1958-06-12

[Stage Direction]
First report of standing committee on external affairs.-Mr. White.

Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister) moved:: That, when this house adjourns on Thursday, June 12, it stand adjourned until 11.30 a.m., Friday, June 13.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps while this matter is in our minds I might remind hon. members that there is a reception this afternoon to meet the Right Hon. Prime Minister of the United Kingdom in the railway committee room at 5.30 p.m. It is a reception given by the Speakers jointly. Presumably senators will adjourn earlier and be there by 5.30 so there will be free passage for the members at six o'clock. While on that subject, I might say this. Does the Prime Minister intend to say anything about tomorrow's proceedings?


John George Diefenbaker: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The adjournment asked for, of course, is designed to make possible the appearance within this chamber of Right Hon. Mr. Macmillan where he will deliver a speech to both houses of parliament.


Mr. Speaker:: Just to complete the matter may I say this. The reception this afternoon is for the members and unfortunately does not include their wives. It is for the members of both houses and the press gallery plus some members of our vis: tor's party. I think you have all been advised that tomorrow the bell will be rung shortly before ten o'clock. I have taken the liberty of authorizing that the bell be rung, although it is not a session of the house, at ten or twelve minutes to ten. Both houses will assemble then to hear our distinguished guest.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Alexis Caron (Hull):: I would like to address a question to the Minister of Labour, or in his absence to the Acting Minister of
Labour. Are the hospital administrators and employees subject to the Unemployment Insurance Act? Does this apply even in the province of Quebec and, if not, why not?


Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Acting Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, employees in a hospital not operated for gain are not insurable except in the case of those persons employed on a temporary or casual basis, such as in construction, renovation or repair workers. However, any hospital may, at its option and with the consent of the unemployment insurance commission, insure any designated group of employees it wishes; that is an optional arrangement.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, with high hopes and great expectations I should like to address a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that present plans do not provide for the Borden commission holding hearings in the Koote-nays; in view of the great importance to Canada's economy of the development of the Columbia and Kootenay rivers, and in view of the local desire for hearings to be held in the Kootenay area, would the Prime Minister inform the house if arrangements can be made to meet the wishes of the Kootenay people, who are anxious to make a contribution to the fund of ideas and facts being collected by the commission?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I did not receive notice of this question but I think I can answer it. The commission has held sittings in British Columbia and in Alberta, and I do not know what further arrangements the commission has in mind with respect to extending its sittings in the province of British Columbia. It is regrettable that the interest of the people of the Kootenay area was not made known to the commission at an earlier date. At least if it was I have no knowledge of that fact. I will, however, communicate with the chairman with a view to ascertaining whether the laudable and desirable end which the hon. gentleman seeks to achieve may yet be made possible.

Inquiries of the Ministry TRADE



REPORTED VISIT TO CANADA OP MISSION FROM COMMUNIST CHINA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: I would like to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce whether he could comment on a report that a mission from communist China is now in this country and has been holding discussions with the Canadian wheat board, and will have discussions with officials of the Department of Trade and Commerce on the question of trade with China?


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: My understanding, Mr. Speaker, is that there are two representatives of communist China in this country endeavouring to enlarge trade between our two countries. I have had no direct word with the wheat board with regard to whether these representatives have actually met with the board. I will, however, be meeting with the board, I hope in a day or two, and will ask what, if anything, has transpired.
My understanding at the moment is that another cargo of wheat was sold to mainland China as a result of the visit of these representatives of communist China, who may be meeting with other people throughout the country with the general objective of encouraging trade between our two countries.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, on June 10 last the hon. member for Vancouver East asked me if I could give the house any information regarding the tragic drowning of five members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police while on patrol duty on lake Simcoe. Because of the unusual nature of this tragedy and because of the widespread concern it has aroused, perhaps hon. members might wish me to make a full statement at this time. Precisely what happened when this terrible accident occurred we may never be able to say, as there were no survivors, but I shall give the house such facts as we have been able to ascertain.
The Royal Canadian Mounted Police has a responsibility for the enforcement of federal statutes which includes enforcement of the Indian Act, the Excise Act and the Canada Shipping Act. Work relating to these acts has frequently taken patrols of the force into the lake Simcoe area and, indeed, there is

a regular detachment at Orillia. Georgina island, which lies at the southern end of the lake, is an Indian reserve. It has been necessary to have patrols visit this island from time to time, as well as the adjoining stretch of mainland from Jacksons point to Virginia beach.
These patrols have had to deal with complaints and information reaching the force as to violations of the federal acts I have mentioned, and particularly as to instances of drunkenness and public disorder. I do not want to give the impression that serious disorders have occurred, but circumstances have called for the attention of police patrols, and the size of the patrol in each case is dictated by the circumstances. Such patrols have, of necessity, to be made either by day or by night.
On Saturday evening, June 7, 1958, Corporal H. M. Smart, who was stationed in Toronto but who had a general responsibility for overseeing the work in the lake Simcoe area, took five constables with him from Toronto and proceeded to Beaverton. There he met Constable Farough and Constable Perry of the Orillia detachment, who had travelled to this point by car, bringing with them the patrol boat on a trailer. Some work was carried out in the Beaverton-Sut-ton area and, indeed, four arrests under the Indian Act were made early in the evening.
Later Corporal Smart, taking with him in the patrol boat Constables Farough and Perry of the Orillia detachment, and Constables Melynchuk and Ransom from Toronto, left the mainland and headed for Georgina island. He left Constables McDonald, Kilcup and Smith from Toronto behind in the police car, the intention being that they would later meet the party on its return from the island, in the meantime carrying out certain duties on the mainland. There was a portable radio in the patrol boat and a radio in the police car.
After some hours without any kind of contact whatever from Corporal Smart and his party in the patrol boat, Constables McDonald and Kilcup drove back toward Virginia beach from Jacksons point, watching for some sign of the boat, thinking that its radio might have gone dead and that it might have reached the mainland at some unarranged point. They had no success and eventually arrived at Virginia beach, where they met another member of the force, Constable Legere, working in another patrol boat. Constable Legere, when he heard that Corporal Smart and party were overdue, became concerned, feeling that they might have run into some unexpected difficulty in carrying out their work on the

island. He therefore went across to the island in his own boat, and there found that Corporal Smart and his party had never arrived. It was then realized that some serious accident must have occurred.
At about 9.30 a.m. Sunday, June 8, Mr. Donald Thompson of Foxden road, Don Mills, noticed the patrol boat floating partly submerged and pushed it ashore at Georgina island, where it was shortly thereafter spotted and examined by members of the R.C.M.P.
The boat is a 14-ft. Peterborough "Venus", purchased by the police in August, 1957, and equipped with a 35 horsepower Johnson outboard motor. When found the motor was still attached but the windshield on the boat had been broken, and the walkie-talkie radio, seat backs, and other equipment were missing. The spotlight had been torn clear of the deck but was still dangling by its wires. I should add that the boat carried two life jackets, four life cushions and a fire extinguisher, all of the approved type, equipment specified in the small boat regulations. The manufacturers rate the boat's maximum load as 975 pounds and the craft is designed to carry a 35 horsepower outboard motor. The total weight carried on this fatal night was within the maximum figure referred to.
On Sunday afternoon the body of Corporal Smart was found in the water in the general area where the boat was first sighted, which was about two miles from the shore of the northwest point of Georgina island. The body had on a life jacket and this apparently had kept it afloat. The bodies of the other men have not as yet been found and the search is continuing. An inquest is under way.
One life jacket and four life cushions were later found floating in the general area where the boat was recovered. The water at this point is deep, and on the night in question the water temperature was about 52 degrees on the surface and 47 degrees a few feet down. There were intermittent squalls during the night. When the patrol left the mainland the weather was fair and the water reasonably smooth in the area from which the boat set out.
As I stated earlier, we can only conjecture what happened when these men lost their lives. We do know, however, that Corporal Smart was an experienced and thoroughly responsible non-commissioned officer who knew the district well, while Constable Farough, the man operating the boat, was a competent boatman and had handled an identical boat all last season in that particular area without any difficulty. The duty being carried out was a normal one and of a nature where the detailed arrangements are left to the N.C.O. in charge. We can only conjecture that one of the squalls caught the 57071-3-68
Inquiries of the Ministry boat suddenly, perhaps broadside, and threw the men into the water without warning. It would seem that Corporal Smart managed to grab a life jacket, while the other men did not, or that if they did, they were unable to retain them after the accident took place.
There has been some suggestion that the men may have been handicapped when they were thrown into the water by the R.C.M.P. uniform of breeches and boots. Actually the regulations of the force require that members on air or water patrols dress in loose trousers and low boots, and this is the type of uniform Corporal Smart and his men were wearing on the night the patrol was made.
Constables Farough, Perry and Ransom had each been awarded the bronze medallion of the Royal Life Saving Society for swimming and lifesaving ability. Corporal Smart had been active in various sports and was a cub-master and scoutmaster. He also had taken swimming instruction during his course of training.
I think I should add a word of thanks for the spontaneous assistance given-and which is still being given-by the people of the area from the time it was learned that the patrol was missing, and for the unlimited co-operation afforded by the township police, the Sutton police, the Ontario provincial police, the Ontario department of lands and forests, and the R.C.A.F. search and rescue service. I should also like to mention the offer of the four men who had earlier that evening, June 7, been arrested by Corporal Smart and his men. These four men, when they learned of the situation on Sunday morning, as they know the area well, begged to be released so they could take part in the search. Arrangements to this end were made and their offer was gratefully accepted.
Hon. members will, I know, wish to join me in expressing to the next of kin and families of the deceased men the heartfelt sympathy of this house in the loss they have sustained through the tragic death of their loved ones in the course of the discharge of their duty.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Defence or to the Minister of Justice.
I do not know exactly to whom my question should be directed, but I sent notice this morning of my intention to ask it.
On June 1 the county of Annapolis, Nova Scotia, issued tax bills for poll and property

Inquiries of the Ministry tax against all resident members of the H.M.C.S. Cornwallis naval base, threatening collection, with all the rigours of the law, if not paid by July 1.
The question is, has the county of Annapolis the right to impose such a tax on members of a crew temporarily stationed in the port?


Hon. G. R. Pearkes (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. gentleman for sending me notice of his question. No provincial, municipal or county property taxes can be collected on property of the crown in the right of Canada. In so far as poll taxes are concerned, members of the service resident in a given area are subject to this tax if such a tax is approved by the province. Any such individual, however, has a right to appeal to the qualified courts if he considers himself not to be a resident and therefore not subject to this tax.



NOP.AD-STATEMENT AS TO U.S. LAW RESPECTING COMMAND OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Randolph Pearkes: Yesterday the Leader of the Opposition asked a question regarding the authority and control over United States aircraft which might be exercised by the deputy commander of NORAD. I have been in contact by telephone today with General Partridge, and I can inform the house that United States authorities have concurred in the interim arrangements for the appointment of Air Marshal Slemon as a deputy commander of NORAD, and no limitations or restrictions of any nature have been placed on the exercise of operational control by Air Marshal Slemon in the absence of General Partridge. Therefore Air Marshal Slemon exercises the same operational control over the forces assigned to NORAD as that of General Partridge.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS SASKATCHEWAN-INQUIRY AS TO SHARING OF TAX REVENUES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisla-Twillin-gafe):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could ask the Prime Minister whether he has received any communication from the premier of Saskatchewan since March 31 regarding the federal-provincial tax-sharing arrangements and, if there is any such correspondence, if it could be tabled?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I will look into the question and if there is correspondence it will be tabled.



INQUIRY AS TO PAYMENT OF FIRST INSTALMENT TO PROVINCES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, while I am on my feet may I ask the Minister of Finance if he is now in a position to answer the question which I interrupted him to ask when he was speaking the other day, about the first instalment under the tax-sharing arrangements paid at the end of the month of April to the various provinces, which information he said he would be willing to give.


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Eglinlon):: I will be glad to do that, Mr. Speaker.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I have the information asked for by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate a moment ago. The payments made to the provinces pursuant to the Federal-Provincial TaxSharing Arrangements Act for April and May are as follows:	Newfoundland, $2,027,000;
Prince Edward Island, $554,000; Nova Scotia, $2,936,000; New Brunswick, $2,484,000; Quebec, $4,102,000; Ontario, $7,655,000; Manitoba, $2,831,000; Saskatchewan, $2,894,000; Alberta, $3,818,000; British Columbia, $5,267,000.


John Whitney Pickersgill: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I did not quite catch what these figures were for.


Donald Methuen Fleming: For each month; these amounts were paid for the month of April and the same amounts were paid for the month of May.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Did they include payments under the Atlantic provinces grants or merely the tax-sharing?


Donald Methuen Fleming: My assumption is that they are included. I thought the question of my hon. friend, which this table was designed to answer, was broad enough to include that but I will check on that point.



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):: Yesterday the hon. member for Laurier asked if an application had been made for fifth freedom rights on behalf of Trans-Canada Air Lines at United States airports, and whether renegotiation of the air agreement between Canada and the United States is contemplated this year.

Inquiries of the Ministry As to the first part of the question, I am Since this question, Mr. Speaker, is predic-advised that no application has been made for ated on the assumption that Iceland has now fifth freedom rights by Trans-Canada Air formally extended its fishing limits to 12 Lines at United States airports.	miles, I must point out that there has been
In regard to the latter part, there have been informal discussions between Canadian and United States government representatives but these discussions have not yet led to any final agreement.



CANADIAN PACIFIC STEAMSHIPS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Skeena made the following inquiry on the orders of the day:
Has the Department of Transport received a report from Canadian Pacific Steamships relative to the operation of steamships between the mainland of British Columbia and Vancouver island to the effect that a more efficient and faster service between the two points is possible? If so, what plan does the department have for the institution of such a service?
In reply I may say I am advised that no such report has been received in the department.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. G. R. Pearkes (Minister of National.
Defence): Mr. Speaker, may I answer the question which was asked yesterday by the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo, regarding the operations of Russian trawlers on or near the Grand Banks of Newfoundland. No reports have been received by the Canadian maritime commander, Atlantic, which would indicate that Russian trawlers operating in the Grand Banks area are not observing the international regulations for preventing collisions at sea.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Sidney E. Smith (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Yesterday the hon. member for Gloucester addressed this question to me:
In view of the recent threat by the Danish islands in the north Atlantic to follow the example of Iceland and extend their fishing limits to 12 miles, can the minister advise the house if the Canadian government recognizes the extension of the fishing limits to a 12-mile width of waters off their coasts, as announced by the government of Iceland?
57071-3-68i
no extension by the Icelandic government of its fisheries limits. The only definite announcement that has been made in this respect by the Icelandic government is that it has expressed its intention to establish such a zone on September 1, so I cannot answer the hon. member's hypothetical question.


Mr. H. J. Robichaud (Gloucester):: Would
the Secretary of State for External Affairs answer the second question which I addressed to him yesterday, and which is recorded on page 1037 of Hansard? It is based on a statement made in Halifax on Sunday last and reported in the Halifax Chronicle-Herald of Monday, June 9, to the effect that Canada would try to obtain a compromise arrangement concerning the 12-mile fishing limit at the next conference on the law of the sea?


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Minister of Fisheries):: Since this question is apparently based on an interview with me perhaps I should answer it. It is evident from the news story that a misconstruction was inadvertently put on a reply which I made to a question.
^ The misunderstanding probably arose from the fact that I was asked if, in my opinion, any conference on the law of the sea in the near future might have a hope of reaching an agreement. I expressed the belief that there was a wide divergence of opinion and considerable conflict of interest on this question, and that agreement could only be reached as a result of compromise. I made no statement which was intended to indicate in any way what Canada's position would be or what Canada might attempt to obtain at any future conference on the law of the sea.



HARBOURS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. V/. Pickersgill (Bonavista-Twillin-gate): Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I can ask the Minister of Public Works if it would be possible for him to table the correspondence he has had with Sir Brian Dunfield, Harvey and Company, and with certain other persons in St. John's regarding the harbour development, so that it would be available to hon. members when his estimates are next before the house?
Hon. Howard C. Green (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I think it will be possible to table the correspondence.

Inquiries of the Ministry ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE



ONTARIO


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: Can the
Minister of Justice inform the house whether or not a reported statement made by the attorney general of Ontario is correct that eight new judicial appointments will be made in the province of Ontario? If that statement is correct, can the minister indicate whether they are all to be county court appointments or whether some of them will be appointments to the supreme court of Ontario?


Edmund Davie Fulton: It is
my recollection that at its last session the Ontario legislature passed legislation authorizing the appointment of two additional judges to the trial division of the supreme court of Ontario, and six additional county court judges.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask the
minister if it is the intention of the federal government to comply with that legislation, and if so will necessary legislation be introduced this session?


Edmund Davie Fulton: It is hoped that it will be possible to deal with that at this session, yes.



BRITISH COLUMBIA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Edmund Davie Fulton: should like to reply to a question asked by the hon. member for Vancouver East on June 10. He asked whether my attention had been drawn to a news report that a person convicted as an habitual criminal, and released on ticket of leave, was arrested by the R.C.M.P. under instructions from the remission service, without any charge being laid or opportunity given to that person to learn of the charge or to present a defence.
The hon. member then asked:
Will the minister advise the house if the law of Canada or the administration of the justice department permits a person to be found guilty and reimprisoned without knowledge of the charge or an opportunity to present a defence?
In answer I would say that the Ticket of Leave Act authorizes the governor general, on the advice of the appropriate minister of the crown, to grant to any person under sentence of imprisonment a licence to be at large in Canada during such portion of his term of imprisonment and upon such conditions in all respects as to the governor general may seem fit. The governor general is authorized also from time to time to revoke any licence so granted.
tMr. Green.]
Where an inmate is released on licence under the Ticket of Leave Act he is expected to comply with the conditions of his licence and to live a law-abiding life. The authority to revoke a licence is exercised where the remission service has reason to believe that a licensee is not complying with the conditions of his licence or is not leading a law-abiding life. This is essential for the protection of the public.
Where a licence is revoked no new charge is laid against the licensee, nor is he sentenced to any new term of imprisonment. The warrant that is issued for his apprehension requires him to be brought before a magistrate and requires the magistrate to commit him to the institution from which he was released on licence, there to continue to serve the balance of the sentence that he was serving when he was released on licence.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Pori Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of National Revenue if he has an answer to the question I addressed to him the other day concerning the practice of customs officials with regard to the pilots of foreign ships on the great lakes.


