and cooking purposes on farms, or for lighting airports and tourist resorts; also for a copy of the proceedings recording the public sittings of the tariff board when the aforementioned appeal was under consideration.
MACHINERY AND APPARATUS Mr. Knowles:
For a copy of any general definition of machinery and apparatus made by the Minister of National Revenue in conformity with the requirements of schedule III to the Excise Tax Act; also for a copy of any and all ad hoc decisions made by the Minister of National Revenue, or by anyone on his behalf, dated since January 1, 1951, with reference to applications for exemptions from the sales tax in respect of machinery and apparatus, as provided in schedule III to the Excise Tax Act.

Disabled Persons DISABLED PERSONS



MOTION FOR PENSIONS ON BASIS OF EQUALITY WITH OLD AGE PENSIONS    REQUEST TO WITHDRAW

Mr. Daniel Mclvor (Fori William) moved:: That, in the opinion of this house, the government should consider the advisability of co-operating with the provincial governments for the purpose of providing pensions, equal to old age pensions, for all those who are incapacitated and unable to earn their living, regardless of age.
He said:	Mr. Speaker, for a number of
years we have been asking the government in speeches in this house to consider granting pensions to the incapacitated. We did not get very far and last year we placed this request in the form of a resolution. Splendid support was given by members all over the house. Before the motion was talked out last year the minister made certain concessions and gave us considerable encouragement. This year the government and the minister have suggested in the speech from the throne that legislation will be brought down to grant pensions to the incapacitated.
On behalf of those who have supported this resolution so often, I thank the minister and the government. I do not think any good purpose will be served by discussing this resolution at this time. If any of us have anything to say we can reserve our remarks until the legislation is brought down, and therefore I would ask permission to withdraw this motion.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. gentleman
leave to withdraw his motion?


Mr. F. D. Shaw (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, there is one point that arises. When the sponsor of a resolution intends to ask for permission to withdraw, he should merely get to. his feet and state that in view of certain developments he feels he should withdraw the resolution. That is one thing. But when a member stands after a motion has been moved and engages in debate it would seem rather improper for him to suggest that it then be withdrawn.
I see this danger. If under these circumstances an hon. member were permitted to withdraw a resolution, what would prevent my putting a resolution on the order paper, standing up and levelling a devastating attack on the government and then asking that my motion be withdrawn before anyone had an opportunity to answer? That situation could well develop if the house were to agree to allow an hon. member to debate his resolution and then withdraw it.


Mr. Speaker:: Citation 454 of Beauchesne's second edition reads:
The member who has proposed a motion can only withdraw it by leave of the house, granted without any negative voice.

If the hon. member for Red Deer does not wish the motion to be withdrawn, it cannot be. withdrawn unless leave is granted by the house.
There is another point that perhaps might be looked at carefully. The subject matter of this motion is referred to in the speech from the throne. I do not want to stress this point but we might be debating in anticipation of something which will come down later as government business.
However, I must say that whenever an hon. member asks leave to withdraw, it has been customary to extend him that courtesy. But it must be given by leave of the house. If there is any objection it is my duty to refer the matter to the house.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I may just say a word before the hon. gentleman rises again. As my hon. friend knows, and as Mr. Speaker has just reminded us, the speech from the throne announced the government's intention to introduce at this session a scheme that would provide for a dominion-wide provincial assistance program for totally disabled persons. As this is a venture to be shared with the provinces, they have been communicated with and have been asked first of all whether they would agree to attend a conference at which the government would hope to lay before it its plans prior to the introduction of the measure in this house. We have been in communication with all the provinces and have heard from eight of them. Seven of the provinces have indicated approval in principle and have generally welcomed the proposal. One province raised certain issues which I am afraid will have to be resolved by negotiation.
I have no strong views in the matter but, after listening to the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Mclvor) urging that the resolution be withdrawn, I did think that we might prejudice negotiations which we will have under way early in January preparatory to coming into this house with the legislation.
I would think that there would be ample opportunity to discuss this matter when the bill is introduced. If the bill does not satisfy hon. members they will have the opportunity to say so.
I rose at this time merely to point out that, in view of the declaration of the government's intention, it has been the custom, whenever this kind of procedure has been presented before, for withdrawal to be acceded to. Certainly withdrawal has always been acceded to when legislation was in contemplation, as is now the case. I would

Disabled Persons
think that none of us who are interested in this legislation-and that includes every member of this house-would want at this time in any way to prejudice negotiations that will have to be carried on with the provincial governments.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps I should have read further citation 454, second edition of Beau-chesne, page 140:
The member who has proposed a motion can only withdraw it by leave of the house, granted without any negative voice. This leave is signified, not upon question, as is sometimes erroneously supposed, but by the Speaker taking the pleasure of the house. He asks "Is it your pleasure that the motion be withdrawn?" If no one dissents, he says:	"The motion is withdrawn;" but if any
dissentient voice be heard, he proceeds to put the question.
It would seem that when an hon. member asks that his motion be withdrawn it is the duty of the Speaker to ask, "Is it the pleasure of the house to agree to the withdrawal of this motion?" If hon. members say no, then I will have to put the question if I am to adhere to this citation.


Frederick Davis Shaw: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the point of order which you have raised and with respect to the statement made by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin), may I again make my position perfectly clear. It is one thing for an hon. member to ask for the withdrawal of a resolution, provided that he has not debated that resolution; but it is an entirely different situation to have an hon. member who is sponsoring a resolution rise in his place, make a speech or debate the resolution, and then ask for its withdrawal. That is the attitude I take with respect to the resolution at present before us.
Certainly there is no desire on my part to prejudice or to jeopardize negotiations which the minister may be carrying on with any one or with all of the provinces. However, I see a dangerous precedent being established if the house allows the hon. member for Fort William to withdraw the resolution after having debated it.


Mr. Speaker:: As the hon. member knows with respect to these notices of motions, very often the hon. member who has moved it speaks to it and then, after general debate has taken place, stands up, says that his purpose has been served and asks leave to withdraw it. I see the point made by the hon. member but in view of the request made by the mover of the resolution, will the hon. member agree to give him leave to withdraw his motion, notwithstanding the objectionable feature in connection with it?


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, may I just say a word. I am not sure whether the house is wise in allowing this motion to be withdrawn, although we always like to accommodate a member who wishes a motion to be withdrawn. The Minister of National Health and Welfare says that legislation is contemplated. That legislation is not on the order paper. We do not know what the legislation involves. We do not know how wide the coverage will be. It seems to me that this resolution may enable the house to ask for legislation which may be wider than that which is contemplated by the government at the present time.
Personally I am of the opinion that it would be well for the house to express an opinion, particularly when we have something like 70 new members of the Commons sitting in this chamber at the present time. Those 70, or rather 75-someone corrects me-should have the same opportunity as the rest of us have had in former sessions when we have supported a wide measure of aid to those who are wholly and permanently incapacitated. I think that the house would be wise-briefly, if you like-to discuss this proposal in order to enable hon. members to do what I have done in the past, namely to ask for the widest coverage for those who are incapacitated in the country, and to express an opinion that may be of guidance to the government.
To the hon. member for Fort William I say that out of courtesy I should like to accede to his request but that, in view of the circumstances in the house, this being the first opportunity that new members have to express an opinion on this matter, I believe that, even if briefly, the resolution should be discussed.
I cannot see the point made by the Minister of National Health and Welfare as to anything we might say here being likely to prejudice negotiations with one of the provinces or with the several provinces who are interested in this proposal. The details will have to be worked out between the federal and the provincial authorities even under this resolution. The resolution clearly envisages that procedure. Because of the importance of this matter to a large number of people who deserve support and aid because of their incapacity, I think that the resolution should be debated.
I have more or less spoken to the request made by the hon. member. All I want to say, in order to save my speaking again, is that I am thoroughly in accord with the purpose of this resolution, as I have been with resolutions of a similar nature introduced at previous sessions of former parliaments.

Human Rights


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: Mr. Speaker, speaking on the point of order may I say that I do not see any good purpose to be served by going ahead with the resolution. I am thoroughly prepared to trust the minister. If you do not wish to grant my request for permission to withdraw this resolution, I will ask that you allow the resolution to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The resolution cannot stand because it has been properly called and proposed from the chair, and it is now the property of the house.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Debate on it could be
adjourned.


Mr. Speaker:: Yes. A motion to adjourn debate on the resolution would be in order. But it seems that the course I must follow now is to ask hon. members the following question: Is it the pleasure of the house to authorize the hon. gentleman to withdraw his motion?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Mr. Speaker:: Those who are in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: Those who are against will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it. I declare the motion withdrawn.
Motion withdrawn.



HUMAN RIGHTS


Mr. Alistair Stewart (Winnipeg North) moved:: That, in the opinion of this house, the government should consider the advisability of approving as a declaration of principle, the universal declaration of human rights, as adopted by the general assembly of the United Nations on December 10, 1948.
He said: Mr. Speaker, had this debate taken place next Thursday it would have been a most fortunate coincidence because Thursday is human rights day. Next Thursday, the 10th December, marks the fifth anniversary of the passing of the universal declaration of human rights by the general assembly of the United Nations in Paris. That was a great achievement, but it was not only the achievement of those who were in Paris at the time. It was the achievement of generations of people who have worked towards this great end. The passing of this declaration climaxed

literally centuries of struggle to have the nations of the earth declare that there were certain inalienable human rights which must not be taken away from men and women.
Throughout the centuries small dedicated groups of men and women have worked to have accepted by the nations of the world these inalienable rights, the right of freedom of speech, the right of freedom of conscience, political rights and now, as we see in this new declaration, economic rights, which are certainly not the least important. The declaration was brought about, indeed, I am quite certain that it was, by the horrors inflicted on human beings through the thirties and the forties and even today, in certain parts of the world. It was brought about by the desecration of these human rights of which we speak, and I think it was that desecration which probably prompted the then president of the United States, Mr. Roosevelt, to say in his message to congress on January 6, 1941:
We look forward to a world founded upon four essential human freedoms. The first is freedom of speech and expression everywhere in the world. The second is freedom of every person to worship God in his own way-everywhere in the world. The third is freedom from want-which, translated into world terms, means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peaceful life for its inhabitants-everywhere in the world. The fourth is freedom from fear-which, translated into world terms, means a world-wide reduction of armaments to such a point and in such a thorough fashion that no nation will be in a position to commit an act of physical aggression against any neighbour-anywhere in the world.
That speech of the president was a great rallying point for all people during those dark days of the war. Part of it was adopted and included in the Atlantic charter, and the representatives of the peoples of the world who met at San Francisco were determined that something should be done about human rights by this new international organization which was being built. As a matter of fact, to see that the peoples of the world meant business one has only to read the preamble to the charter of the United Nations:
We the peoples of the United Nations determined ... to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small . . . have resolved to combine our efforts to accomplish these aims.
Of course we were immediately faced with the question: What are these human rights? What do they mean? Who has defined them? They were vague. Perhaps in a sense they were almost illusory. Human rights could mean all things to all men, but article 68 of the charter said:
The economic and social council shall set up commissions in economic and social fields and for the promotion of human rights . . .

But as I say, the nations of the world meant business, and as a result, the economic and social council did set up a group headed by one of the greatest women of our time, Mrs. Roosevelt, who in the years since has added further lustre to an already great name. This commission set to work to try to produce a declaration of human rights which would be satisfactory to the greatest possible number of people and nations. Eventually after much work, and those who have been at any of the United Nations meetings and have seen that committee working know what they were faced with, a draft declaration was produced which was sent to the economic and social council which body began a study of it. That study lasted for over three months. There were over 85 meetings of the council. There were numberless committee meetings.
The problem of the council was to get the greatest possible amount of agreement first of all on the idea as a whole, and then on clauses and phrases. It had to get agreement on words, even commas and periods. It says much, indeed it is almost miraculous to think, that the representatives of 58 nations finally, if they did not agree completely with what was produced, at least did not oppose the declaration which was presented to the assembly on the 10th of December, 1948. It was approved by the affirmative vote of 48 nations with eight abstaining, two absent, and none of course opposing.
The position of Canada was made amply clear by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson). I am going to quote a part of the Canadian statement made at that meeting of the assembly, and I am not quoting unfairly or taking anything out of context, for this was the position of the government of the day:
In the first place, we regard this document as one inspired by the highest ideals; as one which contains a statement of a number of noble principles and aspirations of very great significance which the peoples of the world will endeavour to fulfil, though they will make these efforts variously, each nation in its own way and according to its own traditions and political methods. In an imperfect world, it is clearly impossible to secure a perfect application of all these principles immediately. The charter itself commits the members of the United Nations to principles which are not yet applied uniformly throughout the world. The difficulties in the way of a full and universal application of the principles of the declaration of human rights will be even more complex. We must, however, move towards that great goal.
I am suggesting that we take another step today toward that great goal by approving this resolution. Towards the end of the Canadian statement it was said:
The Canadian delegation, however, approves and supports the general principles contained in the
Human Rights
declaration and would not wish to do anything which might appear to discourage the effort, which it embodies, to define the rights of men and women. Canadians believe in these rights and practise them in their communities. In order that there may be no misinterpretation of our position on this subject, therefore, the Canadian delegation, having made its position clear in the committee, will, in accordance with the understanding I have expressed, now vote in favour of the resolution, in the hope that it will mark a milestone in humanity's upward march.
And so I am asking the house to approve this declaration of principle or, in the government's words, I am asking the house to approve and support the general principles contained in the declaration.
It has been argued, and probably will be argued again, that the declaration is nothing but a moral instrument without any of the sanction of law behind it. Of course that is true. There can be no argument against a fact. But we would fall into grave error indeed if we discarded out of hand all those documents which have been given to the world and which do not have behind them the sanction of law. One thinks immediately of the French declaration of the rights of man. One thinks of the Declaration of Independence of the United States. Those documents were expressions of moral purpose, but they had no force of law behind them. It is perhaps not overstating the point to remind the house that the ten commandments, which even in these days can shake the world, have no sanction of law behind them but still express a great moral purpose. These documents and declarations have had a tremendous effect in guiding and moulding world opinion.
The declaration itself is made up of a preamble and 30 different clauses or sections. It is not my intention to read the declaration, but perhaps I might refresh the memory of hon. members as to the nature of the various sections. Articles 1 and 2 deal with rights which apply to everyone everywhere. Articles 3 to 15 enunciate the accepted right to life, liberty and freedom of the person. In those articles slavery is outlawed, inhuman and degrading punishment is forbidden, the right of asylum is granted and so on. In article 16 the right is given to an individual to marry the person of his or her choice. Article 17 states the right of the individual to hold property, and prohibits his being arbitrarily deprived of it.
The next two or three articles deal with the right of the individual to freedom of religion, the right to freedom of opinion and expression, the right to take part in peaceful assembly, the right to take part in the government of his or her own country. Articles

Human Rights
22 to 26 are perhaps new in a scheme of human rights; nevertheless they are most acceptable to us in the C.C.F. party. They involve social rights which we are now beginning to see are an inalienable part 'of man's heritage. I refer to the right to work, the right to protection against the evils of unemployment, the right of an individual to choose his own job, and so on. These articles also recognize as a human right the right to an adequate standard of living, housing, health, medical care and so on. It is recognized that human dignity is a human right, and there can be no human dignity when people are compelled to live in poverty. There is no human dignity when people are compelled to live in slums; nor is there human dignity where there are deaths from preventable causes; nor is there human dignity wherever there is malnutrition. One can easily see by glancing at the world how frequently our concept of human dignity is being profaned.
I think any high standard of living would be commensurate with human dignity, but any standard of living is impossible without food, for without food there can be no life. It is quite obvious that those who produce the food, the farmers of the world, are a part of the basis of these fundamental human rights.
Along with rights, the individual has responsibilities. There is the responsibility of the individual to his society, the responsibility of the individual to his country and the realization that the rights of individuals must be subordinated to the just requirements of the community.
Even a cursory examination of this declaration shows that there has been a decided change in emphasis during the last two or three generations. There has been a realization that it is the individual person who is all-important. This declaration deals with the individual; it does not deal with groups. It does not deal with minorities. It deals with the fundamental rights of men and women. Under the old diplomacy, when a treaty or agreement was signed it often started with the words, "We the high contracting parties... ", whereas under modern diplomacy, for instance in the charter of the United Nations, the preamble declares, "We the peoples of the United Nations..." The emphasis is on people, just as the emphasis in the declaration is on the human family as such. The old league of nations dealt primarily, I think, with the rights of peoples, whereas the United Nations deals with the rights of men and women. By giving us this universal declaration of human 
rights, the United Nations has issued a clarion call for a new order, one which must be not only listened to but acted upon.
In 1944 Mr. Roosevelt said that true freedom has no meaning unless a man has independence and economic security. About the same time in Toronto Mr. King said that an era of freedom is achieved only as social security and human welfare become the main concern of men and nations. I hope that Mr. King's statement was something more than just a social objective. I hope it was a statement of deliberate policy. The declaration of human rights lights the way to that goal. Canada has accepted the declaration by the action of its government in Paris. I should like to think this House of Commons would endorse the action of the government and tell the people of Canada that we, as their elected representatives, also accept the declaration. Surely it cannot be said that we are prepared to do as a nation without our frontiers what we refuse to do within our own borders.


Mr. J. M. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: I should like to add something, Mr. Speaker, to what has been said by the member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).


Stanley Howard Knowles: The member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Stewart).


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I wish they would make the names of the constituencies in Winnipeg less confusing, so that we ordinary people could master them.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We are all C.C.F. out there.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Yes, that is the trouble.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That accounts for the chaos.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I have followed with
considerable interest what has been said by the member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Stewart). I want to approach the matter from a somewhat lower level. He has really given you the over-all view, the noble objectives with which we all agree. He has read from a statement by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) which I think was admirable. I have it here, too, but if I may I should like to deal with the matter in a somewhat more pedestrian fashion.
It seems to me that while this is a fine principle which we endorse, and rightly endorse, just as a stream cannot rise above its source so these things will not get any further than our own quality will take them, our own interest and our own devotion. I am proposing, therefore, to do what perhaps may seem a little remote from these fine

principles. I want to talk about them as they affect us in our own daily lives, and then try to go on from there to say something about our duty, which should be affected by these principles, too.
And may I warn you, Mr. Speaker, that at one or two stages you may think I am almost becoming political in a non-political or nonpartisan debate. I can assure you, sir, that anything of that kind will be more apparent than real, and if there is anything that looks like that I shall rise quickly to much higher ground.
Now, of course the first thing that comes to mind in connection with a matter of this kind is that everybody agrees; everybody says, "Me too"; and then we all go on to the next thing. We are in reverse from Mr. Coolidge's minister. When Mr. Coolidge returned from church he was asked what the sermon was about, and replied, "It was about sin." Then he was asked what the parson's line was, and he said, "He was against it."
It seems to me there is a great danger here that all we usually do is to affirm these fine principles, but without going any further to put them into effect. I think it is hardly an exaggeration to say that people who want to introduce these subjects into their daily conversation are regarded as a bit of a nuisance. When I returned from a visit to the United Nations and told a newspaper friend of mine that I thought it was my duty to say something about what I had seen there he said, "You will find the press are not interested. They will just sit back and relax, and that will be the end of it." And I found that his statement was a pretty accurate one.
That brings me to another point, that it is really very difficult for us, in the circumstances of the moment, to have any sense of public duty about this matter. I heard something the other day which quite shook me, and which went to show just how remote the sense of public duty has become among people when, ten years ago, the sense of public duty was at its zenith. I was told that one of the difficulties in the reserve army is that there is the greatest irritation among fellow employees if any employee is given a concession of any kind by reason of his serving in the reserve army. I hope that is not true, but I was told that it was.
As a matter of fact, I said to myself: "Well, after all, what lead are people getting? What sense of devotion to the state is there now, that a man could run across in his daily life? What advertisements do we use to get people to join the army? See the world and receive good pay." I am not criticizing that nor am I criticizing the men who respond. I do not
Human Rights
see how, in decency and common sense, as things are we can expect them to listen to any other inducement. But I do say that it does not make sense if we really are taking the wider obligation seriously.
When we come to a consideration of human rights and fundamental freedoms, is there any country that should be more concerned about or more convinced concerning things of this nature than this fortunate country in which we live? I should like to quote briefly from a speech made in the house by the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), then representing the constituency of Lake Centre. This speech was delivered on March 24, 1952, and on that occasion he said, in part:
National unity in Canada is not only an ideal- it is a necessity-based on ordinary common sense.
And then later he said:
Great as is our inheritance, events in recent years demand that we review from time to time what is our inheritance, to ascertain whether any of our freedoms are being lost either intentionally or by default, and how far the principle of the heritage of freedom that is ours and that we take for granted is ours to enjoy.
I wish now to read briefly from a speech made some years ago in the British House of Lords. Speaking on the situation there, in the very home of freedom, and referring to the danger to freedom, the Marquess of Reading said on May 15, 1947, as reported in column 763 of the parliamentary debates, House of Lords:
Personal freedom had for so long been the current coin of life in this country that we had been apt perhaps to forget that currency may be slowly and stealthily withdrawn from circulation, that coinage may be debased without any very evident outward signs, and that it may even be deliberately counterfeited without immediate detection.
It is no part of my case to-day to allege any malign conspiracy on the part of anyone deliberately to attempt to overthrow the liberties of the subject. The process has been gradual, stealthy, haphazard, almost inadvertent, but unfortunately both insidious and menacing in its cumulative effect.
It seems to me that if words like that can be used in a country like England, then we should be deeply concerned and should be on our guard. After all, England has the advantage of a homogeneous population, centuries of common tradition, centuries of law and order; and if those things can be said there, then it seems to me it behooves us to be on our guard here also.
In England they have been able to do what I doubt any other nation can do. They have been able to divide themselves politically into the right and left, socialist and nonsocialist and, notwithstanding that, to maintain their ancient laws and their respect for tradition-although a well-known English writer did say years ago, "If we get a political situation where a change of government

Human Rights
means economic revolution, then it is almost too much to expect that we can have free elections".
Since then I am glad to say events have belied that, because there have been elections over there which, in a small way, amounted to economic revolution, when there was contest as between public and private ownership. But the results were as we know them. The triumph of law and order has been such, I think, as to win the admiration of all of us. I should think that perhaps no other country in the world could equal their record.
I should like to pursue this question of freedom of the individual for a moment. We in our party value this as something of tremendous importance. We have gone all out to speak about it in economic terms, and we speak about it of course in other terms as well. And when we are trying to nail the colours of freedom to the mast we are interested to find in the evidence in other countries that it is becoming quite clear that freedom cannot stand more than so much control. When I make this statement I am referring to Great Britain, and particularly to what happened at the Margate conference, to which I referred two weeks ago. At that time I said that I believed there is evidence to show that the socialist party in England is becoming convinced of this and that their attitude is that of "stop, look and listen". As I told the house before, resolution after resolution involving wider nationalization was turned down.
I think that is significant, and I hope there will be more of it. As a matter of fact I think they are also finding out that while the bosses were not as popular as they might have been in labour circles, nevertheless labour has found that there is much more satisfaction to be found in negotiating with a boss who is ascertainable, who is available and to whom you do not have to show any more consideration than you want, than there is in negotiating with some far-off head of a board who is presumed to know about your interests much better than you do yourself, and who is inclined to take a very high and mighty line if you try to advocate the interests of your own union.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I have said in this house and I believe that controls, that the socialistic form of government and the paternal form of government, inevitably breed controls whether they intend it or not. I remember years ago reading a phrase that stuck in my mind. It had to do with coercion in all its forms. The phrase was: "Coercion is insatiable."
[Mr. Macdonnell.l
That prompts me, Mr. Speaker, to tell of a conversation which took place years ago between two men well-known and highly respected in this house at that time, and whose names are still well-known. Anyone who reads the banking and commerce committee proceedings on the review of the Bank Act ten years ago will run across the name of Mr. W. H. Moore, a well-known Liberal member of this house in past years. The name of Mr. Woods worth was well-known and has been revived by the book which has been recently published. Mr. Moore and Mr. Woodsworth, though political opponents, were personal friends, and indeed belonged to the same dining club. One day Mr. Moore said to Mr. Woodsworth: "You have been a most useful member; you have not had power but you have had influence and things have been done in this House of Commons that would not have been done but for you; but, Mr. Woodsworth, of course, if your party ever came to power you could not continue to be leader." Mr. Woodsworth asked: "Why not?" And Mr. Moore replied:	"Because yours
would be a dictatorial form of government and, Mr. Woodsworth, you could not be a dictator; you could not do the tough things that dictators have to do."
I pass that on, Mr. Speaker, and I suggest that that conversation between these two well-known and highly regarded men may be of interest. It will not be agreed to by everyone in this house, but nevertheless it is an expression of the point of view that I hold, a point of view which I suggest has been fully borne out by what has happened in the United Kingdom in the last several years; and I pass it on.
I now come to another matter with which I think we shall agree, namely, the difficulty of maintaining freedom intact and inviolate in our own daily lives. I belonged to an organization during the war called the civil liberties association. By the way, I am quite sure the fact that I belonged to it is going to get me in trouble one day; and possibly I might join that noble army of martyrs who are suspected of having been communist because, Mr. Speaker, I have to tell you there were communists in this civil liberties association.
I went to a friend of mine once and asked him to join. He said: "Don't you know that the communists will get in?" I said:	"Yes,
they are in now." He said: "What are you going to do about it?" I said: "The only thing we can do is to get enough sensible fellows like you to come in with us and vote them down." But no, he would have no part of it.
I learned another thing in the civil liberties association. I learned something in a way

that I had never known before, the extreme importance of time. I found out that communists would stay later at meetings than anybody else.


Major James William Coldwell: That is right.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: And I have always
remembered that, because when I have read foolish resolutions passed by people that I thought were otherwise sensible I said to myself: "How could sensible men pass those resolutions?" I have reminded myself of the terrible nights that we stayed hour after hour at the civil liberties' meetings so that I came almost to hate them because of the extreme discomfort of having to stay there because the communists were there. They stayed and stayed in the hope that they would tire the rest of us out and then they would be able to do their deadly work and the civil liberties association of the city of Toronto would be in the newspaper in the morning as having done something that was incredibly foolish.
I am talking about freedom and the maintenance of freedom. What it means is the negation of intolerance. That often comes pretty close home. I have known people who were ready to say what could be taught in university chairs and what could not be taught. Perhaps you have, too. I have always thought it a very dangerous occupation. I have always thought that the real test was that as long as there was no propaganda it was very dangerous to try to enter in and to dictate, to those who were teaching, the kind of things they should teach. It is a difficult subject, and I am not going to go further with it, but it is a thing that I thought I should comment on.
I want to go back, now, Mr. Speaker. If it had not been for your kindness you would have said that up to the present I have been out of order because I have hardly mentioned the declaration yet. I want to talk a little more about it.
I want to say a word, a reminder that freedom has its ups and downs. I have a feeling that you can give the year and the place where freedom reached its zenith, at any rate, within the last centuries, and that was in 1913, in a little town in Alsace called Zabern, where a little unknown cobbler was knocked down and I think wounded by a Prussian officer. The result was, as somebody put it, that the chancelleries of Europe were shaken by this act of injustice to a common man on the street of this unknown place. I believe that was the zenith. That was in 1913. Just think of the abyss into which we have fallen since. The wounding of that unknown man shocked Europe, that one act of injustice to a common man. I need not remind you of
Human Rights
what has happened since and how acts of injustice and worse have been perpetrated on millions and millions of common men.
I do not propose to deal at any length with the articles of the declaration, but I want to bring to your attention two or three to try to relate them to ourselves. Number 4 says that no one shall be held in slavery or servitude. It was not so many years ago that we thought slavery was just something that might exist in some remote tribe in Africa that had not yet been fully explored. We now know that slavery has existed for millions and millions of people taken in war and subjected to a life that we do not even like to think of.
Article 5 says that no one shall be subject to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Many of us can remember the time when we thought that torture was a thing that we read of in strange stories about strange far-off countries. Now of course it has become a commonplace.
Then, I want to mention article 14, the right of asylum. It says that everyone has the right to seek and enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution. I think our record in that has been pretty good; but we sometimes find those to whom we give asylum difficult in various ways. Sometimes we do not like them because they work too hard. Sometimes we do not like them because they seem to be able to save money and to buy things that we cannot buy. At any rate, there it is. There is the article which says that everyone is entitled to the right of asylum.
I want to ask what is implied in this vote that we are going to give on this. I think we should be prepared to vote for this, and I want to know what is implied in it. What does it really mean? First of all I think it should mean that we should know a lot more about what is going on. I hope the minister will add to our knowledge this afternoon, but we should know more, a lot more.
I would like to go back two or three years to an incident that happened in this house. The present member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) and the former member for Peel, Mr. Graydon, whom we all remember and all miss, spoke in the debate that took place at that time, which will be found in Hansard. of May 21, 1952. It had to do with the resolution for a convention for the fixing of minimum age for children in employment. The hon. member for Cape Breton South had this to say:
So far as I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, I would still like to see the resolution go before the committee. I think it would be an education for a great many of us to meet with the officials and to discuss this particular form of legislation.