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of National Revenue):: I have not an answer prepared in that regard, but in general the practice of the department, in furtherance of the legislation made in that behalf, has permitted pilots, as well as shipping masters operating on the great lakes, to leave their ships from time to time, regardless of the hour of the day or night at which the ship might be calling at the port.
The reason for this is obvious. Very often the ships do call at a time when customs officers are not available and this permission, this right if you like to call it that, has been accorded to pilotage officers for many many years. It is a right to which is attached very substantial penalties if any violation of the law occurs. The honour system is applied, to some extent, with respect to pilots, but if the honour system should be violated in any way there are substantial pecuniary penalties imposed on the pilots and they also forfeit their licences.
From time to time this may cause some difficulties, in circumstances such as those mentioned by the hon. member, when there is some conflict between groups in this particular area. Certainly if the law is to be applied, it has to be applied to all pilots. I would not think it would be a very happy

situation if the law were changed so as to require pilots to only come ashore at times when customs officers were available. This would be a distinct departure from the practice which has prevailed throughout the years, and one which I doubt would be welcomed by the hon. member or by the great number of men who would be affected.
The department is watching the situation carefully. If any reason occurs for a change -and it might-then a change will be brought in by means of appropriate regulations or by legislation. Of course it will have to be applied to all pilots, from the Atlantic coast to the Pacific coast, and not just to those in any one area.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Justice. I apologize for not giving him notice, but it has just come to mind. In view of the urgent importance of this matter to some of my constituents, could the minister inform me when he will be able to give me an answer to the question I asked with respect to provincial taxation on wharves and boat houses, which was asked on May 22?


Edmund Davie Fulton: thought I might be able to give a reply right now. I hope to be able to do so tomorrow when I have relocated my notes.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: Is the Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration now in a position to answer the question I asked some time ago about the Dutch family in Halifax?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I am afraid not satisfactorily. We have been trying without success to locate the son who is in Vancouver somewhere. Unfortunately he has moved about three times and left no forwarding address at any time. Although we have been trying hard we have not located him as yet.



RAILWAY ACT


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: the second reading of Bill No. C-ll, to amend the Railway Act.
Railway Act
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this amendment is to provide that the board of transport commissioners may, at the request of the interested municipality or municipalities, deal with any proposed reduction of service by any of the railways. M'y bringing this bill before the house was occasioned by recent action of the Canadian Pacific Railway in my constituency and in southeastern British Columbia generally. Before this debate is over I trust that I will be receiving the strong support of the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. McFarlane) and the hon. member for Okanagan-Boundary (Mr. Pugh) because I have been informed that a good number of their constituents are also greatly interested in this question.
The action which caused the concern in our district and which has resulted in my introducing this bill is first, the reduction of the service on the Kettle valley railroad by the Canadian Pacific Railway from a standard train service to the present Budd car service; and second, the curtailment to twice weekly of the service between Nelson and Penticton. That is the basis of the discontent that exists in the area at the present time.
So far as my constituency is concerned there is a unanimous protest against this action of the company. It includes members of all parties. That is why I rise to speak with such high hopes and great anticipation with respect to the final disposition of this bill. This afternoon I can truthfully say that I am speaking for thousands of persons who are members of all parties in my constituency and a good many others in the adjoining constituencies. These protests have been evidenced by meetings of chambers of commerce, trade unions, farmers' institutes and municipal councils to deal particularly with the reduction of service that I am going to mention this afternoon.
To indicate the type of protest that is being made at this time as far as chambers of commerce are concerned, here is a letter from Trail addressed to the vice president of the C.P.R. at Vancouver:
Dear Sir:
This committee of the Trail chamber of commerce wishes to express its protest against the recent curtailment of passenger train services to twice weekly between Nelson and Penticton. It is hoped that this is a temporary measure of short duration and that the regular services will be put into effect at an early date.
May we have your assurance on this matter.
Yours very truly,
A.	S. Mawdsley, Chairman,
Transportation, mail and freight committee,
Trail chamber of commerce.

Railway Act
Then I read another letter indicating the discontent of the Nelson chamber of commerce. It is addressed to Mr. N. R. Crump, president, Canadian Pacific Railway, Montreal, Quebec, and reads as follows:
Dear Sir:
The people of Nelson and district are far from satisfied with the passenger service of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company.
The Nelson chamber of commerce are continually receiving complaints about the inadequate train service of twice weekly and the lack of service on this run.
At our executive meeting held recently it was unanimously agreed that this chamber submit to you a request for resumption of daily service from Nelson to Vancouver and that something be done to provide for serving meals and also some sleeping accommodation.
We would very much appreciate an early reply regarding this matter.
Respectfully yours,
(Mrs.) E. Christiansen,
Secretary.
Then in addition to chambers of commerce the trade unions unitedly have opposed this reduction of service, as have farmers' institutes, hospitals and other organizations. I have received letters from a large number of people who are greatly concerned about this situation. To indicate the attitude of the hospitals I will quote one paragraph from a letter I received from Mr. E. M. Stiles, chairman of the board of Kootenay lake general hospital in Nelson. It is addressed to the Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada, Ottawa, Ontario and reads in part as follows:
Gentlemen:
At the last meeting of the board of directors of the Kootenay lake general hospital, the matter of the passenger train service here was of concern to members, and a resolution was unanimously passed protesting the inadequacy of the present train service, and asking that the board of transport commissioners be notified of this protest, and informed that the lack of service is an obstacle in the way of good patient care.
That same protest is supported by all the hospitals in the district, which find it extremely difficult during winter conditions to deal with patients who require transport to the coast and things of that sort. When the minister was in my district during the election and, I think it is safe to say, was doing his best to terminate my public life, he was met by a large delegation of businessmen in Nelson including representatives of the chambers of commerce, and also a representative delegation of trade unionists, and a brief was presented to the minister expressing the point of view of the persons who were making these representations. Although it

is a lengthy brief, Mr. Speaker, I think I cannot do better than put this brief on the record because it very well covers the whole situation.
I might say that this brief is the work of two or three members of the international union of mine, mill and smelter workers in Trail who took the time really to probe into the question and to compile or assemble these facts for presentation to the minister. It was generally recognized throughout the district, after its publication in the local press, as being the best of the representations that were made on the question. These men who had drawn up this brief as the result of a considerable amount of work received congratulations from people all over the district. When people approach a problem in a constructive way and do not just sit back and howl but do something to present a case; when they use their time and their ability to present a certain situation to the minister, as these representatives did for the district as a whole, I think their efforts should be commended.
While the brief is long I am going to put it on the record, because I think in that way I can best bring to the attention of the house and the minister and the many other people who read Hansard-and there are a great many people who read Hansard in my district -what has been done, and in that way they will have a permanent record of the efforts of these people and of the situation complained of at the present time. These representations were made to the minister, as I said before, during his brief visit to my district when he was personally concerned about my return to this house. Anyway, this is the brief.
The paper I am reading from is the Trail Daily Times, which is a Conservative paper interested in this question as are all the other papers in the district, and is owned by a very close relative of the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Green). It states as follows:
Local 480 Presents Brief to Hees
Local 480 of the international union of mine, mill and smelter workers today presented a brief to transport minister George Hees at Nelson calling for the resumption of daily service on the Kettle valley line between Penticton and Nelson.
The brief, presented by local 480 president A1 King of Trail, also protested the Canadian Pacific Railway Company being given any further franchises, such as air franchises, . . when they apparently wished to curtail services to the public in areas where they hold an exclusive railway franchise, as they do in the Kootenays."
The text of the brief follows:
"Trail and district smelter workers union, local 480, of the autonomous mine mill and smelter workers union in Canada welcomes this opportunity of placing before you in your capacity as Minister of Transport some of the grievous problems that have been and are afflicting this general area of

east and west Kootenays in the province of British Columbia, concerning the curtailment of railway services."
I might explain at that point that this brief received unanimous endorsation at a conference in Nelson of representatives of the trade unions in Kootenay east and west just prior to my leaving for Ottawa.
"We have appealed to the provincial government, and Mr. Wicks, who serves in the dual capacity of minister of labour and railways, has advised us to place the matter before the federal authorities. This we suspect as being more in the spirit of buck-passing than in any genuine interest of helping resolve our problems.
As is generally well known throughout the entire world, the east and west Kootenay, whilst not too heavily populated, is rich and valuable in readily available natural resources. By comparison with the hundreds of workmen who produce the primary and raw materials from this rich area, thousands of jobs are made possible in the manufacturing and processing industries of the North American continent originating from rich resources of the bountiful Kootenays.
One company alone, namely the CM. and S., which is the major base metal producer of the area in the year 1956 handled a total of million tons of freight, incoming and outgoing, from its Trail plants. The Sullivan mine at Kimberley, the Bluebell mine at Riondel, and the H.B. mine at Salmo also would make substantial additions to that figure. Many other producing mining companies operate in the Kootenays as well.
Tons of Material
Over the rail lines into and out of the Kootenays flow millions of tons of ores, concentrates, base metals and precious metals, as well as fertilizers, both in solid and liquid forms, to say nothing of the vast supplies of machinery and equipment necessary to supply this flourishing industry.
The west Kootenay is also the centre of a rich and substantial logging, lumber and forest products industry. One of the largest match companies in the world, the Eddy match company, have just recently acquired holdings in the area, which speaks well of the Kootenays as a producer of valuable wood and forest products.
Certainly no one can deny that in the 50 or 60 years since the C.P.R. rail through the Kootenays was established, the steady growing revenue through the increased productivity of the whole area has been a source of considerable satisfaction to the one Canadian railway company that holds the trans-Canada rail monopoly in this area.
C.P.R. Service
Accompanying the general increase over the years in the volume of freight, it is safe to say that there has been a considerable reduction in passenger service, and, whilst to some extent the general trend of public travel has been to individual vehicular traffic, this union will always insist, and does so now, that adequate rail service should be provided at all times."
I might say that in this respect the union is supported by all people and all organizations in the district I have the honour to represent.
"This is probably more necessary during the winter months when mountain conditions force many people to rely on the railway for transportation. It is many years now since rail passenger service was completely discontinued into sideline
Railway Act
points such as Rossland, Trail, Slocan valley, etc. Main line passenger service, however, is an entirely different matter.
In November of 1957, and apparently with the blessing of the ministry of transport, the C.P.R. summarily removed sleeping and dining car facilities for travel to and from the Kootenay area. We claim this is a rank injustice and that the Minister of Transport should require them to re-establish the former service. We do so for the following reasons:"
When that was written the union overestimated the minister's powers according to the law, and has since found the matter was not quite as they thought at that time.
Considerable numbers of people, both adults and children, are forced to travel to the larger centres, Calgary or Vancouver, for specialized medical and surgical treatment. To these people, railway facilities present the only opportunity for travel as bed patients on a daily seven days per week basis, air line travel being not only uncertain, but in some cases not suitable for an ailing person. All other possibilities such as road travel are too severe a hardship for such unfortunates.
In this respect I might say that during last winter I believe planes where unable to land in my constituency for a period of not less than 80 days.
"Need Man Here
The workmen's compensation board of B.C., despite this union's efforts to have an examining office stationed in the interior, still requires all those in need of special examination or treatment among their claimants to travel to Vancouver.
A similar situation confronts the disabled veteran who is obliged to enter the Shaughnessy military hospital at Vancouver and who heretofore could also travel in the relative comfort which the C.P.R. alone has been, and is, in a position to provide. We urge you, sir, to make this a responsibility of this company and to order the immediate resumption of sleeper and dining car service."
In that respect I would mention that I know of one or two cases of veterans who were seriously ill and whose transportation to the coast had to be delayed because it was not possible to use this service.
"In January of this year, ostensibly to protect the train crews and the public from alleged Doukhobor bombings, a further reduction in service was brought about when the daily passenger run was reduced to two days per week, each way. Although this union is as concerned with the safety of the railroad workers and the general public as any other group, we are not convinced that this severe cut in service is warranted."
I might mention that the railroad workers wholeheartedly endorsed this brief and its presentation to the minister.
"Possibly because of an incident of some years ago when an employee or agent of the railway company was implicated in a terrorist act, many people suspect that all of the uproar and suspicion attached to the Sons of Freedom sect of the Doukhobors is mere subterfuge and that they are being used as a convenient excuse that at this time suits the economic outlook of the Canadian Pacific Railway.
In this connection, it is worth observation that there has been no reduction in the pay load traffic

Railway Act
and the question is naturally asked-is the C.P.R.'s concern for its passenger run crews genuine when they appear to ignore the safety of the personnel on the freight runs?
Instituted Embargo
We have been informed by various farmers and poultrymen in the west Kootenay area that the railway has instituted virtual embargoes on the shipments of livestock and poultry. Indeed one of our members, a pigeon fancier, has protested to this union that he and his group can no longer transport their racing birds by rail and that the only alternative, truck travel, is unsuitable to their needs. Surely this is going too far when groups such as this are so sorely inconvenienced by a whim of the C.P.R.".
I might say in this connection-


An hon. Member:: From what are you reading?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I explained at the start that I was reading from the Trail Daily Times, which is a Conservative paper owned by a very close relative of the Minister of Public Works. I might mention on this last point that there has been, I think, some remedy with respect to the matters complained of by the pigeon fanciers' association and the canary breeders' association, which are the only ones in my district who had redress for their grievances.
"Here again this union maintains that the needs of the Kootenays are being entirely ignored by the C.P.R.'s apparent refusal to give service for which their franchise was granted to them to the exclusion of all others and that they are not living up to their commitments to this community and therefore the country as a whole.
We urge you, Mr. Minister, to use your power in such a way as to redress all these grievances and force the Canadian Pacific Railway to provide these necessary daily services, upon which the people of the whole southern interior of B.C. depend.
Unemployment
As a union we cannot ignore the fact that these moves aggravate the mounting unemployment problem in Canada and this area in particular. We maintain that from this viewpoint alone, the Canadian Pacific Railway has a responsibility in the general economic welfare, and that by maintenance of adequate service between fifty and one hundred workmen would again be gainfully employed.
Canadian Pacific Airlines
Your government recently saw fit to bring to an end the sole right of the Trans-Canada Air Lines to provide east and west air travel, which the Canadian Pacific Company, among others, after pressing for many years, hailed as a proper move in the so-called free enterprise of our nation. We cannot refrain from commenting here that in areas such as the Kootenays, where the Canadian Pacific Railway is apparently engrossed, apart from all considerations of the public welfare in cutting service, their entry into the trans-Canada air travel field is unearned.
We feel it only fair to say that as a union we oppose this company being given further franchises when they apparently wish to curtail necessary services to the public in areas where they hold an exclusive railway franchise, as they do in the Kootenays.

100th Birthday
As you know, Mr. Minister, 1958 is a proud year in the history of the province of British Columbia. We are celebrating our 100th birthday-100 years of dynamic progress in productive and cultural contributions to the welfare of our nation, and our people.
It is somewhat ironic that precisely at this moment the C.P.R. seeks to turn the clock back instead of forward. Instead of looking forward to improvements in rail travel, in step with our general progress, the C.P.R. blithely institutes retrograde actions, such as they have instituted in these recent months.
Throughout the whole of 1958, it is anticipated there will be thousands upon thousands of visitors to every part of the province where the great centennial events are being programmed. We ask you sir what their estimation of B.C. as a thriving province, would be when our visitors are forced to endure rail travel of the nature that is presently available to them through the courtesy of the Canadian Pacific Railway, who advertise themselves throughout the world as the world's largest and most progressive travel organization.
On behalf of our union, and indeed the union men and general public of this province, we urge you to use your power to ensure that these conditions be rectified, and soon.
Mr. Speaker, I have read at considerable length from this brief because it deals with the question very thoroughly. As I said earlier, it has attracted much favourable comment throughout the district and of course has received very large support.
When the brief had been presented to him, and when representations regarding it had been made-and I am informed that the minister appeared to the delegation to be a very likeable person,-he replied to the delegation with these words: "I have no power to tell the Canadian Pacific Railway what to do". I understand that according to the law as it stands at the present time that is so. That was when the minister agreed to talk to Mr. Crump of the C.P.R.
A long time has passed since the hon. minister had this opportunity to talk to Mr. Crump. I am sure that after he said he would discuss this matter with Mr. Crump and the members of the transport commission he did do so, but the same situation exists. There has been no improvement whatever. We still have to put up with this bi-weekly service between Penticton and Nelson, and with the Budd car.
It is admitted that the Budd car service is somewhat more rapid; it is a very nice day coach, one might say. But the service is not sufficient, and the Budd car does not provide sufficient conveniences for older people, people with children, people who are ill and others who for various reasons cannot easily sit up in a day coach on the journey between Vancouver and Lethbridge, for example.
As far as food is concerned, one has to rely upon a boy who comes along periodically.