Human Rights


Mr. Gordon Graydon (Peel):: Mr. Speaker, may I just make one or two observations in connection with this proposal? As to a number of these conventions which arise out of the deliberations of the special agencies of the United Nations and of international organizations, it seems to me that a procedure such as that which has been recommended by the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) ought to be followed. When the conventions come before parliament, they come in the form of a resolution, and there is no opportunity in committee of the whole to interrogate anyone in the government; they sometimes also come in fairly detailed form as does this convention. On previous occasions, when resolutions of a detailed nature of this kind have been before the house, I have felt that proper provision is not made under the rules for a proper and full discussion unless the matter goes before a special committee of the house.
As to the present situation, I only want to make one or two additional remarks. We voted first for this declaration in 1948, as I understand it, and perhaps the minister will tell us what has been done in the interval to take it seriously. A couple of weeks ago the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) made a suggestion in the house which I think might well be brought back to the memory of hon. members. He was speaking about the possibility of our doing something with our great stocks of wheat to try to help those who are in need of help. I mention that merely as being one of the practical things which we have to consider.
Look at the actual amount which we have contributed, which I believe is somewhere between $1 and $2 million this year, in the way of assistance to underdeveloped countries, and make comparisons. Of course if you start with nothing the subscription will seem quite large, and I am not saying for a moment that it should be larger or smaller. I hope the minister will say something to us about what he regards as our responsibility in this question.
I know there are two views. There is the view that it is possible, by giving assistance to backward countries, to slacken their efforts, and actually do harm. Personally I find it difficult to believe that, provided it is done wisely. But I should like to hear about that. As I say, if you compare this amount, what we are spending on what we might call construction, with the amount that we are spending on defence, in other words on destruction, the comparison would be so trifling that you would not dare to give the figure. Obviously that is not a fair comparison at all and I do not suggest for a moment that it is. I should like to hear from the minister what he has to say about that.
You cannot spend even the short time that I did at the United Nations without having these things rise up and strike you. Despite all the wrangling that goes on there, you

cannot help feeling that somehow or other there ought to be some means of understanding. I think it was Charles Lamb who had criticized somebody with great asperity and a friend asked, "Do you know the man you are criticizing?" Lamb replied, "No, of course not; I could not attack him like that if I knew him". I hope there is force in that, although I must admit that the Russians seem to be able to continue their sharp attacks even though they are sitting in the seat next to you.
I am afraid my remarks have been rather rambling. This declaration might be treated as a matter which just passes in the night, so to speak, something that means nothing to us, something about which in our hearts we are really bored to death. If we take that attitude it seems to me that we may have occasion to rue it bitterly. On the other hand, common sense ought to enter in. I hope the minister will be able to give us a view which will combine the common-sense approach with these obligations at a time when we can see that right decisions may involve blessings beyond what we can imagine, while on the other hand wrong decisions may lead to evils beneath our darkest imaginings.


Mr. G. H. Caslleden (Yorklon):: Mr. Speaker, this resolution calls for government approving as a declaration of principle the universal declaration of human rights adopted by the United Nations on December 10, 1948. This being 1953, I think we will agree that we are already a bit late. These 30 articles I believe are accepted as the most comprehensive statement of human rights ever given to the world.
The nations which put them together in their organization presented them as being most necessary for the fulfilment of the aims of the United Nations in bringing freedom to the world. We will remember that in world war II, which preceded the forming of the United Nations, we promised those men who fought, those who died, that they were fighting to establish in this world, among other things, four freedoms: the freedom of the whole world from fear, from want, freedom of speech and assembly, and freedom to worship as we wished.
The concerted efforts of all the nations, through the United Nations, have presented this declaration of human rights in the hope that it will bind the peoples of the world together toward achieving that aim. We must remember that in democracy as it stands today we can and must produce, first, social progress and, second, a better standard of living, and all of this in a greater degree of freedom than the world has known before.

We believe that Canada should make this formal declaration as outlined in this resolution, so that the people of Canada can be aware and learn to know what these actual articles are. They should be known to every person in Canada. They should be part of their training. Every person who wishes freedom to be maintained and extended in this world should know what those basic rights are as outlined by this world organization.
It is my intention this afternoon to place a few of the important ones actually on the record in the hope that they may be more widely read and more widely understood. I am not putting them all on, as the document is somewhat too lengthy, but I would quote the following points:
Article 1. All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Article 2. Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.
Article 4. No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.
Article 6. Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.
Article 9. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.
Article 11. (1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
(2)	No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.
As the hon. member for Winnipeg North has stated, toward the end of this list of articles come those which deal with the freedom of man and the right to work. Article 18 reads as follows:
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
Article 20 reads in this way:
(1)	Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
(2)	No one may be compelled to belong to an association.
Article 23 reads as follows:
(1)	Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
(2)	Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
Human Rights
(3)	Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.
(4)	Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.
Article 24 reads as follows:
Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.
Article 25 reads as follows:
(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the. health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
Article 26 is important to the freedom of the world. It reads as follows:
(1)	Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
(2)	Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
And so on down through the rest of those 30 articles. A knowledge of these 30 articles should be a part of the training of all Canadians. The fulfilment of these articles should be the standard of achievement for all peoples. This proclamation outlines how the declaration can be fulfilled.
A previous speaker this afternoon stated that we are in the habit of reading things of this kind and then doing nothing about them. I am pleased to note also that the statement made by the hon. member today should have been made in this parliament. I wonder if he would not have felt some fear if his statement had been made in other places these days.
In Saskatchewan I think we hold the unique position of being the first province in the Dominion of Canada to have written into the statutes of the province a bill of rights for the people. I know there are those who maintain that such a thing is not necessary. My own personal observation is that it has improved the people's understanding of the meaning of democracy. People are more aware of their rights, of their freedoms, and of the importance of remaining vigilant. There is a greater realization of the dignity of the person as a result.

Human Rights
Freedom and liberty are not guaranteed in any nation by the erection of any memorial or statue at our gates. They are safe only when enthroned deeply in the hearts and minds of the people. Citizens who are ready and alert to come to the defence of freedom and to strike early at those things which threaten it constitute the safety of democracy.
In this resolution we are asking the government to make a declaration of principle. Such a declaration is, I believe, a necessary and good thing. I believe it would be good for Canada and for democracy. Until those freedoms are a real part of the life of all Canadians we have not fulfilled our sacred pledge to those who died in world war II for us who live on. We owe a declaration such as this by the Canadian government to the thousands-yes, millions-who have gone before to establish democracy and freedom; to ourselves; to those people to whom we made those promises, and to those who come after in order that they may move forward in the spirit of the brotherhood of man and with their faces toward the light.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support this resolution. Of course I know it may be argued that because of the vote of the delegation and the statement of the Secretary of State for External Affairs at the United Nations in 1948, our government has already approved this declaration of human rights with certain reservations as a federal state. However, I should like to see a resolution of this sort passed by this house. I think it is necessary that we have the expressed opinions and the support of parliament for an important declaration such as we are discussing this afternoon.
When the United Nations met at San Francisco in 1945, human rights and fundamental freedoms were an important part of the aim of the conference and were referred to again and again in the charter. For example, if we look at the preamble of the charter we read:
We the peoples of the United Nations determined-
Among other things.
-to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, . . .
There, it seems to me, we had the first declaration of human rights by the United Nations in this preamble. If we turn to article 55 of the charter, which deals with international economic and social co-operation, chapter IX, we find this:
With a view to the creation of conditions of stability and well-being which are necessary for

peaceful and friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, the United Nations shall promote:
a.	higher standards of living, full employment, and conditions of economic and social progress and development;
b.	solutions of international economic, social, health, and related problems; and international cultural and educational co-operation; and
c.	universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion.
Article 56 pledges the nations. It reads thus:
All members pledge themselves to take joint and separate action in co-operation with the organization for the achievement of the purposes set forth in article 55.
Again we have still another reference to it in article 62. When this declaration was first proposed in the third committee of the United Nations it was to carry out the obligations that the nations assumed under the charter. Our Canadian delegation approved of the charter of the United Nations at San Francisco; and when the time came the leader of our delegation, in the person of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson), approved of the declaration which the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Stewart) read into the record this afternoon.
It seems to me that this declaration of fundamental rights and freedoms is, as it were, the culmination of a long historic struggle among men. I listened with a good deal of interest this afternoon to the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell), whose interest in civil liberties has in the past done not only the hon. member himself great credit but also the organizations to which he belongs, and even the political party with which he is associated. But this afternoon he took some issue with the idea that governments accepting the principles of socialist philosophy can really defend human rights and freedoms. I do not know why, because I am a member of the C.C.F., of a democratic socialist movement, and I believe it is the only movement that aims at bringing complete freedom for the development of the human personality.
I say that no matter to what extent we have political freedom-and we have won large measures of political freedom which we must safeguard in every respect-as long as there is a denial of economic freedom, until we have rounded out our political freedom with the right of every human being to economic freedom and social welfare, we shall not have achieved freedom as I understand freedom.
Indeed, the founders of the democratic socialist movements of the United Kingdom and of the Scandinavian countries were the

people who led the fight against the autocracies of former days, just as the labour movements in various countries are fighting for the rights and the freedom of workers against the economic autocrats, the economic royalists, of today. When my hon. friend speaks of controls, may I remind him that I am not afraid of public controls exercised through democratically elected institutions such as the parliament of Canada or the legislatures of our provinces, but I am afraid of the economic controls that are used by economic royalists today.
The other evening the hon. member for York South (Mr. Noseworthy) put on the record the controls which one single individual, in the person of Mr. Murdoch, exercises in northern Ontario and elsewhere; and as long as we have individuals who have the right to determine the conditions under which thousands of men shall earn their daily bread and, what is worse, whether or not they shall have the opportunity to earn their daily bread, we do not have freedom. We are fighting for this freedom.
I said a moment ago that the long historic struggle that has brought us to the stage where we are now fighting for economic freedom is the story of a fight against autocracies of various descriptions.


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


Major James William Coldwell: Surely.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The hon. member will, I am sure, agree that the description he has given of individual power is subject to law and subject to government.


Major James William Coldwell: Yes. I would say, however, that the legislatures and parliament have not yet enacted the necessary legislation limiting the economic powers of a few powerful individuals in our midst. My hon. friend mentioned two gentlemen this afternoon for whom I have a very high regard. Of course J. S. Woodsworth is one of the great Canadians whom I revere for his work in days gone by. I also knew Mr. W. H. Moore, a man for whom I also had regard although he disagreed with me quite fundamentally. My hon. friend mentioned an anecdote this afternoon of a conversation with Mr. W. H. Moore regarding Mr. J. S. Woodsworth. You know, Mr. Moore had some very strange ideas and a rather strange basic philosophy with which I do not think very many members of the house will agree.
May I recount a personal conversation I had with him many years ago when I was a young member of the house, when I was a guest at a luncheon at the Speaker's home in this city. Mr. Moore sat beside me. In
Human Rights
the course of the conversation he was talking about socialism. He said to me, "You know, Mr. Coldwell, you are a socialist, and after all you socialists believe in planning-in economic law and order". He said, "You are a lineal descendant of the Tory party which professed belief in law and order in the old days". Then he went on to say, "As for me, I am an anarchist. That is why I am a member of the Liberal party".
I do not agree with Mr. Moore's philosophy in these particulars, but I think that it is a story that is worth recounting. We do not believe in anarchy. We believe in law and order, and we do not think that in our society there should be economic anarchists who can do exactly what they like from their own point of view and for their own benefit. So I say to the hon. member for Greenwood that I believe in law and order, and law and order means that you have to exercise some legal control over those who would exploit either resources or individuals in our community. Therefore I should like to see this declaration adopted, because it does point up a philosophy in which we in a movement like ours believe.
When people talk to me about socialist governments leading toward dictatorship, I think of the Scandinavian governments that have been in power for more than a generation, and more recently in the United Kingdom. Throughout the years they have conferred larger measures of freedom on the peoples of the nations where they have been in power. In fact in many countries, and particularly in the United States, people who share our point of view call themselves liberals with a small "1". In other words they believe they are in the old tradition of liberty which was once upon a time a fundamental of Liberalism with a capital "L". Of course, that lovely name of "Liberal" is conferred on parties here and there-I will not name where they are-which are anything but liberal judging them by the manner in which they conduct the governments of various countries.
I said a few moments ago that the resolution with which we are dealing this afternoon perhaps is not worded in the manner in which it should be under the circumstances. It is worded in this way:
That, in the opinion of this house, the government should consider the advisability of approving as a declaration of principle, the universal declaration of human rights, as adopted by the general assembly of the United Nations on December 10, 1948.
It may be argued that the government has already done that.

Human Rights


Mr. Marlin:: It is a fact.


Major James William Coldwell: I say it may be argued that the government has already done that, but in my opinion-


Paul Joseph James Martin: It could not be argued
otherwise.


Major James William Coldwell: All right; I will accept it as a fact if the Minister of National Health and Welfare insists upon it. I wish he would insist on certain other facts sometimes in the house when he uses language rather obscurely in some connections.


Murdo William Martin: Let us not lose our tempers.


Major James William Coldwell: He should be a little more precise. I will accept that correction.


Murdo William Martin: Let us not lose our tempers.


Major James William Coldwell: But this parliament has never approved of that statement. The point the hon. member for Winnipeg North had in mind was that this parliament should approve that principle. In order to put the matter explicitly 1 am going to move an amendment to the hon. member's motion, seconded by the hon. member for Yorkton (Mr. Castleden):
That the resolution be amended by deleting therefrom the word "approving" and by substituting therefor the words: "asking parliament to approve".
The motion, if amended, would then read this way:
That, in the opinion of this house, the government should consider the advisability of asking parliament to approve as a declaration of principle, the universal declaration of human rights, as adopted by the general assembly of the United Nations on December 10, 1948.
I think that would express the view the hon. member for Winnipeg North had in mind, and would serve the purpose he had in view. I hope the house will approve the amended resolution, because we think it would be well for this parliament to express itself emphatically in regard to this matter. I believe that opinion in this country and indeed throughout all the self-governing parts of the commonwealth, with perhaps the notable exception of South Africa which places our commonwealth under a cloud, is in favour of such a declaration.


Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: May I point out to the
house, Mr. Speaker, that the subject matter of the amendment raises a wholly different question than that which is contained in the original motion. I believe it is something which would require at least the amount of notice required by the original motion. The position one might take on the amendment

might very well be wholly different from that which one would take on the main motion.
It is for that reason, and because I believe hon. members would like to consider the present amended motion, that I propose to move the adjournment of the debate.


Mr. Goode:: I was paired with the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Wylie).