Sometimes he brings with him cups of coffee which he takes on at the stations together with some sandwiches which, on occasions, can be very dry indeed. I have travelled when there have been no coffee and no sandwiches; the rations have been entirely depleted because of the number of people travelling.
The C.P.R. will argue that the traffic does not warrant a better service, but what the C.P.R. is doing is actually reducing the traffic by making the service most unpopular. Everyone who can do so is travelling by some other means.
However, we in the Kootenays do not wish to be unfair. No one can expect companies to do the impossible, but this happens to be a very profitable section of the railway as a result of the hauling of ores from Kimberley and other mines to Trail and then the hauling of manufactured products from Trail to the coast and to other points in Canada. It is a profitable section of the road, and we feel that an area producing such a great amount of goods and such revenue for the C.P.R. should not be deprived of greatly needed rail facilities.
I am not going to elaborate at much greater length because I think the brief explains the situation quite well, but I do want to indicate that all this discontent is the cause of my having been asked to introduce this amendment to the Railway Act in order to give the board of transport commissioners the power to provide to municipalities concerned and affected by reductions of service such as I have described the opportunity to make representations to the board, and making certain that no company can reduce services without first hearing representations from the municipalities concerned.
Under the law as it now stands the railway companies are required to make application for a hearing only when they are going to abandon a service. They can reduce the service without making any application to the board of transport commissioners. This bill makes it necessary for them to make an application to the board of transport commissioners before being empowered to reduce a service, and makes provision that the board of transport commissioners should hear representations from the municipalities concerned in the area where the reduction of services is proposed.
I am sure the minister has a good picture of the situation with which I have been dealing, and I trust he will support this amendment to the Railway Act. It would mean a great deal not only to the people who are presently concerned in southeastern British Columbia, but to people in other parts of Canada.
Railway Act
I trust hon. members in this house generally will also support this bill as being to the general advantage of the people of Canada. While the Kootenay area suffers at the present time because of the lack of power vested in the board of transport commissioners, a good many Canadians in other parts of the country have suffered in the past because of the lack of these powers. Let us protect the rights of the people in the future by adopting this modest and, I think, very fair amendment to the Railway Act.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the house
has been very interested, as I have been, in listening to the comprehensive outline of this situation given by the hon. member for Kootenay West.
As he has said, when I was in his riding in the course of the past election campaign I met with several delegations who put to me very strongly their objections to the curtailment of the Canadian Pacific Railway service in that area. I was very interested in what they had to say and, as the hon. member has stated, I promised I would bring their point of view personally to the attention of the president of the Canadian Pacific Railway, Mr. Crump.
When I got back to eastern Canada I did so in some detail, and spent some time talking the matter over with Mr. Crump. He told me in some detail also why the Canadian Pacific had found it necessary to adopt the course it did in curtailing these services. This is a highly important matter, particularly to the people in the district, and because of its importance I have also discussed the matter at quite some length with the board of transport commissioners.
Before dealing with the hon. member's bill I would like to deal with the auestion of the curtailed Canadian Pacific Railway service in the district. I believe I can do that most quickly and effectively by reading a letter written on June 9 by Mr. A. LeSage, assistant director of operation, of the operating department of the board of transport commissioners, addressed to Mr. F. T. Collins, special assistant and secretary to the minister, Department of Transport, Ottawa, Ontario. The letter is as follows:
Dear Sir:
Reference to your request for some general information on the train service Vancouver-Pen-ticton-Nelson-Lethbridge, Canadian Pacific Railway.
The route travelled by these trains, is known as "Kettle Valley-Crowsnest route". It leaves the main line at Katz, British Columbia, 84 miles east of Vancouver and follows the Coquihalla pass in a southeasterly direction to Penticton and then easterly close to the American border to Nelson,
B.C.; continues in a northeasterly direction to

Railway Act
Lethbridge, Alberta (Calgary connection) and thence easterly to Medicine Hat where connection is made with the C.P.R. main line.
Through the years, a daily passenger train has been operated in both directions between Vancouver and Medicine Hat over this route with dining, sleeping car, express and mail service included.
The advent of improved highways brought through bus service and encouraged privately-owned automobile travel. Air service was introduced between Vancouver and Cranbrook with stops at Penticton and Castlegar. The railway in an effort to meet the growing competition and develop new business, experimented with rearranged train schedules and local trains to and from the larger centres were added. However, the results obtained did not prove sufficiently productive to justify the heavy expenditure and the local trains were removed.
The construction of the Hope-Princeton highway opened November 1, 1949, effected an approximate 145 road mileage reduction between Vancouver and Penticton and made all of the Kootenay area readily accessible to Vancouver. Fast and frequent service over this new highway made serious inroads on rail traffic and the railways were again forced to seek ways and means to reduce operating deficits.
A study of the economics of the service was undertaken by the company's department of research, as a result of which it wras decided to replace the convention equipment (handled by steam powered trains) with rail diesel equipment as soon as the latter could be acquired from the manufacturers.
It was felt that this proposal would make possible a reduction of the running time between Medicine Hat and Vancouver by several hours and provide connection at Medicine Hat, Alberta, with the fast main line service recently inaugurated by the Canadian. This new schedule require a night operation between Penticton and Nelson and removal of sleeping car, dining car, express and mail services. Express service would be provided by highway trucks. Coincidental with this change, steam operated trains between Medicine Hat and Lethbridge would be withdrawn and the rail diesel equipment operated in this area on essentially the same schedule as the trains to be withdrawn.
Advice of the company's intention to make the above change, was given to this department of the board in June, 1957, and confirmed in August of that year, along with advice that the change would be made effective on October 27, 1957. Advice to the public, in accordance with the board's requirements, was to be given at least 20 days prior to the change.
In anticipation of public disapproval of the company's proposal, the board's field inspector was directed on August 22, 1957, to travel on the trains then in operation and report on the traffic handled and express his views on the public reaction to the company's proposal, so that the board would be in a position to assess the situation and deal with complaints if any, when received. A check was also made of the patronage attracted to the new service immediately following its introduction on October 27.
The changeover was effective October 27, without public disapproval. The first complaint to reach the board was on November 15, 1957 and dealt with the lack of express service for the carriage of livestock on the company's express trucks. This and other complaints of a similar nature were received and dealt with and a solution satisfactory to the shippers arranged. The next complaint which was of a general nature, was received from Mr. Herridge, M.P. on January 30 and reply provided on February 14.

Copies of the letters above referred to are attached. I continue:
Incidentally, it might be of interest to note here that Mr. Herridge, in a telephone conversation with the writer early in January, commented favourably on the improved through service provided by the company to this area, after introduction of the rail diesel service, which provided connection at Medicine Hat with the "Canadian".
On January 15, 1958, a passenger train was derailed as a result of the track being bombed out near Fife, B.C. (76.9 miles west of Nelson, B.C.). This incident combined with other bombings and the use of contact mines on the company's trackage in the Kootenay area, moved the attorney general of the province of British Columbia, after consultation with company and railway labour organization officers, to recommend that the company suspend all night rail operation through the area between Nelson and Penticton.
As a result, arrangements were made to operate during daylight hours when regular maintenance of way forces were available to provide track patrols and since these employees work a five-day week, it resulted in a Monday to Friday passenger train operation between Nelson and Penticton on
the following schedule:
Lv. Nelson	 7.30	a.m.
Monday & Thursday
Ar. Penticton	
5.00	p.m.Lv. Penticton	
7.30	a.m.
Tuesday & Friday
Ar. Nelson	 4.45	p.m.
The above service was made effective at 12.01 a.m. February 5, 1958.
Effective with change of time April 27, 1958, the above schedules were changed as follows and are
still in effect:
Lv. Nelson	 7.00	a.m.
Monday & Thursday
Ar. Penticton	
3.20	p.m.Lv. Penticton	
8.00	a.m.
Tuesday & Friday
Ar. Nelson	 4.15	p.m.
It will be noted that prior to this change, no complaints reached the board other than those above mentioned in respect of handling express traffic. However, immediately the above change was placed in effect, complaints were received and the board's district inspector was instructed to visit the area, meet all interested parties at prearranged places, on certain dates and times and report on the situation. The inspector's report was placed before the board on March 21, last.
The board's investigation disclosed that since the company was obliged to operate through the trouble area during daylight hours, the through connection between Medicine Hat and Vancouver would have to be broken at Nelson and Penticton. It was further evident that any increase in this service would also have to be an interrupted one, thus discouraging public patronage. It was also hoped that this condition wmild be of a temporary nature, since we were advised that the attorney general of British Columbia was continuing a thorough investigation and it was sincerely hoped that a solution would be reached before long.
The summary is as follows:
1.	The service inaugurated on October 27, 1957, appeared to be working out satisfactorily.
2.	The action of the lawless element prohibited the company from using its property for the purpose for which it was constructed.

3.	The present service is unsatisfactory because-
To the company:
(a)	It is unable to get full utilization of the costly equipment recently purchased to serve this area.
(b)	Profitable operation of this equipment is dependent upon its continuous operation.
(c)	Railway operation, both passenger and freight is unsatisfactory and costly.
To the public:
(a)	The cities of Nelson and Trail are inconvenienced because through freight and passenger service to Vancouver is disrupted.
(b)	Vancouver is the natural market and social and cultural centre for these cities.
Solution of the problem would appear to be dependent upon the success of the province of British Columbia in making this territory safe for continuous rail operation.
Yours very truly,
(Signed) A. LeSage, Assistant Director of Operation.
I would like to deal briefly with the bill itself, Mr. Speaker. While I appreciate the concern of hon. members when railway companies find it necessary to reduce train service, I must at once say that I do not see how this amendment will give any more protection to the public than already exists.
The explanatory note to the bill states that the purpose of the amendment is to provide that the board of transport commissioners may, at the request of an interested municipality, deal with a reduction or proposed reduction of train service.
I have discussed the amendment with the board and its opinion is that the Railway Act already gives the board jurisdiction to prevent unwarranted reduction of train service and to entertain applications and complaints of municipalities and other interested parties regarding the adequacy of existing train service and any changes that may be proposed. In a word, the board considers that the amendment would not give to it powers that it does not now hold.
In support of this position I would point out that section 315 of the Railway Act requires railway companies to receive, carry and deliver traffic and to furnish adequate and suitable accommodation for the carrying of traffic. By virtue of sections 33, 36, 315 and other provisions of the Railway Act the board also has jurisdiction to make orders and regulations respecting train service; to require railway companies to furnish adequate and suitable train service and to prohibit them from reducing service below that standard.
I believe it is well known to hon. members that the board is continually exercising the powers it has in connection with reduction of passenger train services. I have before me a copy of the board's circular No. 275, dated June 16, 1953, which directs that 20
57071-3-69J
Railway Act
days prior to a reduction or other change in passenger service, railway companies subject to its jurisdiction shall post at ticket offices and stations a notice of such change, and as well shall, concurrently with the posting of the notice, place in the hands of agents for the information of the public a circular giving an outline of the change. It is also required that a copy of the circular shall be forwarded to the board. I have this circular No. 275 and I should like to read its contents to the house:
Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada Circular No. 275
Ottawa, June 16, 1953 File 24942-Reduction of Passenger Train Services In all cases of reduction in passenger train services and to provide sufficient time for investigation and consideration of submissions of all parties, the board directs as follows:
That all railway companies subject to the jurisdiction of the board, in addition to the announcements and the advertising now done by the railway companies, shall post at all ticket offices and stations. 20 days prior to any reduction or other change in passenger train service, a notice reading:
"Change of time will be made . . . For particulars apply to ticket agent."
Co-incident with the posting of this notice a circular giving an outline of the change shall be placed in the hands of agents for the information of the public and a copy shall be forwarded to the director of operation of the board in Ottawa.
Circular No. 139 dated January 13, 1915, and circular No. 208 dated December 3, 1925, are hereby rescinded.
By order of the board,
C.	W. RUMP Acting Secretary,
Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada
I want to emphasize that in all cases where the board is notified of a change in service and complaints are received the whole situation is thoroughly reviewed and indeed it is not unusual for the board to direct the railway to defer the proposed reduction pending investigation. For instance, 44 applications dealing with major reductions or discontinuance of passenger and mixed train service were dealt with during the year 1957. These applications were investigated on the ground by district inspectors of the branch, accompanied by headquarters officers in some instances and after consultation with tne parties affected, reports and recommendations were submitted to the board. Several complaints from the public pertaining to inadequacy of train service were also dealt with in a similar manner.
I think it will be clear to the house from what I have said that the board does have the right to deal with the reduction of train service and that it does exercise its powers. I can assure the house that all the factors

Railway Act	_
involved are carefully considered by the board and that the public interest is of paramount concern to the board in reaching a conclusion. In the circumstances I must advise the house that the government is opposed to the amendment.


Mr. A. E. Robinson (Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a few remarks on the second reading of this bill. I appreciate the feelings of the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) in moving it. He is not alone in his problem. I understand that the line he has been referring to is a Canadian Pacific line. Up in our district we are served mostly by the Canadian National. I agree with all the remarks made by the minister. I have found out that the board of transport commissioners did for us up in Bruce just what the hon. member for Kootenay West is now asking to have done by this amendment to the act.
If there were a clause in the amendment along the lines that the board of transport commissioners should look into their findings a little more closely in connection with giving service to different communities I would be all for it. In our district we have found that after a railroad has lost the business they attempt to cut off the service. I am not finding fault with the officials of the railroad; they are there to do a job. The only thing I am finding fault with is the findings of the board of transport commissioners.
In our case we had a paying line at a time when the railways in Canada were not paying their way. Through mismanagement of some sort the railways lost their business to other types of transportation and now they have decided to curtail our services. I would say that such curtailment is just another move toward centralization which has been going on for the last 22 years as far as any government leadership is concerned. The height of irony is the fact that we are losing our service; after having our lines pay their way for a great number of years we are to be called on to contribute our share of the subsidy to the Canadian National Railways. If that is not adding insult to injury I do not know what it is. I agree with the minister's remarks that this amendment would not help the act at all.
I should like to put on the record my view that the board of transport commissioners are not exercising the judgment that should be used in dealing with this problem. I have no further remarks to make except to say that I cannot see any merit in the amendment.


Mr. F. J. Bigg (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, it is so many years since the constituency of Athabasca has been represented in this house
[Mr. Hees.l
in any manner which has been satisfactory to the people that I think I had better tell you where Athabasca is.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Shame.


Mr. Winch:: How about discussing the bill before us?


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: We will get to that. Athabasca is situated in the northeast corner of Alberta and covers 60,000 square miles. This area is poorly serviced at the moment by any form of transportation. We, in Athabasca, feel that transportation is of vital importance because this area forms the gateway to the north. Many pioneers have gone into this vast territory on their own and they feel that Canada, now that she has vast resources at her disposal, is in a position to give considerable support to the development of the north country. Many of these people have taken the initiative and have given their whole lives to the development of this country. Now, they look to us to give them support.
One of the most important means of transportation is, of course, the railway. Arguments have been presented to the effect that the railways have outlived their usefulness. Consideration is being given to the closing of many branch lines, while many others will have their service curtailed. Let us not be hasty about this. The whole economic situation in Canada is changing rapidly. We do not intend to spend money like drunken sailors, but we must plan our transportation services. The question here is, first of all, whether or not railroads should be built into that part of the country. We in Athabasca believe that rail lines should be built in there, and particularly from the McMurray district northwards. This railway would serve not only the known resources in there, but would be available for future development.
So far as the servicing of the industries now in the north are concerned, we have a very active railway to Fort McMurray, at least to Waterways, which is the Fort McMurray end of the line. This railway is known as the Northern Alberta Railway, and is a joint venture of the Canadian National and Canadian Pacific railroads. There is considerable tonnage passing over the line, in fact the annual report shows it is a paying line. Again, I do not want to jump to conclusions because when we say "paying line" we mean that the books balance; we mean that on paper this part of the line pays.
As we all know, our railroad companies are operated as companies. Even the government-owned railways are operated as crown corporations, and they have to balance their books. This balancing of the books does not necessarily mean that the lines pay.

However, I do not think we can always assess our national effort in terms of dollars and cents or, what you might call "paying lines". We certainly cannot look at the results on a mere day to day basis. It is not of much help to look back, either. Some lines have been built where they should not have been built, and some lines should have been built which have not been built. We must not neglect the long-term view. I agree that we must balance our books, in the short-term view, but my fear is that in doing so we may be overlooking the most important thing of all and that is the solid economic future of our country.
If we plan with the same forethought as our ancestors, I feel we will achieve the same results. When we build these railways into the north we have to be bold but we also have to be careful to make sure we do not waste the taxpayer's money. We have to attempt to strike a balance between sound economic principles and dreams. I do not think the development of the north country is any idle dream. I have been there, and I have seen some of the potential.
In Athabasca, just north of McMurray, there is one of the greatest oil deposits in the world. It is true that this oil is trapped in sand and we are only now reaching the point where this oil can be freed from the sand by an economic process. Nevertheless there is no doubt that, given time, this process will become economically feasible. According to conservative estimates there are 200 billion barrels of oil trapped in these sands. It does not take a great deal of imagination to realize that if our supply of oil from the Near East, from Venezuela or any other place were to be cut off, the tar sands of Alberta would become not only of national but international importance. Whether or not the building of a railway into that section would speed up that process, I am not sure. However, I know that if the tar sands are developed a rail linkage will be required.
This railway to McMurray already carries the great bulk of the freight going into the north. As I said before, according to the books it is making money. If we extend these facilities farther north I think they will also contribute to the solid development of Canada. This railway at McMurray is the closest rail line in Alberta to the Canadian shield. The mineral resources of that shield have only been scratched. People who are conversant with railroads know that mineral areas are considered to be one of the finest sources of revenue for railroads. If we are only looking at the dollars and cents angle
Railway Act
then railroads which are built to mining areas are the railroads which pay.
Now, Mr. Speaker, it is not the attitude of this member, nor is it the attitude of the members of this government to take a parochial or even a provincial view. If there are places to which this particular railway should go in order that the country will be better serviced, I would be one of the first to give the matter consideration. The final decision will not be mine. But when the final decision is made I shall have made all the attempts possible to present the government of this country with impartial facts on which they can make a decision where to place this railroad for the greatest good of the people of this country.
In case my questioner from British Columbia asks me what this has to do with curtailment of railroad services, I must say that we cannot be sure that any railroad will pay for a long period of time or that it will pay better than the building of adequate roads. In the whole of Athabasca we have
24	miles of hard-surfaced roads. Today hardsurfaced roads are essential. Hard-surfaced roads are very effective for increasing the economic welfare of any community. When I say that we need many miles of hard-surfaced roads I do not mean that we do not need a railway. However, it is possible that the expenditure of money on hard-surfaced roads would be more economically sound at this time. That we shall need a railway into the north country to carry minerals in the future, I have no doubt. But whether we build it this year, in five years' time or in
25	years' time is something that will depend on the economic necessity. I do not know what is going to happen to the price of base metals. If the price of base metals went up rapidly, great impetus would be given to the immediate development of these projects.
I merely want to point out that the curtailment of services or the expansion of services on the railway today is something which requires a great deal of thought and a great deal of planning. Since coming to Ottawa I have taken certain steps to look into these matters and I have found on the part of the railways a spirit of co-operation which surprised me. I found that they are very careful indeed in assessing all the factors, although I also found that they were hardheaded businessmen, that they liked to see books balanced and liked to see a good yearly report. Amongst these men I found capable engineers and men of vision who look upon the railway problem as just another national problem. They look upon it-as one of the members of the opposition said the other day.-as part of a great jigsaw

Railway Act
puzzle. They are responsible for one of the component parts of this puzzle and they are doing as good a job as we can expect them to do under the circumstances.
When business is good and traffic is heavy, the railroads make money. When business is bad and traffic is light, of course they appear to lose money and they do so. But I have found that they are willing, as are we, to look upon the matter from a long-term point of view; and if we can show them where the plans for the future will justify the extension of railways I am sure that they will be only too willing to accept their part of the responsibility. Where we are willing to put forth the money to extend railways into uneconomic territories, they will try to operate those railways as efficiently as possible. It is up to us here in parliament to decide where these railways will go and who will have to pay the bill. The C.N.R. is set up as a company but it is our company. If it loses money, we lose money. If it makes money, the whole country is better off.
To get even closer to the point of whether or not we should curtail services, may I say that we have a branch of the C.N.R. extending out of Edmonton to the east to the north of the Saskatchewan river, and it ends up in a village called Heinsburg. Another branch of the C.N.R. comes west through Saskatchewan and ends up at a place called Frenchman's Butte, 38 miles distant. This railway therefore has a gap of only 38 miles. If you want to carry farm machinery from Winnipeg to Heinsburg it is necessary to go by way of Edmonton, to shunt your box car and to take the box car back east a total extra distance of 328 miles. On the other hand, if you want to ship anything from Heinsburg to Winnipeg, you have to go west to Edmonton and back to Winnipeg. The people who live in there naturally feel that this is an unnecessary burden placed directly upon them and their personal exchequer. It is hard for them to see why a great railway system cannot close a 38 mile gap and give them what would obviously be far better rail services.
Looked upon from their point of view, there is no question that that gap should be closed. We have to decide whether, as a people, we are going to be able to give them that added facility regardless of the economic book balancing. A good many of these people went in there on the expressed promise of the then government that these facilities would be given to them. The vision of the development of the northwest-


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have listened with a great deal of interest to the hon. member. During

that period in which I was listening I was thinking that he would finally come to relate his remarks to this bill. However, I should like to bring to your attention, Mr. Speaker, the fact that the remarks of the hon. member so far are not related to the bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea):: I want to thank the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) for bringing the matter to my attention. I have been listening and perhaps I was a little bit lax in the discharge of my duties in not drawing the matter to the attention of the house earlier. I should like to make this point. In the explanatory note in connection with the bill, near the bottom of it, we find this sentence:
The purpose of the proposed amendment is to provide that the board may, at the request of an interested municipality, deal with such reduction of service.
That is the bill or the amendment we are discussing. I hope hon. members will try to keep themselves within the amendment contained in this bill in order that I shall not be obliged to call the matter to their attention again.


Harold Edward Winch: This is not a railway extension bill.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Mr. Speaker, I shall try to relate my remarks more closely to the spirit of this bill. It has been suggested that this railway should not only be extended but that the service on this line be cut out entirely. I think it is hard to discuss the cutting out of the service on this line without going into some of the history behind the line itself. With a view to making the point, in order to strengthen the spirit of this proposal that this line should not only be continued but that there should be no thought at all of cutting it out on the ethical ground I have proposed. These people deserve this line and therefore no reduction in the service should be contemplated, because along this line we have a rich agricultural community; not only that, but underneath the soil are large deposits of salt-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Oh, oh.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: -which would keep the world in table salt and salt to be used for all commercial purposes. The people of Athabasca, I might inform the hon. member for Bona-vista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) do not think this is a laughing matter. Underneath the soil around Heinsburg there is a vein of salt from 80 to 200 feet deep and they have a mill there which sends out seven box car loads of salt per day. I wonder if the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate is aware of those facts.


An hon. Member:: Let him laugh that one off.


Mr. Benidickson:: I wonder if the hon. member was listening when the Speaker read the purposes of the bill.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: I am confining my remarks to whether or not the service on this line should be curtailed or should be discontinued. I think what I am saying is relevant to the question when, as I have said, seven box car loads of salt can come out of one village each day.
It has been suggested that this line be torn up and if that is done or the service discontinued this mill will close down and 50 families will have to leave the area and seek employment elsewhere. That I do not think is a laughing matter, and the people of Athabasca certainly do not think it is a laughing matter for they have sent me to Ottawa to try to do something about it.


Harold Edward Winch: Very well then, support this bill.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: To support this bill is correct, but as the minister has pointed out, the bill itself is unnecessary because the Railway Act covers the problem.


Harold Edward Winch: It does not.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: The act does cover the problem but my hon. friends will, I believe, have an opportunity to speak again, so in the meantime may I continue, Mr. Speaker?


Harold Edward Winch: On the bill.


Mr. Speaker:: Go ahead.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: We have another rail line branching off from this one which ends at the town of Grand Centre. Grand Centre is the shopping centre for the Cold lake airport. From the east comes another railroad line where there is a gap of approximately 100 miles and the people of Grand Centre are faced with the same problem which they have in Heinsburg. If this railroad line also is torn up or the service is curtailed the people of Grand Centre will suffer in the same way. There are no all-weather roads as an alternative and I think this is relevant to the point under consideration because we are talking about transportation and a fair deal in transportation for all the people of Canada. The results of this bill would have to be paid for by the people of Canada and I think therefore that all the people of Canada, including those of Newfoundland, are interested in the welfare of every other province.
I believe this is a matter which is important, although I have only touched upon it very briefly because I do not now wish to take up the time of the house in view of the fact that it is obvious that it is the opinion of some people that I am stretching the railway
Railway Act
question just a little too far. I will therefore express my views on this subject when a better opportunity presents itself.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, possibly before I launch into my observations on this matter, in view of the ruling which has been made and which of course I accept, sir, I might mention that I had intended to approach the matter in this way, that this bill appears to be appended to section 168 of the Railway Act, which reads as follows:
The company-
Referring to railway companies.
-may abandon the operation of any line of railway with the approval of the board, and no company shall abandon the operation of any line of railway without such approval.
This bill, of course, refers to the right of a municipality to appeal to the board with respect to the curtailment of services. I will state what I have in mind at once, and that is that in considering this question of abandonment or curtailment the matter cannot be dealt with without a proper study and survey of the economic factors which justified the original construction of the line and of the route it follows. I wish to discuss, secondly, the question of the route of the railway which is now proposed on the basis that in my opinion if proper considerations are not given to the choice of route it might be necessary at some time to apply under the terms of the section I have quoted, either as it is now or as it may be amended, for the right to abandon or curtail such services. With def-eference, if I am not in opposition to your ruling, sir, I would like to say that I had intended to confine my remarks to the question of a proper choice of route for the railway now proposed so that there would be no need for recourse to this particular section.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the hon. member but I rise on a point of order with respect to what he has just said. The bill before the house has nothing whatever to do with the routes of the railways or with abandonments. It has to do with only a reference of curtailment of services to the board of transport commissioners and with no other principle.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea):: I must once again direct the remarks of hon. members to the points contained in the explanatory notes, or hon. members may read the actual amendment. The hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) is quite correct. This amendment pertains only to reduction of services. There is nothing to do with-


An hon. Member:: And appeals to the board.

Railway Act


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea):: -and appeals to the board. It has nothing to do with proposed lines or extensions or anything of that nature. It is strictly on the reduction of services.


Gerald William Baldwin: May I say, sir, that I had only intended, in deference to your ruling to suggest that if proper care and caution were exercised in the selection of the route it would not be necessary at any time to apply for a reduction in services.


Mr. E. J. Broome (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a great deal of sympathy for the intent of this bill. I am quite conversant with the part of the country concerned, having done a good deal of travelling on this particular line of the C.P.R. and I trust the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) will allow a little groundwork to be laid, having in mind my various trips on that line since I think my remarks will have some bearing on this debate.
While travelling on the Kettle valley line in 1945 and 1950 we had dining room services, sleeper services and even a club car. The train would always be crowded and it looked to me as though it was a very paying proposition. As the minister pointed out there were certain changes in the year 1949 contingent upon the opening of the Hope-Princeton highway, which reduced the mileage from Vancouver to the Okanagan valley by something like 150 miles.
Travelling on the same line in the fifties you could see the traffic dwindle to the point where, when I made one of my last trips in that direction, I think I was the only person in the car, and on the entire train there were exactly, as far as I can remember, four people plus the train crew. However, this train gave a needed service to Nelson, Penticton, Trail and smaller communities between those points. It has been replaced by a Budd car service, as the minister pointed out, and I believe the reduction in travel time between Nelson and Vancouver is, as a result, something like seven hours. I made one of the last trips on the old style equipment but I must confess I have not been on the new Budd car service.
Discussing this service with the people who use the run I found they were in a bit of a quandary whether the reduction in the time taken made up for the lack of facilities on the new system. I think the minister was quite right in saying that while the service was a daily service there was not too much to be said against the service given to the people of the Kootenays.
However, due to a radical sect, the Sons of Freedom, who must not be confused with the law-abiding Doukhobors-and there are
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea).]
a lot of Doukhobors in the Kootenays who are very fine citizens-the service had to be curtailed. The Sons of Freedom are a radical sect which has created a considerable amount of disturbance, to put it mildly, for the residents of the Kootenays, and that disturbance has resulted in the curtailment of the service so that it now runs, as we have been told, twice weekly going eastward and twice weekly going westward, those runs being timed during daylight hours. I have travelled along the highway, and there are certain sections of the highway which follow along the Coquahalla pass and which give you a bird's eye view of the construction of the Kettle Valley railway, and it must have been a very rough decision for the C.P.R. to decide they would run this train even during the daylight hours because, frankly, anyone going over it in daylight through the Coquahalla pass would not be likely to repeat the journey. It consists of innumerable short stretches of track jutting out on stilts, and innumerable short tunnels where a few sticks of dynamite could cause a very serious accident. Speaking for myself, I cannot blame the train crews or the railways for acting in the interests of safety by regulating operations on that line so that all running is done during daylight hours.
All this is, I believe, directed to the particular problem which prompted the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) to bring forward this bill. With regard to the actual wording of the bill, the purpose of the proposed amendment, as you, Mr. Speaker have pointed out, is to provide that the board of transport commissioners may at the request of a municipality deal with reductions of services. Actually when the hon. member for Kootenay West was speaking to this bill, I believe he used the phrase the board "must hear representations" from the interested municipalities. But, in fact, according to the wording of the bill, the board "may entertain an appeal from any interested municipality or municipalities and may confirm, disapprove or vary such reductions of service" and so on. The whole intent of the bill is to make certain that the board of transport commissioners is aware of reductions in services and that they have investigated these reductions to see whether there is an injustice being done-whether the service is to be reduced to cut out, say, a petty loss rather than a major loss- whether, in fact, a railway should have the right to reduce or modify its service in a particular instance.
Under the Railway Act it seems to me- and the hon. gentleman knows I am no lawyer, but it seems it is not too tough to find out how lawyers work-this question

is already dealt with. In section 33, subsection 1, sub-paragraph (b) it says this with regard to the authority of the board:
(1) The board has full jurisdiction to inquire into, hear and determine any application by or on behalf of any party interested.
(a)	complaining that any company, or person, has failed to do any act, matter or thing required to be done by this act, or the Special Act, or by any regulation, order or direction made thereunder by the governor in council, the minister, the board, or any inspecting engineer or other lawful authority, or that any company or person has done or is doing any act, matter or thing contrary to or in violation of this act, or the Special Act, or any such regulation, order, or direction, or,
(b)	requesting the board to make any order, or give any direction, leave, sanction or approval, that by law it is authorized to make or give, or with respect to any matter, act or thing, that by this act, or the Special Act, is prohibited, sanctioned or required to be done.
In other words, it does seem to be pretty clear-


Harold Edward Winch: It is obvious you are no lawyer.


Ernest James Broome: Does the hon. member wish to ask a question? Then, in section 36, it says -and I can go on to quote the whole of the Railway Act if you want me to:
The board may, of its own motion, or shall, upon the request of the minister, inquire into, hear and determine any matter or thing that, under this act, it may inquire into, hear and determine upon application or complaint, and with respect thereto has the same powers as, upon any application or complaint, are vested in it by this act.
I suggest that this again covers the field and allows the board to listen to any representations from municipalities, labour unions or anybody whatsoever who may wish to make any case before it. In proof of this contention is the fact that the minister read out a notice which the board requires the railway companies to post. It is a public notice, and there is only one reason for posting that public notice, namely that the public may know 20 days beforehand what the railway proposes to do, and the reason the public must know that length of time in advance is in order that they may be able to make any representations which they may care to make to the board of transport commissioners. In effect, therefore, the bill does not add anything to the powers which the board of transport commissioners now enjoy and, as the minister pointed out, if hon. members wish to find out the particular obligations imposed upon the railway they have only to turn to section 315 of the act, which states:
(1) The company shall, according to its powers,
(a) furnish, at the place of starting, and at the junction of the railway with other railways, and at all stopping places established for such purpose, adequate and suitable accommodation for the receiving and loading of all traffic-
Railway Act
And then it goes on, subsection after subsection pointing out what the railroad must do.
When you consider all these points, there is only one conclusion you reach and that is that what the hon. member for Kootenay West really wants to do is draw the plight of the Kootenays to the attention of this house and perhaps in a somewhat stronger way to the board of transport commissioners. But as far as the bill is concerned it adds nothing to what the board of transport commissioners has done in this case or to what they might do in any succeeding case.
The minister has pointed out that the board has its own men who travel the railway before and after a change in schedule. I think it is safe to assume they also check in detail with the municipalities that were affected by a change. The decision which was taken to curtail the service on the Kettle valley line was taken under circumstances that would make it extremely difficult for anybody to do other than what was done in this case. It would have been difficult for the board of transport commissioners to have investigated this entire situation any more fully than it did. Is it fair that the railway should be denied the right of changing or reducing its service in that area in view of the circumstances that obtained there, should the fruit shippers of the Okanagan valley for example help to carry the costs of a losing service?
One hon. gentleman who spoke previously referred to the part that is played by the railway in the development of the national resources of the country. You would expect a railway that was opening up new and untapped markets to have a pattern of constantly increasing revenue and traffic but the fact is that this particular line has sustained a constantly decreasing usage as far as passenger traffic is concerned.
I believe the governing factor must have been the actual bombings which took place and the railway in an effort to safeguard the lives of its employees changed the schedules to daylight runs. Several hon. members have indicated that there are alternative means of transportation including bus lines and airlines. Air transportation tends to be uncertain in winter but the points referred to in the presentation of the hon. member for Kootenay West are serviced by both bus and air lines. There was at least adequate rail passenger service prior to the complete elimination of the daily run.
As the minister pointed out, the railway wants to have its equipment in operation every day because it has invested in the

Railway Act
purchase of it. I am genuinely of the conviction that the change in schedule to twice-a-week service was made on the basis of the railway wanting to discharge its obligation in terms of exercising care for the safety of its passengers and employees. As a matter of fact, I suggest that this bill is completely out of order and without point.


Harold Edward Winch: am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for having drawn to the attention of hon. members of the house the principle of the bill we are discussing. It deals solely with a provision for the board of transport commissioners to not only have power to hear representations on curtailment of service but power to deal with the same. The hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Broome) made a point of the fact that in the terminology of the bill now before us the word "may" and not "shall" is used. I am certain that hon. members will readily understand the reason for this. This bill proposes an amendment to the Railway Act which applies to all railways in Canada. There are a number of railways in this country that are publicly owned rather than privately owned and one notable example is the Canadian National Railways which could be loosely described as a crown company responsible to and financed by the people of Canada through the medium of the House of Commons and the other place. It is completely beyond the power of a private member to move an amendment to a bill affecting a crown company involving the expenditure of public moneys. I am sure the hon. member for Vancouver South now appreciates why the word "may" is used in this bill.


Ernest James Broome: Would the hon. gentleman
permit a question? Does the hon. member believe that I was trying to suggest that the bill should contain the word "shall"? That was not my point at all. I was merely suggesting-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea):: Order. The hon. member may ask a question but he must not anticipate the committee.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman raised that point and I thought he should be answered. I listened with a great deal of interest to the comments that have been made on this bill and in particular the statements made by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees) concerning reasons why curtailment of service in British Columbia should not be considered. The principle of this bill concerns all of Canada in relation to our transportation system. Under section 168 of the existing act it is clear that the board of transport commissioners has the authority to
	.	1	!' |
hold official hearings on the abandonment of lines and the power to make decisions concerning their abandonment.
It is obvious from what has been said that it is in the minds of some hon. members who have spoken-and I think I am correct in saying also in the mind of the Minister of Transport-that the board of transport commissioners has authority to hold official hearings and to make decisions concerning the curtailment of service. The present bill was introduced by the hon. member for Kootenay West following conversations and his being in receipt of legal advice and a letter which he received from the board of transport commissioners to the effect that it has no power to hold official hearings or make decisions concerning curtailment of service.
I suggest through you, Mr. Speaker, that those who are interested in this matter and have spoken on it this afternoon make official inquiries through the legal officers of the board of transport commissioners as to whether or not it has the power which they have affirmed it holds. Our information, both verbally and in writing, from the board of transport commissioners is entirely different. I am informed that the Minister of Transport has no power whatsoever over the board or on appeal as regards the curtailment of railway services. I think I have said enough to indicate, with all the authorities that the member for Kootenay West (Mr. Her-ridge) has given you, why in Ontario on two railway lines and in British Columbia it is necessary to have the act amended.
I was quite surprised when the Minister of Transport informed us that there was an understanding between the attorney general of British Columbia and the Canadian Pacific railway relative to a curtailment of service on the Kettle valley railroad because of certain bombings on the railway line itself. That is not a sufficient reason for a curtailment of service. If there is violence on any line, be it a railroad or any other system of transportation or communication, that is a matter for the police forces of the province and of the nation to correct; it is not a ground for the curtailment of railroad service.
The Minister of Transport, and I particularly add the statement of the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Broome), said that the curtailment was for the protection of the life of the employees on the railroad and that trains could be run only in daylight. If that is so, then could we be given an explanation as to why the freight trains still operate at night, because surely the engineer, the firemen and the brakemen on

the freight trains at night have exactly the same life as anyone who operates a train
in daylight.


Ernest James Broome: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Harold Edward Winch: No. We are most interested in the protection of the lives of employees and of passengers, but we know from the information we have received that freight trains have not been curtailed in daylight or night. The question is curtailment of services and public hearings. The Minister of Transport was quite correct in what he said and he was reading from a memorandum supplied to him. He told us that, and therefore I am not breaking any secret. The memorandum which he read said that in the event of changes in prices, curtailment of services or change of hours, it is all posted. He was quite correct when he said that the board of transport commissioners will receive complaints and will even send out an investigator to look into the situation. That is good; but, in the final analysis, the power to hold an official hearing and to bring down a ruling on the curtailment of services does not come under the jurisdiction of the board of transport commissioners. It is of the utmost importance that the board of transport commissioners should have the power not only to hold official hearings but to decide finally whether a curtailment of services is in order.
The hon. member for Vancouver South and the Minister of Transport both made a point about unprofitable operations. I think I can also say it was mentioned by the hon. member for Athabaska (Mr. Bigg). When you consider the operations of a railroad it must be realized that they must not be carried on on a day-to-day basis only this week, this month, next year; but with the background of the railroad systems of Canada in mind; more especially when one considers the Canadian Pacific railroad. If hon. members are interested they will find that in the construction of the Canadian Pacific railroad not one but numerous empires were given away free of charge by Canada,-


Mr. Hamilton (York West):: Keep to the point.


Harold Edward Winch: -including rights to the finest land, timber and minerals of Canada. I know that in British Columbia, and particularly true on Vancouver island where only about 75 miles of railroad were built the railroad grants ran into hundreds of millions of dollars.