REDISTRIBUTION


Hon. C. G. Power (Quebec South) moved:: That, in the opinion of this house, consideration should be given as to the advisability of setting up a committee of members of the house to inquire into methods of bringing about the adjustment of representation and a plan for the division of the provinces of Canada into electoral districts in accordance with the provisions of section 51 of the British North America Acts 1867 to 1951, as enacted by the British North America Act 1946, and to report and recommend such method as may in the view of the committee be fair and equitable, and in the public interest.
He said: This motion is brought forward in order to fulfil an undertaking given to this house some two or three years ago when redistribution was being discussed, perhaps with more heat than light, and also to comply with the insistence of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) who I am sure would have brought this matter before the house had I not done so. I may say that in this question of redistribution the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is a valuable and forceful ally; but should the matter go to a committee, as is proposed, I will not hold myself responsible for all the vagaries in which he may indulge.
The justification for the introduction of such a resolution as this is that now we are far removed from the imminence of electoral battle and from the heat and ardour which are engendered by the contemplation of those electoral tests, and if ever we are to make a serious study of the method and the manner of bringing about the redistribution of seats within the provinces I believe it should be at a time when neither party interests nor personal interests are immediately evident.
May I say at the outset that it is not proposed in this resolution to deal with the distribution of seats as between the provinces.
Redistribution
My only thought is to deal with the distribution of the number of seats which are allocated to each province. In doing so let me lay down this as a primary proposition. The present method whereby the question of distribution is handed over to a committee of the House of Commons has not been found to be satisfactory.
I do not think there will be very much controversy on that proposition. I could, if it were necessary, quote eminent authorities who have publicly stated in this house and elsewhere that leaving to interested parties, members or those who give their allegiance to any particular group or party, the task of setting boundaries as between constituencies makes it very difficult for the members themselves to exercise their honest and conscientious effort, and the results have been such that the prestige and standing of this House of Commons have not been raised in the public eye.
Then I would make another suggestion with regard to a proposition which perhaps is not quite so non-controversial. I suggest that whatever method be found, we would be remiss in our duties and responsibilities as members of this house and as representatives of the people if we did not lay down rules, precepts and principles on which redistribution should be arrived at. The House of Commons in the final analysis must take upon itself the duty and responsibility of passing whatever report is made, whether it be by a body, a commission or an organization outside this House of Commons. So let me make it clear that it is not intended that we should divest ourselves of our duties and responsibilities, but that we should take them upon ourselves.
I next come to the suggestions as to what rules and regulations and principles-if we may call them such, when as a matter of fact principles, if ever there were any in connection with this matter, have been largely set aside and have been used on one or more sides by the same people, depending on whose ox is gored-are to be followed. Let me suggest that whatever is done there should be a decision made by this house and the members thereof on the great question as to whether there should be representation by population or not.
Are we to continue to adhere to what has been called the rule of thumb, of weighing rural constituencies so they require fewer in the way of population than urban constituencies? From the very first time that redistribution was brought into this house there was an understanding, rightly or wrongly, in that regard. I am not discussing

Redistribution
that at this moment; I am simply suggesting that this should be a matter that should be discussed definitely and once and lor all by hon. members themselves; that we cannot leave a decision of that kind to any outside powers, no matter how impartial or nonpartisan they may be, whether it is fair and just and reasonable that large cities in two or three of the provinces shall have a large number of representatives as representing that province in this house, or whether they should take into consideration that smaller centres of population and the rural districts should be entitled to a heavier weighting in their favour when we come to make that redistribution. That is a matter we cannot ask any outside body, whoever they may be, to decide for us. We must face up to our responsibilities.
I am not here suggesting that we should adopt one system or the other. I am simply calling the attention of this house to the fact that we cannot have a fair redistribution that would be satisfactory to all until the representatives of the people of this country come to a decision on such matters as these.
There is the matter of whether or not, under certain circumstances, certain communities or collections of communities should be given representation, the Northwest Territories, for instance, and the Magdalen islands. Are there reasons-there may be, and I have no doubt they will be laid before the committee-why a very much smaller quota of population in these sections of the country would be entitled to be represented by one member than a very much larger proportion of the population would be, let us say, in the city of Toronto?
There are questions of homogeneity of population, based in some instances on the racial consideration. In the old days, at the beginning of our Canadian parliamentary institutions, our predecessors attached great importance to the representation of different racial groups of the population. For instance, it is well known to hon. members of this house that the British North America Act contains a provision that eleven counties in the province of Quebec-I stand subject to. correction; it may be nine-should have their boundaries frozen to the extent that they could not be changed by the legislature of the province of Quebec. This was in order to protect the Anglo-Protestant population of Quebec, or of Lower Canada as it was then called. I cannot remember the particular counties offhand, but they include Bedford, Missisquoi, Brome and Sherbrooke. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) will probably be able to tell us just how many there are, but the legislature of the province of

Quebec may not change the boundaries of those counties without obtaining the assent of the members of those constituencies.
That is no longer of any importance, because it is. within the knowledge of all that the Anglo-Protestant population of those counties has diminished to an almost infinitesimal proportion of the population and the need or the necessity or the requirement is no longer of any great importance to anybody. I believe that up to the present time when redistribution has taken place in connection with those sections of Quebec, the members representing those particular constituencies in the legislature were consulted.
Whether or not we in this house now desire to continue arrangements similar to that I cannot say. For instance, in the constituency which I have represented for many years the voting strength was kept very low in order to give representation to the Englishspeaking Catholics who were widely scattered between Montreal and Gaspe. This was done in an effort to give the English-speaking Catholics an opportunity to elect one of their number as a member of this house. That situation has long since disappeared. The total English-speaking population in the constituency which I represent would amount to hardly 20 per cent.


Douglas Charles Abbott: On looking at the act I find that the correct figure is twelve counties.


Charles Gavan Power: There are twelve counties in the province of Quebec the boundaries of which were frozen by the British North America Act. Then there is the question of homogeneity, if I may so call it, based on occupation. It is within the recollection of many hon. members that not so long ago a government took great credit to itself in an electoral campaign by saying it had carved out two seats in order to give representation to labour. If my recollection is correct, after the first election that representation of labour was usually by a lawyer.
These are matters which I think should be dealt with specifically by any committee which undertakes a study of this matter. There are localities and constituencies in this country which if divided along certain lines would provide a large proportion of the electorate who would vote occupationally along certain political lines. Then there are others where the population, being residential, could, if the theories expressed by Professor Lower on predetermination apply, be expected to vote along more conservative lines.
These are only some of the matters which must be settled or should be settled once

and for all however we proceed to bring about redistribution, even if we bring it back to this house by means of a committee. There is not much use in our proceeding with redistribution and then have an hon. member justify what may be an apparent injustice by saying that the population or the municipal boundaries are in his favour.
Old stories of municipal boundaries fill the pages 'of Hansard during debates on redistribution. It was supposed to be a Liberal principle that one must always respect the autonomy of municipal boundaries. Within the last 15 or 20 years I have seen little respect shown to that to which so much importance was attached many years ago.
For all these reasons I suggest that the proper time to give consideration to matters of this kind is now, and the proper body to give that consideration is a committee of this house. Personal interest would not be involved to any large extent at this time. I think a study of these questions would bring recommendations to this house which would enable us to decide at some time or other whether or not we should continue the practice which has been followed 'or whether we should venture on new ground.
Without hesitation I would say that no matter what we do we would not bring this parliament into worse odour than we do by following the system we have followed in past redistributions. I have heard it said that parliament is capable of great things, of carrying on its business with dignity, decorum, fairness and impartiality, but that when it comes to decisions with respect to redistribution it falls far short of that which the people of Canada expect from it. It seems to me we can now make a study of this matter coolly, calmly and with great deliberation, and thus do some good to ourselves and to the people of Canada. I commend such a study to this house.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to hear a speech by the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power). The regret of many of us is that he does not speak more frequently, for many of us regard him as the last liberal in the house-I mean with a small "1".
This debate is bound to call to mind the debates on redistribution in 1947 and 1952, and one must be ready to commend what the hon. member for Quebec South had to say in relation to the timing of his introduction of the present resolution.
How much better it is that this question should be considered in a calm frame of mind at a time when we are at least some
Redistribution
distance removed from the next general election, rather than in the atmosphere that prevailed in this house in 1952 when the government was gearing itself for the next general election. That fact was evident in their whole approach to the matter of redistribution at that time. Let us therefore welcome the opportunity of a calm, deliberate and, as far as may be, objective approach to this question.
What the hon. member has proposed is that a committee of this house should be set up to inquire into methods of bringing about the adjustment of representation and a plan for the division of the provinces of Canada into electoral districts in accordance with the provisions of section 51 of the British North America Act.
Mr. Speaker, if something of this kind is not undertaken we shall be faced, about the year 1962, with a repetition of what we experienced in this house in 1952. With great respect for this house and for all in it I say the type of approach to the problem that we found exhibited in 1952 in the committee on redistribution and in the house was not such as to reflect favourably upon the dignity of this house or upon the fairness which hon. members ought to demonstrate in approaching questions as momentous as that involved in redistribution in accordance with section 51 of the British North America Act.
Broadly speaking, two methods were put before the house at that time for consideration. The one that was proposed by the government was by a parliamentary committee, that parliamentary committee working through subcommittees organized largely on provincial lines-in the case of the maritimes there was one subcommittee for the three maritime provinces-and then largely behind closed doors working out, by what was in many cases majority decision, often ruthlessly applied, a plan for the redistribution of the ridings of this country. Then that committee report was pressed through this house to a majority decision after spirited debate and strong opposition.
That is one method, Mr. Speaker. We have had ample experience of that method in Canada and in this House of Commons. I do not think we have much more to learn about that method. Suffice it to say that the criticisms we in the official opposition levelled against that method at that time stand unchallenged. That method involves the exercise by the government majority of its power of carving up the ridings in this country to suit the partisan exigencies of the majority. That, Mr. Speaker, is an unfair use of the power of a majority in the House of Commons.

Redistribution
The other method that was put before the house at that time for consideration was proposed at all stages of the debate. It was put forward by the official opposition at the time the original resolution was introduced to set up the redistribution committee, and it was introduced again when the committee brought its report back to the house. That method was to refer the subject to a commission, as is done in the United Kingdom, Australia and other nations of the commonwealth, and have that commission then bring in a report to the house where the rights of no person are limited in relation to discussion thereof.
Surely, Mr. Speaker, such a method would at least guarantee that a commission would be proceeding in a different atmosphere and, I submit, with a rather different purpose from that which governed the deliberations that were reflected in the majority report that came before the house in 1952. Let us be quite realistic about reports of commissions. Speaking for myself, I may say that I do not believe in handing over to any royal commission my responsibilities as a member of this House of Commons. But, Mr. Speaker, on many occasions I am very glad indeed to have the advantage of a careful review by an independent and impartial commission of the facts of a situation before the house is called upon to take the responsibility of making a decision in relation to a principle.
In that method there is nothing that compromises any member, any parliamentary principle or the rule of responsibility. That method has been tried, as I mentioned a moment ago, in the United Kingdom. It is a method well established there. It has been tried in Australia. It is a method well established there. It has been tried and is well established in other self-governing nations of the commonwealth. Those nations have had experience with this method. They have not chosen to go back to the former method of parliamentary committees. It is therefore quite evident, Mr. Speaker, that so far as those countries are concerned they are well satisfied with the way in which the commission principle is working out.
In none of these cases is power given to the commission to decide, in the last analysis, what the boundaries of constituencies shall be. But power is given to the commission to review the whole problem and introduce its report. Then the parliament concerned is called upon to discharge its responsibility. So far as I am aware, in the light of the discussion of this matter at some length in 1952, there has not been much change made

by these parliaments in the reports submitted by these commissions as to the redistribution of constituencies in the country concerned.
This matter, Mr. Speaker, has a peculiar importance and significance for Canada because, with us, this is not a matter of an ordinary statute. With us this is related to the fundamental law of the land. It is related directly to the British North America Act. In 1946 and again in 1952 we had the experience in this house of having to deal with the British North America Act, to amend that act or to take such steps as were necessary to bring about the amendment of the act in order to make provision for the type of redistribution that was made.
That aspect of the matter is not necessarily integrally bound up with this question of the method by which redistribution is to be carried out. We had some discussion of amendments with that end in view in 1952. But, Mr. Speaker, let us have regard to the fact that unless we put this matter of redistribution on a sound basis and remove it as far as possible from the realm of partisanship, we are going to be faced with bitter debates in the future. We are going to be faced with debates that will have some reference to the British North America Act and that will call into question the dignity and responsibility of this House of Commons before the people of Canada.
I have only to recall some of the results that have flowed from the ruthless use by a majority of this house of their powers in this respect in order to condemn the method. In 1952 we had occasion to point to certain abuses; and if the method is not changed there is no reason to think that similar outrages will not be perpetrated in the future. If the method is not changed now, as proposed by the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power), there will be a temptation to any government that is in office in 1962 to repeat the same sort of ruthless exercise of the power of a majority which we witnessed in 1952, and which resulted in consequences like these:	The union of the riding of
Hastings-Peterborough with the riding of Frontenac, resulting in the creation of a riding in eastern Ontario that is a veritable empire of 49 townships, approximately 80 miles in length one way by 110 miles the other, with a population of 43,741. This was brought about by the union of ridings that were represented up to that time by two Conservative members, while right alongside it was the riding of Renfrew South, represented by a member of the cabinet, that was left at about half the size of this riding

immediately adjoining and with a population of just 31,439, according to the last census. Can anyone justify that?
That is a sample of what happens when the majority in the house ruthlessly uses its power to create results like that for party advantage. We saw a similar result-


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Donald Methuen Fleming: With pleasure.


John Whitney Pickersgill: What about the union of the riding of Swift Current with the riding of Maple Creek? Would the hon. member like to compare the areas of those two with the two he has mentioned?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I hope that after the hon.
member has been in the house a while longer he will learn to see things in proportion. We are talking about things that admit of comparison with one another. It is not a case of comparing ridings or populations in the province of Ontario with the huge ridings that exist in Saskatchewan. I will have something to say about the comparison of ridings in Saskatchewan, but I am talking about two ridings in the province of Ontario, the province in which the Secretary of State lives and has lived from time to time, ridings which are right beside one another, and where the party in power in 1952 used its majority to bring about the result I have described. Here you have the riding of Renfrew South with a population of 31,439, and alongside it a new riding created by the deliberate union of two ridings represented by Conservatives so as necessarily to eliminate one of them, and resulting in the creation of a riding of the dimensions I have described, twice as big as the riding of Renfrew South-


An hon. Member:: Oh, no.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -and with a population 40 per cent larger than the riding of Renfrew South. Let the Secretary of State (Mr. Pickersgill) not wander too far afield. Let him concentrate his attention-


Douglas Charles Abbott: Saskatchewan is just as important as Ontario.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Saskatchewan is just as important as Ontario, but it is a question of comparing ridings that are side by side. We shall compare some of the ridings in the west. If the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) wants to talk about Saskatchewan, let us talk about the carving up of the riding of Lake Centre, done for deliberate partisan ends in order, if possible, to eliminate the hon. member who represented the riding at that time.
Redistribution


An hon. Member:: Nonsense.