John Borden Hamilton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, this hon. member was one of those who raised a question about speakers on this side of the house keeping
Railway Act
to the subject. He himself is now offending that rule very badly at the moment.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, I am dealing with the statement made and read by the Minister of Transport as a reason for the curtailment of services, and also mentioned by the hon. member for Athabasca and the hon. member for Vancouver South, who referred to the rate of return on a profitable operation and said that it was part of this entire question. I am dealing with that exact point. If they want to consider the rate of a profitable return on a certain train or a certain service, then they must take into consideration at the same time not only the profit or the loss of today but the profits made previously under grants to the railways by the Dominion of Canada. I am still commenting on what has been given as reasons for opposition to this bill. Am I permitted to continue, sir?


Mr. Speaker:: I think the hon. member is in order if he deals with the question of current profits but if he goes back to the origins of the railways it seems to me he is straying away from the immediate question before the house.


Harold Edward Winch: Are you saying that the billions of dollars worth of grants made are not to be considered today?


An hon. Member:: Why?


Harold Edward Winch: I know you free enterprisers would like to forget that. It is to be noted that in British Columbia, where passenger service has been curtailed, freight service has not because one of the grants was made to the company which now has a 55 per cent control of Kimberley and Trail. On that basis we should also decide whether or not services ought to be continued. In view of the past, and the free grants of the mineral, timber and land given to the railroad companies they should not now be in a position, without reference to the board of transport commissioners and without the authority of the board of transport commissioners, to curtail service to the people and maintain for their own purposes their freight operations.
No matter how you look at it, it is an involved question at all times, this question of transportation. We feel strongly that the board of transport commissioners, having been granted the power, and rightly so, of hearing and deciding final action on the abandonment of lines, it is just as logical and perhaps even more necessary that the board of transport commissioners should have a similar power to finally dispose of any representations that may be made on curtailment of service.

Railway Act
I sincerely hope that the bill presented by the hon. member for Kootenay West will receive the unanimous support of this house which it merits.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: May I be permitted to ask the hon. member a question? Can he give me an example of a complaint in this regard which could not be taken to the board of transport commissioners under the present act?


Harold Edward Winch: There is no question that it can be taken to the board of transport commissioners, but the board of transport commissioners has no power of final decision if the matter deals with the curtailment of services.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: May I ask another question? Is it the hon. member's wish that the board of transport commissioners should have the final say in matters concerning the railway?


Harold Edward Winch: I am afraid I shall have to ask the hon. member to state whether he is referring to the curtailment of services, and whether there should be an appeal beyond the board of transport commissioners to the governor general in council, as there is in connection with abandonment? I am not going to say the same provisions should not apply to curtailment. All we are asking now is that the board of transport commissioners have authority in connection with the curtailment of services.


Mr. H. C. McQuillan (Comox-Alberni):: have a great deal of sympathy, Mr. Speaker, for the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) and his effort to increase the service into that area. We see that going on all the time all across Canada. Originally our railways were built to perform two functions, the first one being the movement of bulk freight and the second to provide essential passenger services. The rapid increase in highway construction and highway services, as well as air services, has caused the latter function to become less important. Today the primary function of the railway is the movement of freight, particularly the bulk freight provided by our export and agricultural industries.
Freight rates for these items must be maintained at a figure that will permit our export industries to compete in the world markets. The continued operation of nonprofitable passenger lines will inevitably result in an increase in these rates. A few years ago I made a trip to the prairies with my wife and one of my youngsters. We went to a little town called Leask. It was the first time I had ever been in that part of the country, and if I had known anything about it I would not have bothered to take the train. When I got there the people told me

that nobody travelled by passenger train in that part of the country. We had to transfer at Edmonton to a line that went down through North Battleford. There was a sleeper and dining car on the train, and my wife, youngster, one other passenger and myself made up the total passenger complement. At North Battleford we transferred to a local train that runs up to Prince Albert. There were two other passengers, an Indian and his wife along with my wife, my child and myself. I would imagine that the probable cost of transporting the five of us for 50 or 60 miles was about $5,000. There are thousands and thousands of miles of such railway passenger services throughout Canada.
The end result of such operations is, as we have seen from the recent C.N.R. report, a deficit of close to $30 million. The estimated deficit next year is upwards of $50 million. The indications are that Canadian Pacific profits will be inadequate for the proper maintenance of the line, let alone any modernization. I should like to quote from a report prepared by Chief Justice Sloan following an examination of this subject some years ago. The report was submitted in November, 1954, and he said:
Other sources of rail revenues are incapable of absorbing the constant cost of rail operations. Revenue from main line passenger service could contribute in a limited degree but operating losses on passenger service on branch lines in areas that are relatively sparse in population must be offset against main line passenger operation. Dining car service, as such, is operating at a loss.
The railways then must endeavour to recoup this loss of revenue from some source if they are to operate on any sound financial basis.
Where do they look in an effort to recoup those losses? This search results in ever-increasing freight rates. About the same time, Chief Justice Sloan submitted another report in which he showed that a freight rate-I think he was referring to the rate on lumber-climbed in the period from April 1948 to June 1957 by approximately 125 per cent. These increases, of course, could have no other ultimate result than to kill these industries. If we continue adding to our railway costs by maintaining such services as are advocated here, freight rates will reach a level where we will not be able to compete in the export markets of the world. I think the hon. member for Kootenay West would be doing his constituency a greater service if he recommended the complete abandonment of the Kettle valley service. Perhaps then the railway serving that area could give a freight rate that would allow the industries in Kootenay West to stay in business and maintain employment, about which he is also greatly concerned.

I have been continually amazed at the lack of realism shown by members of the opposition in this house in so far as railway operation is concerned. They are continually asking questions about men being laid off and requesting the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees) to prevail on the management of the C.N.R. to maintain employment or to allow featherbedding to continue. They must be aware that the end results of these practices will be one of two things: either an ever-increasing burden on the taxpayers of Canada or the complete destruction of our export industries.
If the hon. member for Kootenay West would shed his mantle of socialism that he has on in the house and would return to his true role of lumber operator in the Kootenays he should be the first one to realize that what he has recommended could very well destroy the lumber industry in the Kootenays.


Harold Edward Winch: Are you mad?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: May I ask the hon. member a question? Does the hon. gentleman realize that the whole lumber industry in my district is behind the protest against the curtailment of this service and supports the amendment in this bill which was drafted as a result of receiving the advice of good counsel?


Henry Carwithen McQuillan: Having had a good deal of experience with lumber men, I realize that there are a great many narrow-minded, local-minded lumber men.


Mr. H. H. Small (Danforih):: In talking on this question, the matter of whether this is properly before the house was raised by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees). He pointed out, and rightly so, in support of his position, section 315 of the Railway Act. Then he went a little further and buttressed his position by saying sections 33 and 36 were to the effect that the Railway Act requires railway companies to receive, carry and deliver traffic and provide adequate and suitable accommodation for the carrying of traffic and the regulation of train services, and requires the railway companies to furnish adequate and suitable train services and prohibits them from reducing services below that standard.
While the hon. member from Kootenay may not be wholly in order, I think he is taking advantage of this opportunity to bring to the attention of the house the complaint in his own particular riding. I think that is as it should be. I am also going to take the opportunity, under this section of the act, more or less to buttress his position or support it, even though it may not be properly before the house.
Railway Act
I am taking this opportunity because in 1956 I spoke of the inadequate service that was being given to the largest cities in the Dominion of Canada and in the ambit or the scope of the cities that were being talked about, Toronto was included. I was complaining about the attitude of some of the officers of the Canadian National Railways when they were talking about the complaint that had been lodged by the city of Toronto, particularly the suburban areas. At that time the complaint was coming from Oakville and Scarborough that there was inadequate commuter service to Toronto for the purpose of bringing the vast population to their work each day. The president of the Canadian National Railways brought in the argument that if we wanted that kind of service, we would have to pay for it. Then I went over the matter, as has been done by the hon. member for Kootenay West, relating what had happened in the past.
I can subscribe to what the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) has said when he went over the details of why the railways were not paying and where they had been subsidized in the past. It is a good thing to bring these matters to the attention of the house because it is the only opportunity that we have of getting these views before the people of Canada who, in turn, are paying for and subsidizing the railways when there is a deficit. Likewise, when there is a surplus, the railways do not do much to improve the services. Likewise, I pointed out that in reporting, they made a great point with regard to inter-city service, saying that they had speeded it up and that they had improved the time and therefore though they had not increased the services, they were running a profitable venture between the cities. I pointed out to them then that, as to the commuter service that was given in Toronto they had never at any time endeavoured to give the service and to see whether it would pay or whether, if they gave good service, the people would be glad to support it even if they increased the rates.
At the time the board of trade of Toronto supported the board of transport commissioners in granting an increase in the rates for commuter service. The point is that it was never questioned by the people in the suburban sections of Toronto or of the metropolitan area, I should say, as to whether they would pay or complain about paying if they were given the service for which they were asking. The point I wanted to mention was that a vice president, I think it was Mr. Tile, had stated that the service had become so deficient that they could not now, even if they wanted to, give a better service for people in the suburbs.

Railway Act
I presume that condition exists not only in Toronto but in Montreal, Vancouver, Hamilton, London and in all the large cities of the Dominion of Canada.
Owing to their lack of foresight and lack of funds-but mostly, I would presume, through lack of foresight-they had never made any provision for extension or expansion of the services. In fact, at the time when we were trying to establish the electric railways under Sir Adam Beck's regime of Hydro, he pointed out that the day would come when they would need such services. The president of one of the railways, Sir Henry Thornton, joined with those who were opposing that extension of radial services in Toronto at that time. I assert that, owing to the fact that they wrecked that radial plan therefore it is their duty to supply something to help to overcome the condition they created. Therefore I have no sympathy with the railway or with the president Mr. Gordon when he tells us now that if we want this service, we should pay for it. They created this condition at Toronto.
Of course in the last decade or the last two decades, Toronto was more or less a forgotten city as far as this parliament was concerned. They did not supply us with services. So whenever an opportunity comes along when we can draw the matter to the attention of this house that the railways, through their transport board, should do something, I shall do so. I think that they should supplement or augment the services they are now giving. They have never really tried to give the service that we should like to have in Toronto. I think the people would be willing to pay for it.
I point this out, Mr. Speaker, because the situation has become so serious now in the large centres that they now have to have subways and they are very expensive. I would go so far as to say that if we had an adequate commuter service in the city of Toronto we would not be confronted today with the expense which we are now facing with regard to establishing another subway along Bloor, Danforth and University streets in Toronto. Therefore when the matter is being brought to the attention of the house by the Minister of Transport, that there is a provision in the act for what the hon. member for Kootenay West is requesting-that it is there but they have not taken proper procedure to bring to the attention of the house the situation whenever the railways are curtailing their services-I thought I would take this opportunity because the last time I brought it before the house very little attention was paid. I presume that the railway authorities likewise will treat it in the same fashion.

While I am at it I would say that there should be a certain checkup on the efficiency of the railway department responsible particularly for the pool service, not singling out anyone in particular. Those that come into the station, whether they come in in the morning or at night, get ample evidence of what kind of service the railway is giving the people of Ottawa. Likewise they are getting ample evidence of the kind of service we are getting in Toronto.
If a private business were to operate in the same manner as that in which the railways are operating, and treat their customers with such contempt for their convenience they would not be in business very long. It looks as though this is what the railways are trying to accomplish. When you arrive at the Ottawa station you find baggage cars and postal service cars occupying the space in the station right up to the door, and the passengers who are paying for it all have to walk from perhaps Laurier avenue all the way to the railway station. Not only that, but they have to sometimes even climb over trucks and crates and freight and wind their way, possibly helping some helpless woman who cannot carry her grip under the various difficulties which one has always to face because of the handicaps mentioned. This applies not only to Ottawa but to Toronto and I dare say many other Canadian cities suffer likewise. It is the service and the convenience of the passenger which they should be looking after but sorry to say it is freight that gets the nod because that is the most lucrative part of their business. Yet, in this act it distinctly says the railways are to provide adequate and convenient service for the people of the Dominion of Canada, and I can assure the house-and I believe every member will subscribe to what I have said-that the service, to use impolite terms, is absolutely lousy.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to take up the time of the house for more than one second. I am going to vote for this bill because it seems to me that what it provides is exactly what the hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Small) so eloquently said ought to be provided-a proper place for a proper hearing of these matters, and that is all the hon. gentleman is asking for in this bill. It seems to me it would be a good thing, therefore, if it were passed.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I would like to join my colleague the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) in expressing my support of the principle of this bill, and I would also like to commend the

distinguished hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Small) on the very graphic description he gave us of the operations of some railroad stations familiar to most of us in this house.
I rise simply to say that I have before me a concrete case which justifies the principle of this bill. In my constituency a merchant in the village of South Woodslee has written to me complaining that he understands the New York Central railroad proposes to close the railway station in his village. As a merchant, he has an appreciation of the express and freight service in that particular area, and he urges me to point out to the board of transport commissioners-as indeed I have done-the importance of not reducing this particular service. While the railroad will be afforded an opportunity of putting forward its side of the case I do think that the law should be such as to ensure that in any case of a proposed reduction in service there should be an opportunity for the public to put forward its views. For that reason I warmly support this measure.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased indeed to hear the remarks of the two previous speakers, and I would like to compliment the hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Small) for giving very good reasons why his party should support this bill.
As I have said, the purpose of this bill is to give the board the power to have an official hearing, to give people an opportunity to make their representations and to deny the right to reduce services, which power they do not have at the present time.
The correspondence I have received in this connection is in my office, but as a result of conversation in the last half hour with an official of the board of transport commissioners I might inform the house with reference to what has been said previously in this debate that I have received information that the board does not have the same power with respect to the curtailment of services to hold a hearing and to deny such curtailment as it has with respect to the abandonment of services.


Harold Edward Winch: May I ask the hon. member if he said this is information he has received from the board of transport commissioners during the last half hour?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Yes, a telephone conversation. So there is obviously a misunderstanding on the part of a good many members who have spoken in this debate.
The amendment was drawn on the advice of competent counsel in my constituency and the usual advice one obtains here in order to achieve such an objective. A number of members in my opinion seemed to speak in defence
Railway Act
of the necessity of the C.P.R. to gain profits from their passenger runs, even though they make large profits on the freight runs. We in this group aim to represent the wishes of the people in this respect and the company having in this case a monopoly, the people should have an opportunity to be properly heard through the medium of the legislation contained in this bill.
I must say I was amazed to hear the remarks of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. McQuillan), who suggested the complete abandonment of the passenger service on the Kettle valley railroad, a railroad which hauls possibly, having regard to the mileage concerned, the greatest wealth per mile of any line in Canada. I was also very surprised to hear him correct me as to the sensibility and the ability of his colleagues in the lumber industry in my constituency. I want to say that we trust this bill will receive support from all sides of this house because we are aiming to do something we feel is to the advantage of the people of Canada.



BRITISH NORTH AMERICA ACT


Douglas Mason Fisher: the second reading of Bill No. C-13, to amend the British North America Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, "rep. by pop." was one of the forces that brought into being confederation and the British North America Act. Briefly the basis of this bill is the same old slogan "rep. by pop."; representation by population, with certain ideas with regard to area that I hope to talk about later on.


Some hon. Members:: Six o'clock.
[Mr. Herridge.l


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, a number of members are asking to have six o'clock called.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea):: Is it the
unanimous wish of the house to call it six o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea):: It being six o'clock, I do leave the chair.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, representation by population has been the general idea behind the apportionment of members of parliament ever since confederation. If you look at the first British North America Act you can see that that was in the minds of the people who drew it up; but it is also a fact that the climate of parliaments which, every 10 years, after the census, deal with the apportionment of seats amongst members or amongst areas, are what you might call equinoctial; they are filled with storm. Redistribution is something that every hon. member is going to hear and think about a great deal in the next four years. The next census is due in 1961. The results will be available some time in March or April, 1962, and some sort of bill will have to be brought in to change the Representation Act following that census before we can have an election.
It may interest hon. members to know that perhaps one of the reasons why this parliament may not go to the people again until the late fall of 1962 is that it will be impossible to prepare a Representation Act before that time unless the government is anxious to go to the people on the 1951 census and, of course, it is impossible to believe that. As a matter of fact, I had a certain diffidence in presenting this bill to the house because I thought the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) would be announcing legislation which would bring about the setting up of an independent commission to deal with redistribution matters, since it has been something very dear to his heart. Unfortunately when the Prime Minister was in the opposition he was the victim, according to both himself and his friends, of what might be called some Gardiner gerrymandering, or a little playing around, so that once he was shunted right out of his constituency and another time he was rather badly hived.
One of the members of the press gallery, Tim Creery of the Montreal Star, wrote a series of articles not too long ago on this

whole problem of redistribution and I think a couple of paragraphs from them would state the case for a commission fairly well. I quote:
Ottawa, April 21-Several of Canada's most prominent politicians of recent years have denounced the present system of drawing up the boundaries of ridings.
Prime Minister Mackenzie King was against it. Senator Charles Gavan Power, as a leading member of the Liberals in the commons, was for years the leading champion of reform.
In opposition, Conservative Leader George Drew and the then member for Lake Centre, John Diefen-baker, called repeatedly for appointment of an independent commission to take the "geography" of redistribution out of the hands of the politicians.
Thus this measure that I have introduced has had support of a predated kind from the gentleman wielding the most power in the government at the present time. This is not to say that objections could not be taken to this bill. You do not change the British North America Act easily or casually.
The purpose of this bill is to introduce in subsection (1) of section 51 of the B.N.A. Act, 1857, the underlined words "independent of the parliament of Canada" so that the readjustment of the representation in the commons be done in future by an independent body rather than by a committee of the House of Commons.
The British North America Act, as it reads at the present time, says that such authority as parliament shall determine. Thus it could be argued that parliament already has this power to create an independent commission without changing the British North America Act. As a matter of fact, that argument has been presented in the past when this idea has come up but I do not think it is something we need to bother with here.
I have spent a considerable amount of time on this topic and tomorrow in the mail each member will receive a typed brief of about 16 mimeographed pages covering the rules for sharing the seats among the provinces. The second sheet gives the representation by population based on the 1956 census. This is the projected representation first time we have readjusted from the quinquennial census. The third and fourth sheets cover the same sort of thing; the first operation and the second operation from the D.B.S. estimate of population of last July 1, 1957.
The last sheet of the first set gives the 30 largest Canadian constituencies in area with 1956 population. This is the point where I became interested in redistribution because if you look down the list you will see that Port Arthur is the fifth largest constituency in terms of area, being 148,482 square miles, being bigger than most of the maritime provinces put together. It has a population of 78,111, which is the largest of any of those 30
British North America Act largest constituencies. Attempting to campaign in such a constituency, and recognizing that both the Liberal and Conservative candidates were also aware of the problem, set me thinking of redistribution and of some means of evening up and getting back to "rep, by pop." to a better apportionment.
I would like the permission of the house to place on Hansard two bibliographies which were prepared by the librarian of the library of parliament, which I think hon. members will like to refer to in the next four years, perhaps, as this topic keeps coming up again and again. One is entitled "Redistribution- Canada" and the other "Redistribution-Great Britain and Dominions".