Donald Methuen Fleming: If the Secretary of State will turn back to the debates of that time he will see that I put on record a comparison of the areas and the populations of these ridings. He will see that what was done there in the fusion of Lake Centre with the riding of Moose Jaw was done with the deliberate purpose of eliminating one opposition member. It could not be otherwise, because these ridings were both then represented by opposition members. The result was the creation of a riding that was, according to the figures we had then, the most populous in the whole province, and with a larger area than any other riding with the exception of two.
If the minister is interested in getting this down to a sensible basis and trying to create reasonable equality between ridings as to their representation, based on area and population, then he will be able to come to no other conclusion than that what was done in Saskatchewan at that time was done for the purpose, if possible, of eliminating at the next general election the hon. gentleman who represented the riding of Lake Centre. It is an indication of the good sense of the people of that part of Saskatchewan that the electors of Prince Albert rose to the occasion and were not prepared to acquiesce in the attempted elimination on the part of the government of the hon. member who then represented Lake Centre and who is now the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker).


Mr. Pouliot:: If the hon. member would like to know, I could tell him about the worst gerrymander of all time.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I think probably the worst gerrymander of all time was the gerrymander of 1952.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: You do not know anything.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I have only been in the house since 1945, but as for the two redistributions that have been carried on in my time, 1947 and 1952, I say that both represented an outrageous use on the part of the government of its majority powers in the house. It does not matter what party does it, for the purpose of my argument. If we can do it sensibly now, I want to remove from whatever party may be in power in 1962 the temptation to do what I, in my relatively short time in the house, have already seen perpetrated twice. I will be glad indeed to have the support of the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) in supporting the resolution of the hon. member

Redistribution
for Quebec South (Mr. Power) in a determined attempt to prevent a repetition of what was an outrage in 1947 and an outrage in 1952, no matter who attempts to repeat it or what party is responsible.


Jean-François Pouliot: If my hon. friend-


Donald Methuen Fleming: We had a similar situation in the province of Manitoba. There we had two Conservative ridings side by side, Brandon and Souris. What could be more obvious than for these government strategists to combine these two ridings and make one out of them, notwithstanding the fact that the result is that the riding is very populous and very large? But again these questions have not been given the fair consideration they should have been given by those responsible for taking that majority decision.
We had a similar situation in Nova Scotia. There the report of the majority of the redistribution committee proposed a result which has had these consequences. There were three ridings side by side, ridings comparable with one another in the occupations of the people, farming and Ashing, and comparable in the problems of representation by a member, but what was done resulted in distortions like these:	Queens-Lunenburg
with a population of 45,800, Shelburne-Yar-mouth-Clare with a population of 45,595, and Digby-Annapolis-Kings with a population of 66,510. Is that fair?


Robert Henry Winters: I wonder if the hon. member would permit me a question. I should like to ask him if he realizes that the increment added to make the new constituency of Queens-Lunenburg is larger than the increment added to make the new constituency of Digby-Annapolis-Kings.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am equally aware that the addition of such increments as the majority permitted to be added has resulted in the distortion to which I have just referred, where the population of Digby-Annapolis-Kings is just about 40 per cent larger than the population of the adjoining and comparable ridings of Queens-Lunenburg and Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare. We of the minority on that committee brought forward a sensible proposal that would have resulted in a fair and equal distribution of these three ridings, equal both in terms of population and in terms of area, but it was rejected by the majority of that committee.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. May I ask the hon. member if, for the purpose of his argument, he has not cited enough examples. After all, what is going through my mind now is that no matter how interesting it may be to hear a review of the proceedings before committees or previous debates in the house on

redistribution, I think we are concerned now with the committee to be set up and with the methods of bringing about an adjustment of representation.
I leave it to hon. members, but I think if they want to have a debate relevant to the motion before the house they will not spend their time reviewing injustices of the past. If hon. members wish to make passing references, very well. That is what the hon. member has done, but I think he is now proceeding to review what were, according to him, unfair adjustments of constituencies in the past, and I can see that hon. members who take a different view will be discussing the same matter but in reverse. Therefore we will have a revival of the debate which took place on redistribution in 1952 or in previous years.
I have heard it announced that perhaps we might hear about the redistribution in the years before 1952. I would submit, therefore, that if we are to discuss this motion perhaps now is the ripe time to do it.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I agree with you, Mr. Speaker, as will every other fairminded person in this house, that I have already given sufficient examples to demonstrate the outrageous use that was made of the power of the majority in 1952. I can only express the hope, and I do it with great respect, that these facts which I am putting before those new members who were not present in 1952 to hear these questions discussed will sufficiently shock them so they will determine they are not going to be parties to continuing a system that will permit a repetition of such outrageous abuse of the power of the majority. I hope they will resolve that now the time has come when a new method must be used.
If any hon. members are not sufficiently convinced by the few examples I have cited, let me say at once that I could cite many other examples. I have given only about four examples of the many that could have been cited. I must tell the new members of this house that when the house was put to the test in committee of the whole on these various proposals for butchering up the ridings, there was only one vote out 'of some 550 which were cast in nine divisions on July 2, 1952, in which a Liberal member departed from the majority. This vote was cast by the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Cavers). This one vote out of the 500-odd which were cast represented the only occasion when an hon. member on the government side chose to depart from the strict rule of government decision. In the light of that fact let there be no suggestion that

individual members-I am speaking now of the majority, who are those who make the final decision-approach the matter of making a decision with any freedom. They follow the party line. In my submission, Mr. Speaker, that is enough to condemn the method.
As my leader said at that time, surely we have reached the point now in the course of our constitutional development when we can devise some better method than one that is essentially barbarous politically, a better method for carving up this country into ridings, so the people of Canada may be given effective opportunity of expressing their wishes at the polls in the election of members to this house.
In presenting this motion the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power) has not followed the same form he did on previous occasions, in proposing a particular method. There are many of us who think the method he proposed during several sessions of the twenty-first parliament was a sound method and worthy of serious consideration. On this *occasion the hon. member has proposed that a committee of this house should be appointed for the purpose of considering the whole question, reviewing possible plans and schemes and making recommendations.
It seems to me the method the hon. member has followed in this resolution is one to which no hon. member could take exception. This is the time to address ourselves to this question, Mr. Speaker. I take it there will be full opportunity in that committee to consider any method that any hon. member chooses to bring forward. If there are other methods than the two to which I have made passing reference today, then the committee will have an opportunity of reviewing such methods. Surely the time has come, in deference to the responsibility we owe to the people of Canada, when the rights of the people must be put above the right of the party that happens to possess a majority in the House of Commons at the time redistribution is carried out.
As my leader was fair enough to say in 1952, in condemning what was proposed then we are not absolving past governments of what may have been done by them in previous redistributions whenever they have made unfair use of their majority powers in carving up the ridings of this country for their partisan ends. Surely we have had enough evidence; and my memory takes me back far enough to convince me that, although this method has been in effect since confederation, it is a method that can no longer be tolerated. The time has come when the 83276-43
Customs Act
rights of the people must be made paramount to the partisan rights of any majority in the House of Commons.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I wish to speak in wholehearted support of the motion which has been placed before the house by the member for Quebec South (Mr. Power), but perhaps I could do that at eight o'clock.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Hon. J. J. McCann (Minister of National Revenue) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. 29, to amend the Customs Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, having been given permission to revert to the order for motions, let me say that the bill which is now being introduced deals with an amendment to the Customs Act. It may be useful to hon. members if I were to explain the proposed change and what it is intended to do.
Among its administrative functions the customs division of the Department of National Revenue bears the responsibility of appraising all imported goods to ascertain whether they are being imported at a price related to the fair market value in the country of export as defined by the Customs Act.
Ordinary routine exporters' invoice values, where these appear low, are closely scrutinized to determine whether they comply with the valuation provisions of the Customs Act. When such values are less than domestic market prices in the country of export, proper values are established on which duty and sales tax are based. In addition, a special duty may be imposed under the dumping clause of the Customs Tariff to the extent of the undervaluation.
Section 35 provides the definition of value for duty required in carrying out these functions.
By and large this basis of appraisal of values for customs purposes has worked reasonably well. However, it has been found in practice that the section as it is now worded has not been fully adequate to deal with certain practices which in fact constitute a special kind of dumping.
A number of cases have recently been brought to the attention of the government where the application of section 35 of the

Customs Act
Customs Act has permitted the importation of manufactured goods into Canada at values which, while strictly speaking the same as those prevailing for the moment in the domestic market of the country of export, are nevertheless abnormally low. The flow of imports resulting from these conditions does not reflect the true competitive position of the Canadian industry concerned. In the textile industry, for example, as the season abroad advances or as inventories of some items accumulate, certain lines are closed out and placed on the market at prices substantially less than those previously effective. The importation of such goods into Canada at abnormally low prices may cause injury to Canadian industry which is not in any real sense related to its relative efficiency or productivity.
The government believes that this situation needs to be corrected, and to this end is proposing an amendment to the Customs Act.
The amendment proposed, that is, the addition of subsection 6 to section 35 of the Customs Act, authorizes the minister, in cases where he finds prices of manufactured goods have fallen to abnormally low levels as a result of the advance of the season or the marketing period, to appraise the goods concerned for customs purposes on the basis of the weighted average price prevailing in the country of export in a reasonable preceding period not to exceed six months. It is believed that in the circumstances envisaged this will provide a more accurate reflection of the fair market value in the country of origin at the time of exportation to Canada.
This amendment involves no departure from our established trade policy. The Canadian government has consistently worked for the reduction of trade barriers and the expansion of world trade. We are convinced that this policy is essential to the stability at a high level of employment and prosperity in Canada.
In line with this policy the proposed amendment is directed toward dealing with the problem I have outlined not through any tariff increases or import quotas but by ensuring that the valuation procedures shall be such that the existing tariff rates receive their proper application.
I should make it clear to the house that the proposed amendment is fully consistent with our international obligations. Our trade agreements including GATT recognize the right to deal with dumping. Indeed, if there were no provisions to deal with undervaluation it would not have been possible to make the progress we have made in reducing tariff rates and other barriers to trade.

This revision of the law is designed to help meet the difficulties arising from end of season and end of line imports which are dumped into Canada at abnormally low prices. Industries which are well organized and reasonably competitive should not be allowed to suffer as a result of this situation.
This proposed change in the law will not, however, help industries whose prices are too high, whose productivity is low, or whose marketing practices are obsolete. What we are trying to ensure is the maintenance of fair competition-that is, fair to producers and consumers alike.
It is proposed to bring this provision into effect as from midnight tonight.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



REDISTRIBUTION


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Power (Quebec South):
That, in the opinion of this house, consideration should be given as to the advisability of setting up a committee of members of the house to inquire into methods of bringing about the adjustment of representation and a plan for the division of the provinces of Canada into electoral districts in accordance with the provisions of section 51 of the British North America Acts 1867 to 1951, as enacted by the British North America Act 1946, and to report and recommend such method as may in the view of the committee be fair and equitable, and in the public interest.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated in a sentence just before six o'clock, I rise to support wholeheartedly the resolution placed before the house this afternoon by the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power). I am sure I express the view of a great many, if not all, members of the house when I say that we congratulate the hon. member for Quebec South upon bringing this question before us at the present time.
I think it should be said right away- to supporters of the government in particular-that it surely carries considerable significance when the senior member in the house, the member who has had more experience in parliament than any of the rest of us, regards this as the question he should make the subject matter of his motion on the order paper.
As hon. members are aware, a member may have only one notice of motion on the order paper at a time. This means that when a member puts a motion on, it is something he regards as very important. I emphasize, particularly for the benefit of the government, the position taken by the hon. member

for Quebec South when, out of his long experience, he makes this question the subject of his motion today.
It was with considerable interest that I listened to the remarks made by the hon. member in opening his presentation this afternoon. I would have to agree with him that there may be points of detail, and possibly some major points, about which he and I might disagree if we found ourselves both members of the committee envisaged by this resolution. But on one point we are in complete agreement-and this is a point that should be recognized and established with the least possible delay-that definite and precise rules for redistribution should be formulated and laid down by parliament. Where the hon. member and I might disagree would be as to whether the redistribution, once the rules have been formulated, should be carried out by an independent commission or by a committee of the house. But I know we will agree that whatever body does the job, there should first of all be laid down precise and definite rules to be followed by the body doing the job of redistribution.
The need for rules, the need for some objectivity in this job of redistribution, has been demonstrated at every redistribution since this parliament was first established. I am inclined to agree with those who feel that it was never more clearly demonstrated than at the time of the redistribution in 1952. I am not so sure that this is the time for any recrimination back and forth with respect to what was done at that time. As I listened, for example, to the remarks this afternoon by the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) in which he expressed some considerable annoyance, which we all felt, with some of the things done in 1952, I could not help wondering what would be the situation if the Tory party were still alive and in power in 1962. With the spirit that was displayed this afternoon by the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming), we would probably get the job that was done last year, but done in reverse. All of which simply illustrates the need for taking this matter out of the realm of caprice and putting it on a definite basis.
With regard to the redistribution of 1952 I should like to commend to hon. members, in case they have not seen it, an excellent paper on that question which was presented at the annual meeting of the Canadian political science association in London, Ontario, on June 3, 1953, by Professor Norman Ward of the University of Saskatchewan. The paper Professor Ward presented on that occasion was printed in the 83276-431
Redistribution
Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science in August, 1953, and reprints of that article are available. Professor Ward makes an exhaustive study of everything that went on in connection with the redistribution of 1952, pointing out, as the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power) has, the lack of any basic principles being applied in redistribution, and pointing to some of the many things that developed because of the speed, to some of the strange principles that were enunciated, and to the pressure and the political atmosphere in which that redistribution was carried out.
For example, on page 357 of the article to which I have just referred Professor Ward gave a table showing, as a result of various redistributions, how the constituencies varied as to population. It is a lengthy table from which I shall not quote more than one or two references. He points out that as at result of the 1952 redistribution there are three constituencies where the population is fewer than 12,000. On the other hand there are six constituencies with a population of over 84,000. Obviously there is no basic rule or principle of redistribution that could have resulted in such a wide disparity.
Professor Ward also points out in this article something to which I referred during the course of the debate in 1952: that is that there has been no decision as to how we apportion the constituencies in a province as between rural and urban areas. In my province of Manitoba, for example, prior to the redistribution of last year each urban seat had, on the average, a population 46 per cent greater than the average population of each rural seat. I pointed out in the debate last year, as the hon. member for Quebec South has suggested in his bill, that the differential might well be of the order of 25 per cent. As a matter of fact I would be quite prepared to see it 334 per cent; but in the case of Manitoba, where it was 46 per cent prior to the last redistribution, the differential was increased to 75 per cent as a result of the redistribution of 1952.
Professor Ward also gives figures to show that cities in different provinces fare differently as compared with each other. I will not give the figures; they can be found on pages 357 and 358. In this article he compares the position as among Montreal, Toronto, Winnipeg and Vancouver. Each of those cities fares differently so far as the distribution of seats between urban and rural areas in the respective provinces is concerned.
Well, I just cite that in support of the contention of the hon. member for Quebec

Redistribution
South that surely the first thing we must do is lay down some fairly definite rules on the basis of which redistribution should be carried out. It could be at this point that the hon. member for Quebec South and I might part company, although that is one of the advantages of a committee like this. We can discuss this matter and come to some common understanding. But my view at the moment is that even after you have those rules laid down by parliament it is still highly desirable that the actual job of drawing the boundaries of constituencies within a province should be done by an independent commission. I accept the proposition that the report of such a commission should come back to parliament as does the report of the commission in the United Kingdom; but I think it is a very justifiable fear that even if you lay down rules first, if you then turn around and give the job of drawing those boundaries back in effect to the same group of people who have drawn the rules it is an awful temptation to that committee to find ways and means, as a result of a majority on one side of the house, to stretch those rules. It is a proposition that is used quite often around this place, if not on the floor, certainly out in the halls* If we do not break the rules we stretch them.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Bend them.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Well, have it either way you wish. My fear is that a committee of parliament doing a job, even after the rules have been laid down, would bend those rules until the last stage would not be much better than what we have at the present time. Therefore it seems to me we should agree that we have had enough of redistribution by parliamentary committees, and that the time has come for this job to be done by an independent commission.
This group is pleased with the growing support that has been shown for that proposition. We first moved it back in 1947. On that occasion we got support from some members of the Progressive Conservative party, but most of them went the other way. We moved it again in 1952, at one stage of the long and complicated debates of that year. Later on the Progressive Conservatives moved it at another stage. At any rate, the debates and these amendments that have been moved and the discussion that has taken place have made it clear that there is a growing realization that the job should be done by an independent commission. I hope this committee if it is set up, as I hope it will be, will make such a recommendation back to this house.

I made reference a moment ago, Mr. Speaker, to the excellent story of the redistribution of 1952 that has been put in print by Professor Norman Ward. May I refer to some other aspects of redistribution by a committee to which he draws attention, namely some of the oddities that arose because of the pressure under which this job is done when it is done by a parliamentary committee.
Hon. members will recall that in the last days of that debate we were dealing with boundaries in bills that had to be printed and reprinted because of errors, and that changes were made on the floor of the house even after the deadline had apparently been reached, with no opportunity for checking adequately the significance of some of those boundaries. I quote one instance to which Professor Norman Ward referred. It happens to be the boundary between my constituency and the constituency of my colleague the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Stewart). It is not of great consequence, but it illustrates the kind of thing that happens when a job like this is done by a parliamentary committee.
It so happens that the boundary line between our two constituencies was described as "the centre line of Manitoba avenue, in Winnipeg, starting from the westerly city limits and going east as far as Manitoba avenue goes and then the projection thereof until the line reaches the centre of the Red river". Well, no one had time to check on what the line would do, projecting thus from the eastern end of Manitoba avenue out into the Red river. But when I got home and went around there to see where it went I discovered that that line ran right through an old folks' home that sits astride of that imaginary line. Well, of course the result was that there had to be a good deal of correspondence back and forth between the returning officers of the two constituencies and the chief electoral officer here in Ottawa. The upshot of that correspondence was that there was no alternative but that the old folks' home had to be divided right down the middle and some of the residents therein enumerated as being in Winnipeg North and some as being in Winnipeg North Centre. Imagine the confusion among those old people on election day when people in adjoining rooms had to go out of that institution, not only to different polls but to different constituencies. It came out all right, of course, because my colleague the hon. member for Winnipeg North and I are both here, as everyone expected; but I cite that as an example of the kind of thing that


develops when we do this job of redistribution under the pressure that is inevitable when it is done by a parliamentary committee.


Mr. Mcllraiih:: The hon. member's argument indicates that he is not familiar with his constituency. The work done did not reflect on parliament or on the other members of the committee.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I did not draw that line; it was drawn in a part of a constituency which was not then mine. As a matter of fact the suggestion that the line be drawn there came from a minister on the government side who apparently did not know himself what the effect of drawing that line would be. I suggest that had we had an opportunity even at the time the line was drawn to see what would happen-it probably could have been done by mail-some different decision might have been arrived at. But there was no time, and because of compromises being made in the heat of debate during the last part of June and the early part of July, 1952, this is the sort of thing that happened.
Those of us who want this motion to pass had better not talk too long. We do not want to talk it out. Therefore I shall curtail my remarks and eliminate a good deal of what I would like to have said. Just briefly may I say that I noted with interest the statement by the hon. member for Quebec South that he envisaged this committee confining itself to a discussion as to how to draw the boundaries of constituencies within each province. So far as this committee is concerned, he is not thinking of the prior problem of apportioning the total number of seats in parliament among the various provinces.
On that point I was a little confused by the words of his motion. It seemed to me that by asking for this committee to base its work on section 51 of the British North America Act as enacted in 1946 he was thereby eliminating any consideration of section 51 of the British North America Act as enacted by the amending statute of 1952. Maybe that is just a slip on his part; maybe he does not like that amendment of 1952 and so deliberately ignored it in his motion. However, that point need not be quarrelled about. I do suggest that there is still room for discussing that prior question, as I call it, of the apportioning of the seats among the provinces.
The hon. member for Quebec South spoke about the lip service that has been paid in the house to the principle of representation
Redistribution
by population. He knows, as do hon. members in all parts of the house, that we have gone against that principle in a good many ways. There is what is known as the senatorial floor which protects certain provinces; there is a special provision with regard to the Northwest Territories; there is the special 15 per cent clause which was written into the British North America Act in 1952 and which had the effect of protecting a province like Saskatchewan from losing more than three seats. Some of us felt that if that principle were going to be invoked it should have been a figure such as 10 per cent which would have provided similar protection for a province like Manitoba.
One can hardly go against the changes that have been made in the representation by population formula because they have been made so often down through the years. The very fact that they have been made seems to me to suggest that it would not be out of place for us to take another look at the whole question of the apportioning of seats among the various provinces.
It would seem to me that if we are going to establish the kind of floor we established in 1952 then it should be on a percentage basis that would apply more generally as a principle protecting other provinces and not protecting just one. Whether or not that sort of question is within the ambit of the motion is perhaps for the committee to decide after it has been established, but I make this passing reference to the changes in the representation by population rule that have been made because of expediency down through the years to make it clear, as I think it is, that both aspects of this question of redistribution should be studied. By both aspects I mean the question as to how boundaries are drawn within a province and also the question of how the total number of seats in the House of Commons shall be apportioned among the various provinces of Canada.
As the hon. member for Quebec South pointed out, the basic problem is to take this task out of partisan politics, which it is bound to be in when you have the job done by a committee without any rules. We should lay down some basic and precise rules for redistribution. Professor Norman Ward's story of what happened in 1952 is but another chapter of the story of redistribution across the years. Some reference was made this afternoon by the hon. member for Quebec South to certain principles that the Liberals may have espoused across the years, whether they were lived up to or not. We remember also the famous remark of Sir John A. Macdonald

Redistribution
that his way to carry out redistribution was to hive the Grits. We heard this afternoon a bitter denunciation of what the Liberals did in 1952.


Donald Methuen Fleming: And in 1947.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member for Eglin-ton says, "And in 1947." It was something like that which led me a moment ago, before the hon. member came in, to ask a question. In view of the way the hon. member for Eglinton feels about what was done in 1947 and 1952, what would he do in 1962 if by any chance he were chairman of the redistribution committee in that year?


George James McIlraith: Look at what happened in 1933. Is that not the answer?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Let us make sure that no partisan person is in charge of this important job in 1962. This question of drawing the boundaries of constituencies in this country belongs in a peculiar way to the people of Canada, not to the members of parliament. It is our responsibility to the people of Canada to lay down the rules, but having laid down the rules let us not do the job of laying out the boundaries ourselves in a way that is pleasant to hon. members who happen to be on the majority side. Let us have the job done objectively by an independent commission.
I heartily support the motion which has been introduced by the hon. member for Quebec South. I hope it will receive the consideration which it deserves from all members, particularly from members on the government side.


Mr. Applewhaite:: The hon. member said there were three constituencies with populations of less than 12,000; can he give us the names and areas of those constituencies?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am sorry I cannot at the moment. I was quoting from a table given by Professor Ward in his paper on the question. One of them would be the Iles-de-la-Madeleine.


George James McIlraith: One would be the Northwest Territories.


Douglas Charles Abbott: And the Yukon.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member is getting his answer from various sources. I have several copies of this article and I shall be happy to send a copy to the hon. member for Skeena. There seem to be three requests being made for copies of it from hon. members on the other side, so I shall be glad to get them from my office and send them over.


Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, it may be that quite a number of

hon. members would like to say something on this resolution, and as time is running out I propose to limit what I have to say in order to make it possible to hope for a vote tonight. I do hope we will be able to have a vote on this motion.
It is quite evident to me that the practice that has been followed in the past in connection with redistribution stands condemned because of the results that have been achieved. It is evident that the method that has been used in the past has followed expediency and certainly has departed very largely from principle.
I agree with the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power) that a committee of this house should be set up at the earliest possible time to inquire into methods that might be followed in bringing about a redistribution, and then report its findings back to this house.
In the second place, I agree that the time to set up the committee is now. I guess that puts me in fairly substantial support of the motion moved by the hon. member for Quebec South.
Surely we can devise some better method of adjusting constituencies than that which we have been following in the past. The present parliamentary committee method, as it has been termed, smacks too much of a game in which the team that has just won also assumes that it has the authority and the power to make the rules to suit itself and to its advantage as it goes along. That is what they call seahorse, if I remember correctly. I do not like the game of seahorse at all.
I admit that I was one of those who, when this same matter was under discussion on, I think, two previous occasions, felt that I was not quite prepared to turn over the work of parliament to a commission. As yet I cannot feel that I should entirely depart from that stand. However, Mr. Speaker, I believe there is much merit in the suggestion that a royal commission or a commission of some sort might be appointed to examine into all the facts, to establish those facts and then report them back to this house, in order that they might be used as the basis for a redistribution brought about by some committee of the House of Commons.
I believe there is much merit in that suggestion. Yet I am not prepared at the moment to go quite as far as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has expressed himself as being prepared to go. If we set up a committee of the kind that is proposed in the resolution I would say that committee might, after careful and long study, come up with a suggestion that would be even better than the commission

idea. I would not be surprised to see it do that very thing. But at least it we had a commission to establish the facts, and all the facts, and then turn those facts over, in the form of a report, to the House of Commons, I think we would stand a better chance of having an unbiased foundation upon which the members of parliament could do the work of readjustment of representation. I favour a commission at least to do that foundation work.
It may be that a committee of the kind proposed by the hon. member for Quebec South would, as I said, after some years of careful study, come up with an even better suggestion than that of a redistribution commission. But certainly there is widespread dissatisfaction with the present method of political butchery, and we ought to be doing something to remove that dissatisfaction.
I think it is noteworthy, Mr. Speaker, that the resolution now before us is being sponsored by a great Canadian who sits in this house in support of the government. On more than one occasion I have listened to him present his cogent reasons for a change in the method of redistribution from the old, archaic method to something new and better. I have been influenced by his reasoning. I have been influenced because of the fact that in not one instance that I can recall has the hon. member for Quebec South ever recited any personal grievance in order to support his argument in favour of a change. That fact influences me considerably. I think we ought to give most earnest consideration to the motion he has put on the order paper and has supported so well with arguments here today. Mr. Speaker, I propose to give his motion support.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, at the outset I should like to say that the government does not intend to oppose the substance of the motion moved by the hon. member for Quebec South. However, I intend to move a slight amendment to that motion, and perhaps I might just as well do it immediately.
The purport of the amendment is this. Since every year a committee of the house known as the standing committee on privileges and elections is set up, and since for some years it has not had a great deal to do, it would seem to be preferable to use that committee instead of setting up another additional committee. As the standing committee has not yet been set up, it should not be difficult for the whips to arrange that those members who are especially interested in the subject could be put on that committee. This is really a rather small, technical matter, but to the members of the
Redistribution
government it seemed that it might expedite the consideration of this matter if use were to be made of the ordinary machinery of the house. I therefore move, seconded by the Associate Minister of National Defence (Mr. Campney):
That the words from the word "given" in the first line of the motion to the word "methods" in the third line be struck out and the following words substituted therefor: "by the standing committee on privileges and elections when established to".
The whole motion, or at least the earlier part of it, would then read as follows:
That, in the opinion of this house, consideration should be given by the standing committee on privileges and elections when established to methods of bringing about the adjustment of representation-
There are a few observations that I should like to make on the substance of the resolution. I am afraid I cannot agree with any of the hon. gentlemen on the other side of the house when they say the last two distributions have been intrinsically unfair. I was not a member of the house on either occasion, but it is somewhat notorious that I have been living for some time in this city and have been taking some interest in what has been going on in this house. I heard from the galleries some of the debates, and I followed rather closely some of those that I did not hear.
I have no desire to make the kind of partisan speech which was made by the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) this afternoon, but I do say that I cannot weep any more tears over the fact that a part of Hastings county was added to Frontenac county than I do over the fact that Prescott county was added to Glengarry county in this same province.
Since the hon. gentleman himself did not see fit to pursue the comparison which I suggested this afternoon he might make between the situation he described in Hastings and Frontenac and the situation I mentioned in Saskatchewan, I would also point out that he will probably see from examining the map that the combined area of the new riding of Swift Current-Maple Creek is considerably larger than the riding of Hastings-Frontenac.


Donald Methuen Fleming: So is Mackenzie, for that matter.


John Whitney Pickersgill: He will also find that the consequence of that particular union was to make it quite sure that one or other of the Liberal members for those two ridings in the last parliament could not be re-elected to this house unless he went carpetbagging into some other part of the province of Saskatchewan.

Redistribution


An hon. Member:: You should know about that.