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea):: The hon. member would like permission to place them in Hansard?


Douglas Mason Fisher: Yes.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea):: Has the hon. member permission to put them in Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Douglas Mason Fisher: They read as follows:
Redistribution-Canada.
Dawson, R. M. Government of Canada, 1952, pages 32, 37, 39, 140-1, 362-369.
Clokie, H. M. Canadian government and politics, 1944, pages 129-33, 303-5.
Ward, Norman. The Canadian House of Commons ' representation, 1950.	19, 58, 39, 42-7, 50-1, 36-7, 20-1,
29-35, 46-49.
Basis of representation in the House of Commons, by N. Ward. In Canadian Journal of Economics, Nov. 1949, pp. 477-94.
''There'll be some changes made" [Redistribution of Provincial representation, by A. F. Cross], In Canadian Business, March 1951, p. 42.
Redistribution problem by M. Barkway. In Saturday Night, Nov. 17, 1951, pp. 2-3.
Scramble for seats, by R. B. Fraser. In Maclean's Magazine, May 15, 1952, pp. 76-77.
Representation in the House of Commons of the 21st Parliament: party and province. In Canadian Journal of Economics, Feb. 1952, pp. 77-87.
Representation at Ottawa. In World Affairs, April 1952, p. 13.
Redistribution of seats in Parliament. In World Affairs, Feb. 1952, p. 11.
How best allot federal seats. In Financial Post, Dec. 19, 1953, p. 21.
Redistribution of 1952, by N. M. Ward. In Canadian Journal of Economics, Aug. 1953, pp. 341-60.
Canada: House of Commons [Readjustment of Representation], In Journal of the Society of Clerks-at-the-Table for 1952, pp. 174-175.
Redistribution bills, 1892, 1893, 1899, 1900, 1903. Analysis of debates, statistics and general information. CPC800.
Redistribution referred to in Article by Austin Cross-history, present difficulties, etc., 1943. CPC1109.
Redistribution, 1943. Mr. King refused Duplessis' request to transmit protest and gave reasons. Ottawa Evening Journal, July 15, 1943, pp. 1-
Redistribution-Great Britain and Dominions.
Wilding, Norman and Laundy, Philip. An encyclopedia of Parliament. L., 1958. pp. 120-1.
Encyclopedia Britannica, vol. 17, pp. 317-18.

British North America Act
Daniels, S. R. The case for electoral reform. L., 1938.
Ross, J. F. S. Parliamentary representation. L., 1944.
Ross, J. F. S. Elections and electors. L., 1955.
United Kingdom. Report of the boundary commission for England, 1944, in regard to certain abnormally large constituencies. L., 1944-45. 39 p.
Ogg, F. A. The governments of Europe. N.Y., 1913. pp. 88-89.
Seymour, Charles. Electoral reform in England and Wales. L., 1915. Index, p. 560.
Gt. Brit. Report of Royal Commission on electoral systems, 1910.
Journal of the Society of Clerks-at-the-Table for 1949. p. 49.
Lakeman, E. and Lambert J. D. Voting in democracies. L., 1955. pp. 71-73.
Crisp, L. F. The parliamentary government of the Commonwealth of Australia. New Haven, 1949. pp. 38-
Robson, J. L. New Zealand, the development of its laws and constitution. L., 1954. pp. 30-
Webb, Leicester. Government in New Zealand. Wellington, 1940. pp. 10-
Hogan, J. Election and representation. Cork, 1945.
Southern Rhodesia. Commission appointed to inquire into the matter of re-division of the electoral districts of the colony, 1947.
I think the articles and the references that hon. members will find in Hansard as a result of this will open up the topic very much to them.
The second part of the information which I have sent to each member gives the statistics for all the constituencies in Canada as they exist at the present time, province by province, with their areas in square miles and the number of electors in 1957; that is, the 1957 general election, the population in 1956, the population in 1951 and the last time each constituency was changed. The reason for giving the three population figures is to give some idea of the growth, and how some constituencies are going through tremendous growth while others are not but, as a matter of fact, are retrogressing. The point about giving the figures for electors is to let hon. members see that the relationship between the number of electors and the population is not a constant thing in all constituencies in Canada.
I do not believe that the number of electors is the factor to work on in considering how big a constituency should be. My reason for that is that with the tremendous growth in the responsibilities of the federal government, it is the population that counts. For example, you can quite often have immigrants who do not have Canadian citizenship and the right to vote, or even children, giving you more work to do as a member of parliament than electors, and therefore I think the argument, that population rather than electors is one of the most important things to keep to the fore in determining how many people there should be in a constituency, is valid. It should be by population and not by the number of electors.
[Mr. Fisher.l

The argument in connection with redistribution has to be presented historically; that is, you have to go back and look at the thing from the beginning in order to really appreciate it. An expert on this particular facet of our parliamentary life, aside from the chief electoral officer who knows a great deal about it, is a professor from Saskatchewan by the name of Norman Ward. Perhaps I should give one brief quotation from his great book which is called, "The Canadian House of Commons":
A debate on redistribution reveals parliament at its worst.
Unfortunately, that is true, and the reason is that redistribution affects every one of us or can affect every one of us. We all have an interest in this problem, whereas almost every other bill that comes before the house may represent a mere party decision to us. Redistribution represents the only occasion upon which all members are interested in the subject under discussion. I think this is a problem that should interest every member in the house, and that is one of the main reasons why I have put forward so many statistics. This enables each member to ascertain how his constituency compares with other constituencies in his area, whether he is above the mean or below the mean in terms of population. The statistics also give him an idea how his constituency compares in area.
The mean figure in the 1962 redistribution will probably be somewhere between 64,000 and 66,000 people. If your constituency is above that, perhaps it needs a readjustment. If it is below, there may be need for amalgamation or something else should be done to adjust the balance.
I have a number of proposals that I want to make, but perhaps a little quotation from one of the most vitriolic tongues the North American continent has ever had, that of H. L. Mencken, on the point would be appropriate. He said:
The yokels hang on because old apportionments give them unfair advantages. The vote of a malarious peasant on the lower eastern shore counts as much as the votes of 12 Baltimoreans. But that can't last. It is not only unjust and undemocratic; it Is absurd.
You could say the same thing about a situation in which the hon. member for York-Scarborough (Mr. McGee) represents people whose vote is worth about 1/17 or 1/18 of the habitants of the Iles-de-la-Madeleine constituency. One point that needs to be made in connection with redistribution is that the problem has to be settled within the boundaries of a province. It is, therefore, unfair

to make a comparison between York-Scarbor-ough and Iles-de-la-Madeleine because in one constituency in one province you have 11,000 people and in the other in another you have 180,000 or 210,000. However, in Ontario, in contrast there is a constituency which has a population of 28,000 and which has a member in this house. This situation is fine under these peculiar circumstances, but surely we have to come at this whole problem, when you see a discrepancy such as that, with the idea of making the representation fair and just on the basis of population.
The distribution of seats as between the provinces is relatively automatic, although there have been some changes and it has caused some small trouble. The people from the maritimes will say something about it because the maritimes have felt they have suffered and will suffer more. If you project the figures for redistribution you find that Nova Scotia is going to lose a seat, and perhaps the members from Nova Scotia will perk up their ears at that statement. It looks as though Newfoundland may lose a seat. New Brunswick is safe with a senatorial floor of ten and Prince Edward Island is safe with a senatorial floor of four. These facts illustrate why this issue is charged with dynamite in this session. Saskatchewan, if we continue with the present rules, is going to lose three seats in the next redistribution. One must remember the power we have in this house from Saskatchewan in the Prime Minister and one cabinet minister.
There are the reasons why I say this redistribution issue is going to be before parliament for the next four years. British Columbia is going to gain a seat, while Quebec is going to lose one. Alberta will perhaps gain one or two, and Manitoba is going to lose one. This means you are going to see quite a change in 1962 because of the rural-urban shift which has been extraordinary in the past few years. This problem should concern every member of parliament, and I hope that in the debate that ensues on this bill everyone will take a nonpartisan stand. Whether you believe it or not, that is the essence of redistribution. Even though there has been some partisanship and gerrymandering, the matter is supposedly decided in the House of Commons on a nonpartisan basis.
My idea, of course, is that this amendment will open up the way for an independent commission to undertake the task. Of course, this independent commission will have to be given a certain set of principles under which it should work, and of course parliament will have to do that. The independent commission would have to bring in a report to parliament for approval. The Prime Minister pointed out
British North America Act quite clearly in 1953 and 1947 that other countries of the commonwealth have found an independent commission worked very well. If any hon. members on the government side want to look up his speeches, they are to be found in volume 4, 1952 and in volume 6, 1947. I think, actually, the Prime Minister has been as eloquent a spokesman for the independent commission as anyone in this house.
I must confess that the former member for Port Arthur shrugged off the whole matter, saying the people do not care. The present Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) took the former member to task with his favourite phrases such as "abundantly clear", or "glaringly obvious", stressing the fact that he was strongly in favour of an independent commission taking this whole question out of the area of a backbiting, impulsive and grasping parliament. Since redistribution almost always is considered towards the end of a parliament, with the tremendous rush to get things through, the problem is never solved satisfactorily. I am recommending these proposals for study now because if we do refer the bill, as I would like, to the special committee on elections, then a study of the proposals should be made and by the end of this year or early next year some progress could be made towards the establishment of an independent commission. The organization would be ready, with principles established on how it is to operate by 1962 when the census results will begin to be known. These proposals, of course, are along the lines of the recommendations made by the Prime Minister when he was in opposition. I think, as a matter of fact, I should refer to some of the things he said. In Hansard of July 15, 1947, at page 5644, he said:
In 1933 the Prime Minister- that is Mr. Bennett.
-pointed out the unfairness of leaving a measure like this to the end of the session. Presumably there was a desire to have the session closed at the earliest possible date, and the debate continued for four or five days. The Prime Minister on that occasion used certain words which I wish to adopt now. He pointed out that coming in at the end of the session and introducing a measure such as this is unfair and indicates a desire to eliminate members of opposing parties without enabling them to place their position before the house and the country.
Now, in 1952 the hon. member for Eglinton expressed the idea that something had to be done because if another government with a big majority were in control in 1962, we would continue with the old way. I think at the time the hon. member for Eglinton was afraid the big government in control would be a Liberal government. Of course, the situation has changed so that perhaps now we
1092	HOUSE OF
British North America Act can look forward to action by this government to give effect to the wishes and ideas of the Prime Minister.
It is important that we get going on this matter as soon as possible because four years come along very quickly when you are dealing with something like redistribution. In 1867, as most of you probably know, the basis for deciding how the representation was to go stemmed from giving Quebec, which was neither the largest nor the smallest of the provinces, 65 seats. There was emphasis at this time that the division should be along county lines and it was found, in the discussion to be found in the old Hansards in the statements of Sir John A. Macdonald and other leaders of the times, that the principle of representation by population both between provinces and within provinces should be to the fore. Actually it was definite as between provinces but the act is silent on how it was to be adjusted within the provinces.
In order to prevent any one province from taking a real beating in the readjustment after each centennial census there was the one-twentieth clause inserted in the British North America Act which provided that the provincial ratio to the national population from one census to another, if it did not drop more than one-twentieth, would not lead to the loss of any members. This provision, of course, protected some provinces. The general idea up until 1872 and the first of the John A. Macdonald gerrymanders was that the government should bring down any changes and those changes, of course, came in when British Columbia and Manitoba came into confederation. Manitoba was given four seats although it only merited by population half a seat. British Columbia was given six seats though it only merited one. Hence representation by population went out the window. In 1873 Prince Edward Island came in and it was given six seats where it was only entitled at the time to five seats. Unfortunately for Prince Edward Island, it never got the assurance that this was an irreducible minimum whereas Manitoba was promised that the four would be a minimum until 1881 and British Columbia was promised that the six would be an irreducible minimum.
So by 1873 you see representation in the House of Commons on three different bases. There were the four original provinces which had roughly "rep. by pop." with 190 seats. Then you had the western provinces. They were guaranteed ten. Then you had Prince Edward Island that had six but was guaranteed none.
When Sir John A. Macdonald began to operate in the 1872 redistribution he did not 

give the opposition any opportunity really to consider the changes that were made. They were brought down and presented in the house as government business and the opposition, with much raving and ranting, had to accept them. The storm and fire was even more severe in 1882. This has been referred to as the great gerrymander or, as some people call it, the best gerrymander, when the Grits were really hived. Sir John A. Macdonald came out with a couple of statements that shot the principle of representation by population to bits. He said that representation by population from province to province was fine but within the provinces, because of county lines and town lines, there should be different interests looked after. Classes and localities should be represented and the principle of members according to population should not be the only one. So with 1882 you begin to get the development of the great discrepancy. You begin to get development of the idea that the rural voter is worth more than the urban voter.
As you hon. gentlemen must be aware, the Conservatives stayed in power until the 1892 redistribution when the Liberals first brought forward from opposition the idea that there should be an independent commission. Sir John Thompson who was the Prime Minister at the time for the Conservative party injected a completely new principle into dividing up the seats. That principle was to do nothing. He said that you should only interfere with representations in those districts where increased population had to be provided for. In other words, you kept the status quo unless a place had developed so much, say in the west, that you gave them another constituency. So you get with that attitude even more the development that the rural constituency remains the same, the larger urban constituency grows, but no provision is made for it and this tends to become a maxim.
One of the arguments brought forward at the time by the Conservatives was that rural members of parliament at the time usually lived in town; for example, most of the members from rural Quebec were not from the rural areas. They were lawyers or solicitors or advocates in the city of Quebec or in the city of Montreal. Therefore the cities really had better representation than you might think. One of the other arguments was that in the city the people were more alert and lively and that therefore they needed less representation. Furthermore they were easier to reach. They had more educational media available to them and the press

British North America Act
was more present and therefore they did not need representation as badly as did rural people.
Then in 1892 the Liberals came up with the idea of a commission. Their idea was a commission of judges. This idea has been floating around the Canadian House of Commons ever since. Actually, when the Liberals got in power in 1896 they began to think about doing something about redistribution and for the first time they waived the change after the census. In 1899 they brought in a bill and this was the first adjustment apart from the census. This was the first serious proposal of an outside agency to look after redistribution. Their idea was that judges should be members of the commission because they not only had local connections and understood the counties but they were men of great integrity. The other place or the Senate tossed out these bills and the Liberals brought them back in again in 1900. Again the Conservative Senate refused to pass them. They claimed that this bill was a violation of the spirit of the British North America Act. So the Liberal government had to let it go until 1903 when following the census they brought in another representation act. At this time you get the very first serious provincial dispute. You begin to get the lobbies from the maritimes because Prince Edward Island was dropping drastically and New Brunswick was beginning to drop. So the provincial premiers or the provincial legislatures began to press for some sort of floor under their representation so that it would not sink away in relation to the tremendous growth that was taking place in the west. This came with senatorial floor of 1915.
The constitutional arguments at that time were quite complex. The main point that we need to remember is that the maritime provinces lost their arguments even though they carried them to the supreme court and then over to the privy council in Great Britain. The 1903 readjustment really came up with the idea that still prevails as far as redistribution is concerned, namely the principle that it should be settled by a House of Commons committee. Prior to 1903 the whole thing was settled by the government party. After 1903 there was a small special committee of the House of Commons which put the thing through. The first committee consisted of what we would call in slang "the big wheels". For example, Mr. Borden, who was the head of the opposition at the time was on it. Its members were almost all of cabinet minister or ex-cabinet minister rank. This principle of having representation settled by a committee of the House of Commons has continued right down until 1952 when, as
I said earlier, we had a repetitious continuation of the decennial hassle that comes up regularly and in the last redistribution in which the present Prime Minister figured so
largely.
In 1923 and 1924, with the. redistribution another idea was introduced into the House of Commons committee and that was that it should be broken up into provincial subcommittees and that the members in each province should form a committee or have representation on a committee that would determine the constituency boundaries and just how the division was going to be made.
The whole point in connection with this system of House of Commons committees is that there is really no principle at all involved and I think Mr. Norman Ward in his book "The Canadian House of Commons" at page 46, sets out the whole matter quite clearly as follows:
At the risk of repetition, it must be emphasized that harmony in the house committee guarantees nothing; as Mr. Mackenzie King has observed, in one of the shrewdest remarks of his long career,
"anyone reading the Hansard report____must realize
to how small an extent the redistribution being effected at the moment is based upon the foundational principle of the division of the various constituencies according to the general interest of the country as a whole." Although this statement was being applied specifically to the fiasco of 1933, it could be made with equal force concerning even the most peaceful of the eight redistributions which have occurred thus far.
It does not necessarily follow that redistribution by a house committee is always bad; but it is indisputable that redistribution has so far taken place with reference to none but the vaguest of principles. At one time or another in this contentious history, as we have seen, no less than four principles have been followed: the use of local boundary lines; the adoption of relatively large urban divisions; the establishment of compact divisions; and the equalization of population.
But one or more of these principles has always been applied in relation to the wishes of a majority in the House of Commons, and when it has been expedient not to observe a principle, it has been conveniently forgotten.
I see that I am approaching the end of my time. I have more material which I wished to present but I think I should cover the main representations which I believe we should keep in our minds in connection with the redistribution. If we set up an independent commission or an independent authority as recommended by this bill we should have some principles to give to the commission under which to operate and I suggest the first principle is representation by population.
It has been suggested to me by one of the gentlemen of the press gallery that you should develop a formula and I hope that hon. members will look at this bill. There was introduced in 1952 by the present Senator Power a bill respecting the division
1094	HOUSE OF
British North America Act and duties of the redistribution commission and he provisionally set up in his bill an ideal commission and the principles under which it should operate. If you set up an independent commission the principles have to be fairly hard and fast, otherwise the members will not know how they are going to operate. A House of Commons committee is going to have to settle this whole Saskatchewan fiasco, but this is in the future-the question of Saskatchewan dropping three seats-and in the redistribution we have to decide first, is it going to be representation by population. Are we going to have a formula such as that existing in Manitoba, namely seven city votes as against four rural votes? Are we going to have something like Victoria in Australia where you have 22-15-8 formula worked out? My own suggestion, from looking at the question, is that we need to give that commission a principle which allows them a 30 per cent tolerance in assigning constituencies in terms of population, so that we can wipe out many of these tremendous disparities in our present system, as hon. members will see when they look at the statistics. I think the commission should operate within the framework of this representation by population principle with some such tolerance or some other principle to take care of the plain fact that you cannot tailor every constituency in terms of population and you cannot even come close to it in terms of making it equal in area.
However, I would like all hon. members to look at this brief which does show the tremendous disadvantages suffered by the hon. member for Grand Falls-White River-Labrador (Mr. Granger) and the hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. Henderson) and myself.
Finally I would like to say that this is an impartial matter and I hope it will be treated as such by all members who take part in this debate. It is not necessarily a party point of view which I am expressing here, although in the past when Mr. Knowles moved an amendment to set up an independent commission he received his strongest support from the present leaders of the government party. However, it is not something which has been confined to the C.C.F. group. Mr. Power, as a Liberal member of this House of Commons, was strongly for it and I believe many of the present government members were for it too.
The bibliography will be in Hansard and I hope that hon. members will follow it up and read the different points of view. Especially would I mention that almost every intelligent writer who has looked at this problem has laughed to scorn members of parliament for their behaviour at redistribution 

time. Let us therefore, for once, raise the whole dignity of proceedings by starting early -four years before election-and approaching the whole matter on a rational basis so that in four years' time we will not have the stigma of looking like a bunch of rabbits, with all of us standing up, shouting and jeering at the government for steamrolling and having Conservative members throwing their laughter back at us.
These are the main reasons why I believe we should give very serious consideration to the bill before the house at the present time.


Mr. Cresiohl:: May I ask the hon. member a question or two. I think he has made a very logical case, but just what does he mean by a committee independent of the parliament of Canada, and does he not think that the suggestion that that committee should report back to parliament would have the effect of watering down its independence?


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, the point raised by the hon. member was dealt with very ably by the Prime Minister in 1953 when he was outlining the experience in the United Kingdom where they have an independent commission which does report to parliament and, since the first report it brought in, there has been very little argument or change; such changes as have been made being very minor in nature. In Great Britain it has worked very satisfactorily. As a matter of fact, only parliament can pass a redistribution brought in by that commission.


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, at the outset I must say to the hon. member who has presented this bill that I am opposed to it as presented. I think this proposition is another move in the direction of removing from parliament its inherent rights. I feel it is a delegation by parliament of control over its own affairs unless the body or committee is very clearly defined in the bill. My first and main objection to the bill is just this; it is not clear as to just what sort of body or commission is intended to be set up to deal with this very important duty of parliament.
I appreciate that the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) has brought in this bill in an effort to get rid of what is known as gerrymandering and I may say that there has been a great deal of this in the past. In the riding which I have the honour to represent, Parry Sound-Muskoka, the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell) was defeated in 1949 as a result of a gerrymander and, as the hon. member who sponsored the bill has said, the Prime Minister (Mr. Dief-enbaker) when he was the hon. member for Lake Centre had his riding not only gerrymandered but eliminated. Fortunately for

us, these circumstances only made the Prime Minister determined to seek and win another seat.
There are many other bad examples of gerrymandering, but I contend that the dangers of gerrymandering have been reduced to a point where they are not a serious issue, and I would say there are three main reasons which have brought this about. First, when there were small majorities, in the early days of this country, the changing of election boundaries even in a very limited degree could affect enough people to change ihe situation in a riding. Secondly, in the early days, we had static populations. This is no longer the case. Thirdly, the days of the die-hard party followers have been reduced or eliminated.
It might be interesting to go into the history of gerrymandering. The practice existed in Britain and in the United States for a good many years, but it fell to the lot of an American to give it a name and to carry it to its ultimate extreme. He was a gentleman by the name of Elbridge Gerry who was very prominent in the early years of the nineteenth century in the political circles of the United States. He was a member of congress, a governor of Massachusetts and, in 1812, Vice-President of the United States.
While governor of Massachusetts he became especially noted for his ingenuity in carving up ridings in the senatorial districts of his state in a very unusual manner. One such riding was carved up by taking a pocket here and leaving a pocket there in such a way that all his opponents votes were cast in one place. When the outlines of the riding thus created were placed on a map it looked like a salamander, and political opponents named the affair a "gerrymander" after Mr. Gerry. That is the reason for the word, and also the background against which the practice was carried on at that time.
I do feel that such gerrymandering as took place in 1812 would not be tolerated at the present time. When it was carried out, it was done to the discredit of those who were responsible. Furthermore, it is not always profitable, as those who carved up certain ridings prior to the general election of 1949 discovered to their sorrow. Aside from this, (here are three practical reasons in support of this contention, as I have already mentioned.
The first is that majorities are increasing. In the early days of this country members were elected by a very small margin of votes. Let us consider my own riding of Parry Sound-Muskoka. I find that in the first election of 1872, the majority for the successful candidate was 121. In 1878, the majority
British North America Act was 63, and in 1882 it was four. But since 1935 a very different picture has been presented. In that year, for instance, the majority was 2,265. In 1940 it was 1,691; in 1949 it was 1,820 and so forth down to 1957 when the majority was 3,853.
Only a few days ago the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Mandziuk), when outlining the history of his riding, reminded us that at the first election there an equal number of votes was cast for each of the two candidates and as a result of some manoeuvring at that time both were elected. For the first ten elections, the majority to the successful candidate never amounted to more than 500 votes. However, in the eight elections since 1926 the majority has never been less than 1,000. In more recent times, the majorities have been even greater.
Related to this is the second matter I mentioned-static population. The population of Canada is no longer static. Population shifts are more frequent; travel is more extensive; immigration has changed the nature of many ridings, and a good many of our immigrants are now becoming entitled to vote. People move more rapidly from one area to another. In these circumstances the deliberate gerrymandering of seats might nowadays not even bring about the desired result by the time the next election rolled around.
The third matter I mentioned concerned the floating vote. We have noticed in recent times that people are beginning to vote as they see things rather than as their fathers saw them, and in recent elections we have observed that when there is a swing there is a massive swing in one direction or the other. To a large extent, therefore, a gerrymander which would gain a party a few votes would not necessarily be enough, unless it were terrific in scale, to ensure a riding for a particular candidate. Thus I say that the dangers of deliberately contrived gerrymandering are no longer a serious factor.
But even if this were not so, I should still be opposed to the bill for another reason. I am firmly of the opinion that we already have too many government commissions, crown companies and boards, directing the affairs of Canada, making decisions which should be made by parliament or the government, spending large sums of money and remaining responsible to no one for their decisions. They are independent, and the elected representatives of the people of Canada have no control over these commissions in any effective way. They have been established in very secure positions, and they have been removed from political interference.
To whom are these commissions responsible? The elected members of this house are

British North America Act responsible to their constituents, and if they fail to carry out their duties in a satisfactory manner a very easy way to replace them is to vote against them at the next election. Whenever duties are passed on to a commission or to a board which is not responsible to anyone it adds just one more link to the chain which is getting away from responsible government. The enactment of the bill before us would create a body, and I quote from the bill-
-independent of the parliament of Canada.
As I said, the parliament of Canada represents the people of Canada and each of its members is responsible to the people for its actions. It is less than 100 years since we in Canada secured what we would term responsible government; indeed, it is approximately only 27 years since the Statute of Westminster made us a completely self-governing, responsible country. Since that time the process toward responsible government seems to have been reversing itself. I regret the continual moves that have taken us away from this position to a situation wherein we have boards, commissions and bodies governing extremely important aspects of the affairs of the country and being responsible to no one. Each step seems to be designed to take power away from the representatives of the people and I am opposed to this trend.
The bill as presented does not indicate what type of body would be set up and that to my mind is the most serious weakness in it. Before parliament surrenders any of its inherent rights I feel it must know to whom the rights are being surrendered. It must know what sort of body, commission or board is being established and it must know what type of people and how many will comprise the particular commission and what its responsibilities are. By supporting this bill we would be surrendering the rights of parliament without knowing to whom we were surrendering them. I would be strongly opposed to delegating any such authority until the responsible body is clearly spelled out and even then I would want to examine closely the composition of the body to whom this authority would be delegated. I could not possibly support the bill in its present form.
(Translation) :


Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Jolielle-L'Assomplion-Monlcalm):: Mr. Speaker, I am against this bill which is meant to introduce in subsection (1) of section 51 of the British North America Act, 1867, the underlined words:
independent of the parliament of Canada.
I do not approve of amending the British North America Act. If amendments are

considered, let a conference be held of the provinces which gave birth to the confederation pact of 1867. It'is time to put a stop to those repeated assaults which scoff at the provinces.
Since 1867, there have been about seven amendments to the constitution and, for the most part, they were made without consulting the parties concerned, the provinces.
In 1871, for instance, the United Kingdom parliament passed an amendment granting the parliament of Canada the right to create provinces and to deal with their representation in the House of Commons. I think that this amendment validated an act concerning Manitoba.
In 1886, there was another amendment authorizing the federal government to form, within parliament, a representation for the territories, even if they did not enjoy provincial status. I understand that this act corroborated the representation already granted to some of the territories.
In 1915, another amendment aimed at increasing the number of senators provided that the number of representatives attributed to a province in the House of Commons be not less than the number of senators to which it was entitled.
In 1943 another amendment put off until the first post-war session the redistribution which should have followed the census of 1941.
Then in 1946 there was another amendment which laid down new rules governing the number of members in the House of Commons.
Finally, in 1949, as part of the terms of union between Newfoundland and Canada, there was an amendment providing for a certain representation from that province.
Moreover, two orders of the Imperial Council established the representation of the provinces of British Columbia and Prince Edward Island.
Another amendment, adopted in 1916, was designed to extend the life of parliament.
In 1949, parliament amended the constitution in respect of the adjustment of representation in this house. But the government of the day should have consulted the provinces.
In 1951 the British North America Act was once more amended by unilateral action, without provincial consent. However, no provision had been made in that regard in the 1867 act which would have given the federal government the right to amend the

constitution. And when the present government sat in opposition it made its views clearly known in the historic debate which took place during the fall session of 1949, with regard to a government proposal to amend the British North America Act in order to allow the federal government to amend the constitution on matters which were held to be of a purely federal nature.
In fact, on October 17, 1949, the then leader of the opposition, Mr. Drew, immediately proposed the following amendment on behalf of the official opposition, as is recorded in page 841 of Hansard of that date:
That the said proposed resolution be amended by striking out all the words after the first word "that" and substituting therefor the following:
"That His Excellency the Governor General in Council be requested to convoke as soon as may be possible a constitutional convention of representatives of the dominion and provincial governments to devise a method of amending within Canada the constitution of Canada, and of safeguarding minority rights; so that such method may become the subject later of an humble address, when adopted, to His Majesty the King praying an amendment of the British North America Act, 1867, accordingly."
Furthermore, the now Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) stated also, during the same debate:
We are confronted here with the fundamental issue of respect for the Canadian constitution. On that issue we of the official opposition take an inflexible position that there is no right in this government or in this parliament to proceed to legislate now for the purpose of amending section 51 of the British North America Act without consultation with the provinces. So far as that kind of consultation is concerned, we say that in the light of history it is abundantly clear that we would not have had a united Canada and would not have had confederation had there not been some basis of agreement on the part of the initiating parties inscribed in the Quebec resolutions and later in the British North America Act. This is the basis upon which Canada came into being, and notwithstanding all the sophistry that has been uttered in the house on the subject of the great powers of the central government I say to you, sir, that we ignore and do violence both to the letter and the spirit of confederation by seeking, in the manner proposed by the government-
-of the time, which was the Liberal government-*
-in the present bill and on other occasions, to ride roughshod over the British North America Act.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to remind hon. members of the wise statements of Sir Wilfrid Laurier and the Right Hon. Ernest Lapointe about the British North America Act. Sir Wilfrid Laurier, for instance, made in this house, in 1907, a speech that has remained famous.
Confederation is a compact, made originally by four provinces but adhered to by all the nine prov-57071-3-70
British North America Act
inces who have entered it and I submit that this compact should not be lightly altered. It should be altered only for adequate cause, and after the provinces themselves have had opportunity to pass judgment on the same.
I should think this is clear enough. May I also quote the words of the Hon. Ernest Lapointe, in a speech he delivered in the House of Commons in 1924:
The British North America Act and the limitations which are imposed upon our powers, if there are any such limitations, are made of our own free will. There is no inferiority in that. It is the result of a treaty, as my hon. friend from Lotbiniere (Mr. Vien) has pointed out.
And further:
Now this treaty cannot be changed, it has been the contention of many constitutional authorities ' and I think it is only fair that no change should be accepted, without the consent of all those who were parties to it. It is a sacred treaty just as is any other treaty; it is no "scrap of paper".
(Text):


Harold Edward Winch: May we have a copy of the speech now being read?


Mr. Chambers:: He is not reading; he is quoting.


Mr. Ricard:: The hon. member would not know the difference.
(Translation):


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I am quoting
words of former members of the House of Commons.
Allow me to quote the late Hon. Ernest Lapointe who, in 1925, said in this house:
Surely, the British North America Act cannot be made a scrap of paper, as the neutrality treaty was made at that time. There is a way, perhaps, yes; but the only way is the friendly way, is the legal way, is the constitutional way. It is to approach the various parties to the agreement with a view to arriving at an understanding as to the changes which may be necessary and which may be agreed upon by all the parties to the pact. As I have said, I do not think there could be any other way; I believe that any arbitrary action in the matter would simply defeat its own purpose and would strike at the root of our national unity. I think I cite history correctly when I say that every time there has been a dispute in Canada as regards provincial rights, those who were on the side of provincial rights were victorious in the end.
I do not think there can be any attempt to change the mutual charter of both the dominion and the provinces by the arbitrary action of this parliament. I do not think it is possible to do it. To those who want changes, and I am willing to admit that there might be the necessity for changes, 1 would say that the one way to get them is the constitutional way, to ask the consent of the various parties to confederation.
Well, Mr. Speaker, if the members of the C.C.F. party wish to amend the Canadian constitution, I must say that I agree with the late Mr. Ernest Lapointe. Let the contracting parties, that is the provinces, be consulted
1098	HOUSE OF
British North America Act and, after the matter has been discussed with the federal government, if there is need for an amendment, it will be brought about but, of course, with the agreement and the approval of the provinces.
Mr. Speaker, to show that I disapprove of this bill, I have quoted the words of great Liberal leaders of the past who stated in this house that no amendment should be made to the British North America Act before consultation with the provinces.
Mr. Speaker, I feel that the federal government should insist on setting up a commission whose function would be to study the readjustment of the representation in the House of Commons.
As far as my constituency is concerned, Mr. Speaker, I should like to express this wish: I would like it to be kept as it is: one of the finest. Of course, it is one of the largest in the country but, just the same, I should like it to remain as it is, since I had the honour of being a candidate there and while the former member, Mr. Breton, had been elected with a majority of 15,200 votes, the people of my constituency gave me one of 6,372. For those reasons, Mr. Speaker, I should like to express the very legitimate wish of keeping my constituency intact although it is one of the largest in the country.
I am opposed, therefore, to this bill, because it is at variance with fundamental principles; if the Canadian constitution is to be modified some day, it would be logical and indispensable that the provinces be consulted.
(Text):


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the bill introduced by the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher). I appreciate the remarks made by the hon. member whose constituency I cannot recall, and I would have liked to know exactly what was said by the hon. member who has just taken his seat. All I can say is:-and I apologize for the way I say it-Monsieur l'Orateur, je ne peux pas parler frangais. I understand that he opposes the bill.
This bill is not only an interesting one but it is one which is required in our country. The hon. member who spoke prior to the last speaker said that it was taking away the power of parliament. It is doing no such thing. It is asking that as far as the establishment of voting rights of constituencies are concerned it shall be determined on a nonpolitical basis.


An hon. Member:: Is that not the way it is done now?


Harold Edward Winch: The hon. member does not fully realize what he said. I have had the honour now of being a member of this House of Commons for only five years. Prior to that I was 20 years in the legislature of British Columbia and in that 20 years I was twice named as a member of a redistribution bill committee. I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, and all hon. members, that of all the committees convened by parliament the dirtiest and the rottenest and the most difficult to be on is the redistribution bill committee, and I have been on one twice in British Columbia. You can be as altruistic as you like; you [DOT]can be as eloquent, sir, as they want to be on the other side of the house, I am telling you that the dirtiest, rottenest job that a man in parliament can have is to be a member of a redistribution bill committee.


An hon. Member:: You said that.


Harold Edward Winch: I said it and I am repeating it.
Yes, you can even be a C.C.F. member, and it is a rotten job, because as a member of parliament and a member of the committee you have the job of outlining the area of constituencies; the number of voters in constituencies and how many members there shall be-it is hell. I know it. Do not tell me that it is not the same on the federal basis as it is on the provincial. Irrespective of your party representation you are, first of all, faced with a committee that has to work out the representation on a logical basis. As a member of the committee you want to protect you own constituency and your own party. As soon as the committee submits its first report, then every member of every party comes to members of the committee and wants changes made here and there. Let us be honest, you should know this is a fact.
The hon. member spoke about gerrymandering. Of course, any time you have a parliamentary committee that has to deal with the breaking up of constituencies and the realignment of constituencies, there is gerrymandering. Surely, that is what we all should want to get away from. We do in the C.C.F., and we hope the government and official opposition do too. The only way this can be accomplished is to have the work done by a committee, completely outside of parliament.
Is there anyone in this House of Commons who would dare stand in his place and say

that he does not want an unbiased, scientific analysis of Canada, a scientific basis for representation in this House of Commons? This cannot be accomplished except by people not directly connected with politics. If any member of the government, the opposition or the C.C.F. tells me it can, I say he is a liar because it cannot. Personal prejudice, constituency prejudice and party prejudice all enter the picture because we are all human and subject to human frailties.
I would not like to close my seat after 25 years and no other member would either whether he is here 25 years or only two months.


Mr. Halpenny:: You will get a pension.


Harold Edward Winch: I am honest; are you honest?


George Ernest Halpenny: I have on a red carnation, how could I be honest?


Harold Edward Winch: I have been here in Ottawa and in Victoria for 25 years. Twice during that time I have been on redistribution committees. I say, as a member of the C.C.F. and believing I am honest, that you cannot be honest on that kind of committee. You cannot be honest, because personal interest, personal prejudice and party interest all enter the picture.


An hon. Member:: Is that so?


Harold Edward Winch: Are you afraid to hear from an honest man?


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: You cannot be honest without being in the C.C.F.


An hon. Member:: Are you sure about that?


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: We can be honest; we have been honest all the time.


Mr. Habel:: Are you sure about that?


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: You are sure of that.


Harold Edward Winch: I did not catch what my hon. friend said, but I will say this. When the vote on this bill is taken, I intend to watch very carefully to see where he stands to be counted.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: You stand just because there is enough desk around you.