John Whitney Pickersgill: On the other hand, as to the situation with respect to the late and I think perhaps not very much lamented constituency of Lake Centre, I remember very well the crocodile tears which were shed in the house in the year 1947 about the suggested removal of a couple of townships from that sacrosanct part of this country. I examined the maps and the figures at the time. I do not carry them in my mind now because I have not quite the capacity for that kind of thing that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has, I regret to say; but I venture to say that if there had been a Liberal member sitting for the constituency of Lake Centre in 1947 that constituency would have been extinguished without a tear from anyone. Though its population was relatively small it was preserved in defiance of representation by population precisely because it did have a member from the opposition side.
When in 1952 the situation was so preposterous that it was no longer possible to continue that as a separate constituency it was united with a constituency represented by a gentleman who, I believe, still belongs to another party in the house. As a result there was no need whatsoever for the hon. gentleman who now represents Prince Albert to move to the other end of Saskatchewan, except the fact that he could not find enough Canadians in the new riding of Moose Jaw-Lake Centre to elect him there.
That is why I do not think much has been proven about any intrinsic unfairness by the few examples the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) gave before you interrupted him, sir; and before you interrupt me on the same score I am going to stop talking about these examples and make the point which is my only excuse for referring to them.
I said I did not think, and I do not think, members on either side of the house really want to be unfair about these things at all. I do not even feel that way about the hon. gentlemen opposite. I think most of the members of the house want to be fair about these things, and I have a kind of suspicion that more intelligence would be displayed and possibly more real justice would be done by a redistribution made by members of the house than is apt to be the case if it is done by so-called independent persons many of whom in all probability will never have participated in public life, who in many cases will not understand or might not understand all these local, particular, geographical and

historical reasons for which it is sometimes desirable for one riding to be bigger than another and why it perhaps is undesirable, for example, to make the whole of one county into a riding or to join together two areas that have always been divided historically.
But be that as it may, there is one reason why I personally-and I am speaking here only for myself-think it is very unfair to those of us who sit on this side of the house now, and to anyone who may be sitting on this side of the house at any time, to have the present system perpetuated. There will always be a temptation to which certain partisan members of the house are bound to yield to represent what is done by the majority in the house as having been done for the majority in the house. I do not think that was done in 1947, I do not think it was done in 1952, and I do not think it would be done by any Canadian government that might have a majority in 1962.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is it done by the government at all? It is supposed to be done by parliament.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not think it is done by the government at all. I said the government party, those of us on this side of the house. If I did not say that, that is what I meant to say.


An hon. Member:: Anybody on this side of the house.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Anybody sitting on this side of the house. I simply do not think that because I have not such a low opinion even of Conservative politicians. But, sir, I do think there will be crocodile tears wept, just as long as redistributions are carried on in this house, for hon. members on the other side of the house who happen, because of changes in population, to find themselves without constituencies after a redistribution. Maybe that is a part of human nature, and I do not think there is much doubt that those crocodile tears did help one or two of the more distinguished hon. gentlemen opposite in the last election. In fact as I listened to the hon. member for Eglinton this afternoon talking so eloquently about the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) having been gerrymandered out of his seat, I wondered whether, if that had really been true, which I do not think it was, the main regret was on this side or on the other side of the house. I say that-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -only because of the editorial in the Ottawa Journal on Saturday last.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member
referred a moment ago to the fact that this afternoon I interrupted the hon. member for Eglinton for reviewing past debates or proceedings on redistribution in years gone by. He was quite right when he said that I was tempted to interrupt him. I am sorry I have to do so now, but I think the hon. member must come to the point. Otherwise I will have to allow other hon. members to make speeches in rebuttal and we will be having a debate which will be completely outside of the motion moved by the hon. member for Quebec South.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I can only plead my inexperience.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Douglas Scott Harkness: A recurrence of those crocodile tears.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The point I was making when I was tempted to digress and yielded to the temptation was that I think there will always be a tendency, as long as the present system is perpetuated, to represent it as being unfair, and as being unfair in the interests of the political party or political parties which sit on this side of your chair. That is almost inevitable. Therefore, because 1 cherish the hope of sitting for quite some time on your right, sir-


Donald Methuen Fleming: The new leader.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -I hope that we can find some system that will not be so unfair to the government as the present system is.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is for that reason that I would welcome a change in the system, not that I really think we will get better redistributions, because I very much doubt if we will. It seems to me that if the matter is to be left to an independent commission the commission will have to be saddled with a good many rules, and it will tend to do the job in a much more mechanical way than it is apt to be done by the house.


Mr. Lennard:: That is much better than a political way.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I very much doubt if the public will be as well satisfied with it in the end, but if it does give the impression that the thing is being done more fairly then I think that is quite important.
I cannot say that I agree with any of the hon. members opposite who feel that there would be an advantage if this task were to be given to an independent commission, and then have the matter come back to parliament. The situation would be similar to the one they had in the United Kingdom 83276-44
Redistribution
when the predecessors of the present government there were in office. When the report came back to parliament they were so dissatisfied with it that they added 17 additional seats. There was a good deal of suggestion that they had done so for their own advantage, and not for the advantage of the opposition. Actually it did not turn out to be to anyone's advantage.
If a commission were given this task, subject to the review of the house, any change suggested on this side of the house would be characterized in exactly the same language as that used by the hon. member for Eglinton this afternoon, and for exactly the same reasons. I say, therefore, if we are going to turn this work over to an independent commission, let us do it and be done with it. We should get the best possible commission, let the commission make its report and then live with it, not bring the matter back into the house.
As I say, I am not committing any of my colleagues. I have not discussed this with any of my colleagues nor, so far as I can recall, with anyone else in the house. It may be that when I have more experience here I shall have entirely different views on the subject. I do believe the subject is one that ought to be discussed. I believe it is one that ought to be considered, and I believe the right place to consider it is in a committee. I feel that the right time to give the matter consideration is as early before redistribution as possible. I would hope that when the hon. member for Eglinton is sitting on the committee, as no doubt he will be, he will forget the partisan speeches he and some of the rest of us might have made in the house, and will approach this matter in the calm, dispassionate and objective spirit with which he felt the government side had not approached the last redistribution.
I hope, sir, the house will see fit to accept the amendment which I have offered on behalf of the government, and to pass the motion as amended.


George Alexander Drew: There will be general agreement, Mr. Speaker, with the purpose of the motion, and as long as there is no hidden device behind it there will be general agreement with the end result of the amendment. I would suggest, however, that perhaps there are some here who cannot speak with that objective detachment of the Secretary of State (Mr. Pickersgill), and who are unable to feel so completely dissociated from reality as he appears to be in the views he has just expressed. I hope he has not enunciated a new policy of government irresponsibility

Redistribution
when, on moving the amendment to the motion, he says he is not committing any of his colleagues.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, on a point
of order, I committed all my colleagues to the amendment. It was merely in the views I expressed about what might be done in the committee that I was speaking only for myself.


George Alexander Drew: Then the irresponsibility only
began after the amendment had been moved.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: It is evident that there
has been a lot of irresponsibility in this discussion.


George Alexander Drew: There must have been many hon. members who would have perhaps felt a little more like accepting the advice we have received were they not aware of the very close association of the hon. member with events in this house, even if he has not sat on the floor of the house prior to this occasion. He has made it quite clear that he had not separated himself completely as clerk of the privy council from the activities of this house. He has the advantage, therefore, of having known what has taken place.
Now, when he speaks so strongly-and in this of course he does not commit his colleagues-against the idea of any independent body, may I commend to his consideration the following words:
My own view, and I have come to it alter 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, where the parties are immediately interested, and should be put into the hands of a commission of judges.
I shall not read on from that point because if the hon. member will look at Mr. King's speech in this house on May 25, 1933, as recorded at page 5425 of Hansard, he will find that Mr. King was quite prepared to agree that there might be other methods. Mr. King said that he realized there were a number of his colleagues and supporters who did not believe that a commission of judges would be the best idea, but he did go on to say in the most emphatic terms that after his long experience in this house he believed some independent commission should consider this subject.
May I say, however, that neither Mr. King nor anyone who has spoken on other occasions along similar lines has at any time suggested, so far as I am aware, that the members of this house should divest themselves of their ultimate responsibility as representatives of the people for any decisions that are made. In fact the Secretary of State during the latter part of his speech-I was

not using the term irresponsible in any connection except in relation to the words "responsible government"-


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think it was quite proper to use it.


George Alexander Drew: During the latter part of his speech the minister pointed out the commission did not work satisfactorily because at Westminster the parliament did not accept the report of the commission but exercised its own judgment. When the commission report was presented they saw fit to add 17 seats. They have not divested themselves of responsibility, Mr. Speaker; they have not delegated their authority to the commission. They have given the commission powers of inquiry only. After accumulating from day to day the information that is necessary for a statistical examination of this subject, the commission makes its recommendations to the House of Commons. The House of Commons, in turn, accepts that report or not as it sees fit, and in doing so has the advantage of the recommendations of this independent body.
Whether or not that is the right system, at least it is a system that has worked with some appearance of impartiality and justice. At least it has avoided what the mover of the present motion has so accurately described. On an earlier occasion the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power) used these words, which I think are very descriptive, as found on page 698 of Hansard for February 21, 1947:
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 . . .
That expression "unseemly turmoil" was a very moderate understatement of what actually occurred. On both sides of the house there have been strong terms used, and with justice. There is not an hon. member who faces up to reality who does not know that it has been the law of the jungle that has applied, without any pretence of justice.


George James McIlraith: That is not so.


George Alexander Drew: What I object to is this pretence of purity of purpose that is now presented to us by the Secretary of State (Mr. Pickersgill). Yes, and as has already been said in the house this afternoon-and I have referred to these words on an earlier occasion- Sir John A. Macdonald in the very early days of the Canadian parliament left no doubt about the guiding principle in certain redistributions that were taking place then. He used the type of expression that he would be expected to use when he said that he was going to do what he could to hive the Grits. The attractiveness of that statement was that

it was frank. He did not rise and talk about crocodile tears on the other side and purity on his own, and then go out to hive the Grits. He said he was doing it, and he did it.
There is not a single member in the house on either side who does not know that the same principle applied, and that the Grits on this occasion were hiving the Tories wherever they could-and on one or two occasions, some of the others as well.


An hon. Member:: Where?


Frank Exton Lennard: I will tell you where, if you want to know.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, these painful
bleatings of purity are the sort of thing that will leave us in some doubt as to the genuineness of the motives behind this amendment. If the Secretary of State means by his amendment that this is going to be presented to the committee on privileges and elections with some real intent to follow the course recommended, and I know recommended with a great sincerity, by the hon. member who has moved the motion, then something will be accomplished. If on the other hand the approach is going to be on the basis that these are only crocodile tears when complaints are made about the outrageous abuses perpetrated at the time of the last redistribution, then it does not make any difference what the terms of reference are; we cannot expect very much from that committee with its majority supporting the government.
The hon. member who has moved the motion has carried to a logical conclusion the arguments he has been presenting to the house for many years. Regardless of the party to which hon. members belong, I believe every hon. member will accord the hon. member for Quebec South the assurance of his complete sincerity and earnestness in respect of the motion he has presented, and the arguments he has offered in support of it.
In supporting this motion, which would submit the problem to a committee empowered to deal with it and to bring before the house a proper and workable system, I hope we may feel that a real effort is going to be made to tackle the problem. I said when the subject was up before that on neither side of the house have we any right to claim special purity in regard to this matter. And I repeat my objection is that on this occasion there seems to be a desire to impress upon others- because certainly it cannot impress us-the idea that there was behind this last redistribution anything but an attempt to carry out the very abuses that have been perpetrated over and over again in the past.
83276-iii
Redistribution
Let us hope that on this occasion, in spite of the rather discouraging arguments presented by the Secretary of State, a real attempt will be made. And may I, in closing these remarks, commend to the consideration of the Secretary of State the words of Mr. King.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, I have heard it said in the house many times by way of a preamble that an hon. member had not intended to take part in the debate until he had heard some remarks by hon. members opposite. Let me say at this time that I would not be speaking to this motion-because I agree with the amendment-had it not been for what I understand the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) said this afternoon when, unfortunately, I was not here, and what the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) has said just now.
The inference, I take it, is that not only has the present system outlived its usefulness but that, in particular in 1952, we were guilty of a good many errors of judgment in the matter of redistribution, errors of judgment perpetrated on an opposition by a government, deliberately, for its own benefit.
Sir, I have had the privilege of reading the article the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) sent over to me. I did so because of a reference made by Professor Norman Ward in an article he wrote about the 1947 redistribution. I had not seen this one. I recall that Professor Norman Ward, in an article dealing with the 1947 redistribution committee, of which I might say the hon. member for Quebec South was chairman and I was vice-chairman, said that so far as he could make out it had given rise to fewer difficulties than any preceding redistribution. I see throughout the whole of this article no reference by way of comparison with 1952, but I do see some reference to the action of certain persons. And if my hon. friend will permit I shall read one very short paragraph which contains some references to the results of that redistribution. It says:
By an unhappy chance, nearly all the adversely affected members on the opposition side, in the eyes of their colleagues, were among the most distinguished members of the house, and their impending retirement was foreshadowed by a marvellous keening.
Sir, unfortunately that was the difficulty which faced us in putting through the redistribution bill last year. There seemed to be an opinion held on the opposition side, but not held on this side, that members who had been elected to the opposition by some peculiar right had acquired a vested interest

Redistribution
in the boundaries of their constituencies and that they could not be changed, regardless of the constitution.


An hon. Member:: Harsh.


Walter Edward Harris: It may be harsh, but I have been listening to the remarks about the law of the jungle and about the unfairness of the government, and I regret having to say this, that opposition members have approached the committee on many occasions with suggestions as to what should be done under particular circumstances, and that their suggestions were often acted upon. One would suppose from what has been said in this debate that the government had gone back to the system which obtained prior to the Liberal government of 1903, when for the first time the present system was introduced. One would think perhaps we had presented a blank cheque of some kind to the opposition for signature, and that we asked them to endorse the boundaries of any given constituency as we presented it to them. Sir, that is not what happened. That is not what happened in the last two redistributions. We had members of all opposition parties on all subcommittees. Their suggestions were received and acted upon in many cases; and I came to the conclusion, sir, that if we did not have the attitude referred to by Professor Norman Ward in this particular instance, we would not have any particular complaint about the result of the last redistribution.
However, I may say with respect to Professor Norman Ward-and I say this with respect-I recall that this gentleman had written rather extensively on this particular subject, and in particular he had said it was desirable that parliament should no longer exercise its prerogative in this regard of establishing special rules, so that this, that or the other province would not have a representation that it was not entitled to on a strictly population basis. For that reason I was somewhat surprised to see in the newspapers during the course of the controversy over a year ago that Professor Norman Ward was almost the first one to spring to the defence of the province of Saskatchewan and allege that it should not have its membership reduced though the population itself so required. Indeed, in the article that has been sent to me I find one sentence which reads thus:
The prairie case for special consideration rested on both logical and political grounds.
Therefore I suggest to you, sir, that we should bear in mind that even the best expert will inevitably react to a defence of interests which he believes should be defended, and

that you then have experts doing what in my opinion in the long run must be done by the House of Commons; and that if you are defending political grounds and grounds of logic, as he says here, this is the high court of parliament, and this is the place in which those things must be done.
It follows therefore that any preliminary work which may be undertaken will have to be determined in this House of Commons, as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) has indicated. But, sir, it should be borne in mind that when you say that you have only a variation of the present system of redistribution. You do not get a new system; you get only some of the preliminary work done by other persons rather than by the committees of the House of Commons and in the end, as I say, if you adopt that view you do away with all the arguments that have been made here as to the political interference of the government or of a party forming the government.
In other words, as I pointed out when we debated this eighteen months ago, when the United Kingdom government presented to parliament the report of the special commission it was accompanied by a bill which said that notwithstanding the report, they were going to do it in some way different from that which was contained in the report. Naturally that announcement was received with a good deal of interest by the opposition, which made a great point of saying that the government were not satisfied on political grounds, and therefore were resorting to a bill which would give them a greater advantage from the standpoint of redistribution. And, as the Secretary of State (Mr. Pickers-gill) pointed out, the government of that day in the United Kingdom happened to be formed by a party which has the admiration of my hon. friends of the C.C.F.
I do not suppose anyone wants to do the extra work involved in the system we have followed in the past two redistributions. I suppose if the preliminary work could be done by others we would all be better satisfied, and I for one can see that there would be an advantage in it. But, as I pointed out eighteen months ago, and I repeat it tonight, hon. members should bear in mind that this system does not get away from the debates in the house about the wisdom or otherwise of a redistribution bill. You will have the debates here, and you will have the debates inevitably turn upon whether or not there is fairness to one or the other member or to a party in the house.
With that in mind I suggest to hon. members-and in particular those who are going to serve on this committee-that they might

consider whether if that political argument is to develop it would be better to do it by way of a committee of the house in any event, or to reserve their decision until a report has been made and then have that particular debate.
No system can be completely divorced from parliament unless you do it in that way, unless you say when you set up your rules that the report of the commission shall be final and parliament shall not intervene. If you are not prepared to go that far, then remember that you are going to have a debate in the House of Commons on the redistribution bill. That is the weakness in the one system. It may be its strength as well, and I am hopeful that when the committee on privileges and elections is seized with this particular resolution they will work on it and bring in a recommendation covering all possible means of carrying out this work that has been given to parliament as one of the things it must do.
Nevertheless, sir, I would not want this resolution to be carried with the impression left in the house that either in 1947 or in 1952 this parliament exercised its prerogative of passing a redistribution bill by a government party doing so without due consideration of all the interests in the country. In my opinion the committee discharged its obligations, not cf course to the satisfaction of everyone. Seldom do we reach that happy state in anything; but I insist that the last two redistributions were as fair as circumstances could make them; that there are members on the opposition side of this house who will agree with me in that respect, and that we should not leave this motion on the basis that it is a reflection on what has been done. Because in my opinion, sir, nearly all the opposition, or nearly all the criticism of what has been done, has been based on an effort to obtain what one might say in private was better terms for himself from the opposition. Indeed there is really no unfairness in either of the past two redistributions. Therefore, sir, I am prepared to support the amendment moved by the Secretary of State, but in doing so I resist any suggestion that we have been in any respect unfair to opposition members.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: If the
memory of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Harris) is as good as I think it is, he probably thinks I am getting up to reproach him on having, shall I say, reorganized me out of existence some years ago, but I am not going to do that at all, Mr. Speaker. My wounds are more or less healed, and in any event I am not going to display them.
Redistribution
I was very interested in the certificate of virtue that he has at some length given to his party. I myself am more satisfied with the admission that we are just human beings, which has been made by my leader. I feel, however, that it is an honour to associate with people who never fall below the highest levels of chivalry.
Incidentally, I think we have all been delighted to see the skilful manner in which the Secretary of State (Mr. Pickersgill) has descended from those heights of nonpartisanship where he spent many happy years-we used to see him up there in the gallery-and now seems to have come down to the lower levels with the rest of us, and to be remarkably at home. I can only say that if he makes the same progress in the next two or three years that he has made in the last two or three weeks, we may expect almost anything.
I got up tonight merely to say that it seems to me that we are making progress backward at the moment. When the resolution was moved by the hon. member for Quebec South 1 thought it was a sound resolution, particularly in its timing. I think we will all admit, man to man, that when redistribution comes right on top of an election, when people have the scent of battle in their nostrils, it is just almost too much to expect that even with the virtues such as those the minister has expressed-I am sure that he is full with it, bursting with it-even with all the virtue in the world we are not going to make at the suggestion of our friends just a little turn this way and another little turn that way.
It seems to me that this resolution is worth exploring because I think everyone in this house will admit that we are not proud of the way this thing is done now. It may be quite difficult to find a better way; it may be that when we try to find a better way we will come back to this rough and ready, horsetrading plan, but I think it is worth while to give a fair trial to what is proposed in the resolution moved by the hon. member for Quebec South.
The hon. member is not moving it because he is a simpleton in politics. He knows a great deal about politics. When a man like him comes along and suggests this, it is not like something coming from a babe in arms. This is like something from a graduate who is telling us freshmen how to do it.
Amendment (Mr. Pickersgill) agreed to.
Motion as amended agreed to.

Highways



HIGHWAYS


Mr. A. M. Campbell (The Balllefords) moved:: That, In the opinion of this house, the government should take into consideration the advisability of granting financial assistance to the various provinces for the purpose of providing Canada with an adequate highway system.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this morning I did not think for a minute that my resolution would come up tonight, but about noon I was informed that word was going around that most hon. members did not have their speeches ready on their resolutions and that I might have an opportunity this evening to *discuss mine. Because I believe this is one of the major problems facing the country I do mot want to miss an opportunity to speak on this resolution. Therefore I am going ahead tonight, even though I have hurriedly put my notes together and my speech will not be as good as if I had taken a little more time in preparation.
It is not my intention to endeavour to draw a blueprint of the highway needs of Canada, but I do want to point out the terrific need for more, better and safer roads in this country as well as the need for a network of highways to enable our mobile defence units to move rapidly in all directions in the defence of our country.
When the British North America Act was drawn up, horses provided the main method of transportation. At that time roads were a secondary consideration; therefore the fathers of confederation decreed that roads would be the responsibility of the provincial governments. At that time they could not foresee that 30, 40 or 50 years later our whole method of transportation would have changed completely and that huge sums of money would be required to provide an adequate highway system.
The change that has taken place even in my own lifetime is nothing short of a miracle. I can remember getting on a street car in Montreal that was hauled by two horses. There were barns at intervals along the streets to provide for changes of horses. I remember one day in particular when the team of horses pulling the car up Beaver Hall hill got stuck and had to wait until another team could help them.
Of course that stage in transportation has long been passed. I well remember my first visit to Medicine Hat, Alberta, in 1904, when a friend took me for a drive with his new trotter. When we got away from the town there was no road. There were simply trails the full width of the road allowance. When

a trail got down six or eight inches they merely moved over half the width of a wagon and started a new trail. That road for the whole road allowance of 66 feet was just a combination of trails. Of course the poor horse could not show any speed, and my friend could not demonstrate what his horse could do. We had to come back into town to the streets they had there.
I travelled in the summer of 1905 in a wagon train from Medicine Hat some 275 miles north. There were no roads. Part of the way there was a faint trail to follow, but for the rest of the distance we had to go by the sun. We had to send riders ahead to look for water holes where we could camp at night.
It was several years after we homesteaded before any attempt was made to do anything about roads. The first equipment used was a two-horse scraper which was used merely to fill in holes. Then came the four-horse Fresno which was handled by one man and could do about twice as much work. I think it was in 1914 that our municipality bought its first grader. This required twelve horses to haul, and it was the beginning of road making in our district.
I well remember this because I operated that machine part time for the first few years it was used. I remember one farmer coming out and laying into me because he thought I was spoiling his trail. That trail had been worn down until it was smooth, and he saw this machine coming along and apparently tearing up the road.
About that time the odd car made its appearance. But cars could be used only in dry weather because there were no allweather roads. Of course if there was a well-worn trail they might get by even in rainy weather.
From that time road building progressed slowly. Municipalities and provinces were snowed under with demands for roads. With their limited finances they have been unable to keep up with the increased use of motor vehicles for transportation. The horse has completely disappeared from the picture. This means that farmers who could get to town with horses during wet weather and in the winter now have to depend on their cars or even tractors; and when it snows or rains they are marooned.
Many municipalities in the two provinces I know best-I refer to the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan-in an attempt to provide roads that can be more easily freed from snow are building high and narrow roads with very steep, sharp ditches. These can only be classified as deathtraps in wet or icy weather. Numbers of large school

units have been formed across Canada necessitating the use of buses to carry the children to school. Many children will be obliged to miss many school hours because the roads in many places are impassable when it rains or snows.
While eastern Canada can boast of more macadam and cement highways, practically all of those that were built before 1940 and many built even later have long passed their usefulness and have become a menace to the motorist. Nearly all our older highways are too narrow, with no passing lanes, and with far too many sharp turns and blind curves. Speed laws are not being enforced. Mr. Speaker, I know they are not being enforced. A couple of weeks ago I travelled from Windsor to Ottawa. All along the highway there were signs that said, "Speed limit 50 miles an hour". Being a good citizen I set my speed at 50 miles an hour and kept it between 50 and 55, but dozens of cars passed me. That road is quite similar to most of our roads here in eastern Canada. There were cars in a hurry watching for an opportunity, in two heavy lines of traffic, to get around me and get ahead so they could make their 60, 70 or 80 miles an hour. I just want to say here that something will have to be done. The speed laws will have to be enforced sooner or later, because most of our accidents are caused by excessive speed. I do not think we can put enough policemen on our highways in order to keep our traffic down to 50 miles an hour.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I am entirely unable to ascertain how a discussion of speed laws is relevant to the motion which the hon. member is moving.


Alexander Maxwell (Max) Campbell: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am just pointing out the fact that, because of the present-day speed of cars, we must have highways that have at least three lanes so those people who want to go faster than does a man of my age, who does not want to go over 50 miles an hour, can get by without endangering other people who are on the highways with them. If we are going to do nothing about our roads, and if we are going to try to keep people down to 50 miles an hour, there is only one solution. That is to put a governor on every car that goes out of the shops. Then and then only will you be able to control the speed on our highways.
Our provincial governments are spending most of their financial resources on the building of main highways, and are leaving most of the responsibility for market roads to the municipalities whose resources are very limited. Across the line in the United States the federal government in 1916 started a federal roads program "to get the farmer
Highways
out of the mud". Because of that program they have developed a great network of highways, but even the great development in that country has not kept pace with modern motor traffic.
Last year the General Motors Corporation of the United States offered a prize of $25,000 for the best essay on how to plan and pay for better highways. The award was given to Robert Moses, New York City commissioner of parks, who in his essay stated that the highway dilemma is a major concern of every man, woman and child in the country and suggested that whereas the United States spent last year $2,700 million on highways, an expenditure of $5 billion per year should be made during the next ten years if the highway system is to be brought up to date.
In 1951 the United States federal government gave in grants to the state governments for primary roads $247,500,000; for secondary roads, $165 million; for urban roads, $137,500,000, making a total of $550 million in grants to help the states out. Besides that the federal government itself built roads to the value of $2,150 million on interstate systems, defence access roads, forest highways, national parkways, park roads and other special purpose roads.
Until the last two years the federal government of Canada has given no assistance to the building of roads in Canada. There are a great many people and a great many organizations across Canada who believe the time has come for the federal government to do something to assist our province in the matter of an adequate highway system for Canada. A good many resolutions have been passed. I have a few of them here that I want to put on the record.
At the annual meeting of the Saskatchewan associated boards of trade held on May 18, 1951 the following resolution was passed;
Whereas in the year ended March 31, 1949, the federal government collected $100 million in sales taxes, excise tax and customs duty on motor vehicles and automotive supplies; and
Whereas up to the present time and including the current appropriation of $150 million toward the construction of the trans-Canada highway, the total all-time federal aid to Canadian highways has amounted only to $170 million;
Now therefore be it resolved that a substantially greater proportion of federal revenue derived from these sources be devoted to assisting the provinces in construction of a national highway system.
The Canadian Good Roads Association have passed resolutions for several years past advocating federal aid to highways.
A statement strongly advocating federal investment in all roads of national importance was adopted at the 35th annual meeting of


Robert Henry Winters: I am grateful to the hon. member for The Battlefords (Mr. Campbell)., Mr. Speaker, for placing this notice of motion on the order paper. I am pleased that it has come up at this time, although I am disappointed that I have not a greater opportunity of putting on the record the substantial record of the federal government in the field of highway construction in Canada, while at the same time respecting the autonomy and jurisdiction of the provincial governments in this field which they rightly regard as being of such great importance to them. I might say, Mr. Speaker, before asking leave to adjourn the debate, that many speakers on this subject have referred to the fact that in the United States the federal highway authority does make a substantial contribution to the construction of roads which there, too, are regarded as the primary responsibility of the state governments.

Highways
It may be interesting to hon. members to learn that the contribution made by the federal government in Canada compares very favourably with the contribution made by the federal government in the United States. If I have another opportunity I would be pleased to outline in more detail the role the federal government has played, quite apart from the great trans-Canada highway, in contributing to the construction of good highways in Canada. But, Mr. Speaker, the hour is late and, with your leave, I would ask permission to adjourn the debate.


Mr. Nicholson:: Before the minister completes his remarks, has he the percentages showing the amount the federal government is contributing throughout Canada?


Robert Henry Winters: I would be pleased to provide the facts and figures when this debate resumes.
On motion of Mr. Winters the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Walter Edward Harris: Tomorrow we shall take up the third readings of those bills which are ready for that stage; then second reading of Bill No. 6, respecting the department of northern affairs and national resources; then the resolution standing in the name of the Minister of Finance respecting the financial agreement with the United Kingdom; then second reading of Bill No. 27, an act to amend the Children of War Dead (Education Assistance) Act; second reading of Bill No. 28, an act to amend the National Parks Act; then the resolution standing in the name of the Minister of National Defence with respect to the Defence Services Pension Act; then the resolution standing in the name of the Minister of Resources and Development with respect to the Northwest Territories acts.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, December 8, 1953