Harold Edward Winch: I do not see any halo around you.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea):: Order; I must remind hon. members that they must address the chair and not each other.


Harold Edward Winch: One of our members has introduced a bill asking this House of Commons, in plenty of time, to establish a basis for representation in the house by constituencies and by provinces by a completely 57071-3-70J
British North America Act scientific analysis, completely free of any political interest whatever. I believe it will be 1962 before the bill can come into effect. The final bill concerning representation by provinces and by constituencies must be passed by this House of Commons and the other place. The final authority rests with the House of Commons and the other place. This bill now before us requests that the law be amended so the decision shall be made on a nonpolitical basis.
I fail completely to understand why a member of any party in this house could object to that scientific, nonpolitical basis. The final authority rests with the House of Commons, and I sincerely hope that the members of this house, when it comes to a matter of this nature being nonpartisan, will support the bill.


Mr. Frank McGee (York-Scarborough):: Mr. Speaker, before I commence my remarks concerning this bill I should like to deal in some detail with some of the matters raised by the hon. member who preceded me and, I must confess, some of the rather astonishing implications, perhaps philosophical implications, of the comments that he made. I recall, in particular, his fervent, moving comments concerning the dirty, rotten redistribution committee on which he said he had the privilege of serving while a member of the British Columbia legislature.
Might I suggest in passing that it seems to me rather typical of those who occupy the eight lonely seats in the corner-


Mr. Peters:: They are never lonely.


Frank Charles McGee: -that when they are handed something which is dirty and rotten, according to their own definition, their first reaction is to pass the buck to somebody else.
The somebody else to whom these dirty, rotten and other tasks are passed has always fascinated me about the philosophy of this little group in the corner; because in passing these things, things such as the control of the economy and other such matters that this group advance as their solution to the problems of Canada today, the powers they impute to the men who will make up these powers and to whom they pass their dirty rotten jobs from time to time, are incapable of solving them. For instance, if I may be allowed a "for instance", who is going to produce this planned economy?


Douglas Mason Fisher: I rise on a point of order. It seems to me that the hon. member is far off course.


John Borden Hamilton: Speaking to the point of order, may I say this. Surely the hon. member is allowed to lay the groundwork for

British North America Act what he intends to say in connection with this debate. My hon. friends have not even given him that chance.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea):: I felt that the hon. member was laying the groundwork. Therefore, if he will continue we will save time.


John Whitney Pickersgill: With a tar brush.


Frank Charles McGee: I notice that the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) is protesting. Is he doing so on behalf of this little group in the corner?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I was saying that the hon. member seemed to be laying his groundwork with a tar brush. That was a purely objective observation.


An hon. Member:: You profess to be a judge, do you?


John Whitney Pickersgill: A member of the public.


Frank Charles McGee: The other comment which interested me-and I hope no hon. members will object to my commenting on the remarks of the member who preceded me, much less the hon. member himself;-it seems to me that that is the purpose of debate in this house, namely to comment on matters referred to in the speech of the member who precedes one in this debate or in any debate for that matter.


John Whitney Pickersgill: One irrelevancy deserves another.


Mr. Bell (Carleton):: There is no better judge of that.


Frank Charles McGee: As to the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, when the history of this country is written and the students of future years examine Hansard they will wonder who in the world this wonderful person was who presumed to participate in virtually every other member's speech in the house.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: They may find it is you.


Harold Edward Winch: In view of what the hon. member has said, is he going to comment on my remarks that politics should have no connection with redistribution? I have been saying that for a while now.


Frank Charles McGee: Mr. Speaker, I have been
honestly trying to come to my point. My friend the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, who seems to be incapable of remaining silent for more than about 15 minutes at any given time, has interrupted. Two members from the lonesome eight in the corner have interrupted. I should very much like to get on to the body of my remarks. This statement is my final comment on the philosophy of your group. I think it

has been said far better than I can say it by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Chambers) who said "he represents what I call the socialist doctrine of the assumption of the monopoly of virtue." Yet I find it is in curious contrast to the statement made by the hon. member to the effect that we are all human, implying that there was something sort of nasty about this process of the state of being, a statement with which I do not mind telling my hon. friend I do not agree.


Harold Edward Winch: Are you not human?


Frank Charles McGee: In acknowledging that fact I do not associate myself with the characteristics of the hon. member who originated the statement. We are all human beings, yes, but different human beings.


Harold Edward Winch: Have you no frailties?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea):: Order. I must again remind hon. members that they should and must address the chair.


Harold Edward Winch: I will address you, Mr. Speaker. Is my hon. friend prepared to sing his own praises now and to say that he has no frailties of a human being?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea):: That is not a question, I do not think. Will the hon. member continue?


Harold Edward Winch: It is a question that he will not answer.


Frank Charles McGee: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me to be an unnecessary question.


An hon. Member:: He wants you to confess.


Frank Charles McGee: In pursuing this matter of commenting on the content of the remarks of the speaker who preceded me, my effort is obviously not destined to be too successful in view of the number of interruptions. I think every hon. member of this house agrees that there is a need to achieve a fair redistribution. Following along with the idea of this matter of fairness I think it behooves us to examine the actions of past parliaments which dealt with redistribution, to observe the degree of fairness which they exhibited towards certain political decisions, not the least of which was the gerrymandering of the former riding of the present Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) and to examine the record of those former governments in such matters. This is like many of the matters, resolutions, private bills and motions being put forward by the lonesome eight. I think they are fighting a lost battle; that they are protesting where protest is no longer required; that they are in the words of a certain gentleman who wrote an article recently in an edition of the Canadian Journal

of Economics and Political Science, "becalmed in a protest movement". They make noises similar to those of bygone days but their point and purpose is lost.
Certain interesting notions manifested themselves in the redistribution of 1952, such as the notion that the ridings of the party leaders-and this one intrigued me-should be left unhampered. In other words, certain basic principles or governing principles were being laid down then with a series of notable exceptions. I was going to deal with the specifics of this matter in far more detail but owing to the fact that I have been interrupted on such frequent occasions I find that my time is considerably diminished.
However, I will deal just with this basic notion, if you will permit me to do so, Mr. Speaker, of the position of the opposition parties in this parliament. It may be that this parliament will be responsible for redistribution and then again it may not. It is by no means a certainty, as I understand the facts and as I have studied this matter, that redistribution will occur before the next election. This certainly leads me to a side issue, Mr. Speaker, but if you will allow I would say that I do not think an independent body or group can make the specific decisions concerning the riding boundaries in local areas. The problem of defining specific boundaries must be within the control of persons who know more about these matters than anybody else.
This goes along with the notion of the C.C.F. that we should have experts to deal with these things. I do not know about the hon. member who has just taken his seat, but I consider myself as something of an expert on my own riding and I think this is true of every member in every quarter of this house. Who, better than you, is qualified to make political value judgments about boundaries and possible changes in your riding; who, by self-interest, by political education or otherwise, is better qualified for that task? I would remind the hon. member who sponsored this motion and those in his group who are supporting it that this is the essential weakness in handing over, holus-bolus, to an independent commission responsibility for specific knowledge of this kind.
I read in Norman Ward's article in the Journals of 1953 of the many complex problems which manifested themselves at that time and what occurs to me is that an independent body, agreed to by members of this house, should meet now or very shortly, not to effect redistribution but to lay down certain general principles, acceptable to every member and every group in this house as far as such agreement is possible.
British North America Act
Having agreed upon those principles which affect the limiting of percentages, lost seats in provinces and diminishing representation in relation to the total, and the problems which are obviously going to manifest themselves as mentioned in the Gordon report for example with respect to the 15 metropolitan areas which in 1951 had 5,190,000 inhabitants and which by 1980 will have approximately 12 million inhabitants, these and similar problems should all be considered by such a body. There are statistics and facts available for the use of such a body to enable them to agree on the basic redistribution principles.
Where I part company with my friend in the corner is at this point. I believe that having laid down these principles, having achieved concurrence in this house, then the matter should come before the house with respect to questions of detail. Yes, it is going to be give and take; yes, it is going to be horse trading; yes, it is going to be a lot of things, but I do not think it is going to be dirty or rotten or filthy, and I do not think the ugly side of human nature is going to manifest itself in quite the degree suggested by my hon. friend. We in this house must ultimately be the masters of our own political future, and I would suggest, particularly to my hon. friends in the corner, that they rest easy because if the treatment they receive as a result of re-distribution is consistent with the treatment they receive, have received and will receive from this government-with, mind you, the largest majority in the history of this country-in terms of allotment of speaking time, in terms of committees and the increased powers of committees, then they will come out of redistribution in a far better position than any other opposition group which has ever been represented in this house.


Douglas Mason Fisher: May I say, Mr. Speaker that I hope the hon. gentleman who has just sat down does not believe the bill was introduced because we thought we were going to be badly treated.
(Translation):


Mr. Remi Paul (Berlhier-Maskinonge-Dela-naudiere):: Mr. Speaker, if we refer to the B.N.A. Act, we note that the fathers of confederation, in order to ensure a distribution of electoral seats which might really meet the needs of the people, provided under section 8 for a compulsory ten-year census, and under section 51, for a distribution of electoral seats based on such census.

British North America Act
The hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher), in introducing his bill, would like somehow to suggest to the house that the distribution of electoral seats should be done in a manner completely different from the one now in use. I am in full agreement with my hon. friend the member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon) when he explained a moment ago that any amendment to the B.N.A. Act should be a matter for unanimous consent by all provinces and the federal government, because it is a pact. On the other hand, the bill submitted to this house aims at finding a remedy or, at least a method of implementing section 51 of the B.N.A. Act. And the hon. member for Port Arthur wants the distribution of seats in the house to be handled by a body or rather by a commission independent of parliament.
To me it is inconceivable that hon. members of this house should not be called upon to give their own views on redistribution, because they, more than anyone should be familiar with the overall pattern of this country, as they are representing all its ridings. On the other hand, I am not in favour of creating a body or commission, which would not come under the immediate jurisdiction of the House of Commons.
This is in fact an opinion expressed some years ago by the Right Hon. William Lyon Mackenzie King in 1933. If we refer to the official record of this house for 1952, pages 3897 and following, we will see that there was a discussion in the house on this matter when there was before it a proposed redistribution of seats. At that time, as previously, all party leaders were unanimous in suggesting the setting up of a commission or body of that type. Some hon. members even went so far as to suggest the setting up of a committee composed of judges. I cannot see hon. judges, who are removed from politics, having to travel from one point to another in this country in order to carry out a work of a purely political nature.
I believe that all members of the opposition, among whom are hon. members of the C.C.F. party, as well as members of the party in power, are unanimous in looking for a solution which would be such as to make it clearer to the Canadian people why such and such change is being made during the redistribution of electoral seats. The people are not sufficiently informed on the reasons that would justify a committee of the house to make certain changes such as, lopping off


part of a constituency and adding it to another one. Some people cannot understand the real meaning of a census in this regard and, consequently, they cannot realize why such a change is made.
Well, the establishment of an independent body or commission which could be made up of economists or surveyors appointed by the provincial and federal governments would be one way of ensuring a fairer distribution of constituencies. As regards the number of constituencies in each of the provinces, the ten provinces would have to be consulted and then the house could consider the report of such a commission. Besides, the house would always have the power to accept or reject such a report.
At present, the redistribution of electoral seats is made by a committee which sets up one or more sub-committees to consider the need, the advantages or the necessity of redistributing the ridings. Whoever we are, we are human, and naturally we tend to protect members of our own party who might perhaps lose a large section of their riding. So much so that a member, with no ill intention perhaps, might accede to the request of a colleague which however might not truly meet the economic situation.
We are 265 members coming from different parts of Canada and I do not think that any one member can be familiar with the economic needs of every part of the country. A committee made up of 40 or 50 members would not be able to study the real needs of the country as a whole and, as I said a moment ago, this committee could instinctively make decisions which would not be in the interest of the population at large. Furthermore, in these serious times, when our parliamentary institutions seem to be directly attacked by ideologies contrary to our own, it is our utmost duty to try to improve that situation in order that this need which comes up every ten years may be truly met according to local conditions and according to the population of each of the electoral ridings.
As I said a few moments ago, we could appoint economists or land surveyors who would study the main reasons for a certain number of electors to be included in one electoral constituency, rather than in another.
I believe that the members of parliament would be the true spokesmen of the people they represent because, at the present time, some constituencies are too often made up in large part of a labour population side by

side with a rural population. The mentality and the needs of each ol the group composing those constituencies are often quite different and there might be some advantage in distributing the seats in such a way that the urban population of one constituency be 25 per cent higher than its rural population.
At any rate, Mr. Speaker, the bill proposed by the hon. member for Port Arthur deserves a detailed discussion. The opinions I am expressing tonight are not personal opinions; they are the consequence, the result of research I made in different speeches delivered on the matter.
Mr. Speaker, I repeat that this bill deserves our attention because the difficulty of ensuring an equitable distribution of electoral seats in any country is here complicated by the necessity of taking into account the various economic and social interests of the different racial groups, the growth of our population and its movements, and of making allowance, in the cities, for the economic conditions and, in the country, for new areas.
In spite of the evident and legitimate goodwill of all those members who would sit on the committee entrusted with the task of studying the redistribution of Commons seats, I fail to see how the solutions they would put forward would really satisfy the needs of the various groups in this country. As things stand, hon. members must speak on behalf of their constituents. Now these problems are different, and for this reason I do feel that it would be better to set up an independent commission.
Be that as it may, Mr. Speaker, I conclude by saying that I support the bill moved by the hon. member for Port Arthur, provided that the commission that might be established be responsible to the House of Commons for its work so that the house may have the final say and even give orders with respect to the kind of research to be made in order that redistribution in the future may be more to the advantage of all and each of the voters of this country.
(Text):


Egan Chambers: Mr. Speaker, I feel that we have before us this evening a most important subject. There can be few things more important in a democracy than trying to assure for the people an adequate reasonable and equitable representation in the legislature.
British North America Act
I would like to congratulate the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) for bringing this matter to our attention once more. I also wish to commend him on the great amount of research that he has obviously done into the history and background of redistribution as it has been practised in this country in the past and as it is practised in other countries.
The particular method that this bill proposes to use to change our system of redistribution is one of amendment to the British North America Act. I would imagine that in choosing this method the hon. member had in mind creating something of permanence. Section 51 of the British North America Act is one of those sections that is susceptible of amendment in Canada by this house.
In the meeting of the special committee of this house on redistribution in 1952 Dr. P. M. Ollivier, parliamentary counsel of the House of Commons, noted that the British North America Act, No. 2, 1949, introduced an amendment to section 91 of the British North America Act of 1867 which relates to the legislative authority of the parliament of Canada. He explained that by this amendment it was made lawful for the parliament of Canada to amend the Canadian constitution with certain exceptions which are enumerated in the amendment. Sections 51, 51(a) and 52 do not fall within these exceptions and can, therefore, be amended by the federal parliament.
The point that should be noted is that we can amend the act at this time to create the commission the hon. member seeks to have established but there is nothing to prevent a future parliament from amending it again to revert to the old system or to introduce another system. The law as it reads today is adequate to provide for the setting up of a commission for redistribution, as I understand it. Section 51(1) of the British North America Act provides in effect that on the completion of each decennial census the representation of the provinces in the House of Commons may be readjusted by such authority, in such a manner and from such time as the parliament of Canada from time to time provides, subject and according to certain rules relating to the proportionate representation of the provinces.
The idea of the hon. member for Port Arthur is to remove this right from the powers of parliament. I submit this is impossible and that the amendment, itself being amendable by parliament as I have said, would not have that effect. The subject

British North America Act matter and principle of this bill have great merit and I feel that perhaps a great deal of reform could be usefully introduced in our electoral institutions. I hope that a committee of this house will soon be empowered to look into the subject of the Canada Elections Act and the question of redistribution.
As the hon. member for Port Arthur pointed out, the subject of redistribution has plagued-I was going to say succeeding governments, but it has really plagued succeeding oppositions down through the years. I come from a riding which has shrunk since the last redistribution. There has been a great deal of changing of residences into commercial properties, widening of streets and other things involving the removal of residential properties. Under any system of redistribution I imagine that the riding of St. Lawrence-St. George would be profoundly affected.
However, I feel I must agree with what was said earlier by an hon. member to the effect that if the day has not passed when great advantage can be gained for a party by control of redistribution it certainly is well on its way to having gone. The introduction and development of mass communication systems which brings the voices of leaders of the various parties to people all across the country has served to eliminate what in so many cases could be referred to as safe seats or protected pockets of people. 1 do not anticipate much objection when the time comes for redistribution on a fair and equitable basis. Of course, it would be impossible to redistribute the seats in this house in a manner that would make everybody happy, but on the basis of what has been said in this debate I believe that the hon. member for Port Arthur may be assured that when this matter comes up, as it no doubt will-and I hope along with him that it comes up soon before the fire horses begin to hear the bells of another election-he will find in evidence the mood that has been expressed in the speeches we have heard tonight-one of give and take and fair play for all concerned-and it is possible that a commission, better defined than that proposed in his bill, will be established. Mr. Speaker, may I call it ten o'clock?


Douglas Mason Fisher: How naive can you be?



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could ask the hon. gentleman who is leading the house if the business which was indicated last evening will be the business for tomorrow?


Mr. Brooks:: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we shall continue with the estimates of the Minister of Public Works. Unfortunately, the business which was indicated last evening, the continued debate on NORAD, will not go on tomorrow. The Prime Minister, you will recall, adjourned the debate. Due to the presence of a very distinguished guest tomorrow, the Prime Minister of Great Britain, our Prime Minister will be very busy and unfortunately will not be able to continue.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Could the minister indicate when the Prime Minister proposes to conclude the debate on NORAD?


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I could not give a definite indication, but some time next week.


Mr. Mcllrailh:: What about the business for Monday?


Alfred Johnson Brooks: That will be announced tomorrow.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, before you adjourn, may I ask if in view-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Harold Edward Winch: -of the unfortunate situation of a week ago it is the intention to ring the bells tomorrow morning to summon hon. members to the chamber to hear the remarks of our distinguished visitor?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea):: That was announced by Mr. Speaker today. The bell will sound at 9.50 a.m.


Mr. Hamilton (Noire Dame de Grace):: You
should come down and listen to us some time, Harold.


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

[Stage Direction]
The following answers, deposited with the Clerk of the house, are printed in the official report of debates pursuant to standing order 39:

Mr. Rouleau: 1.	Was Mr. Marcel Grenier appointed to a permanent position by the civil service commission as auditor in the office of the district auditor's office of the unemployment insurance commission at St. Jerome, Quebec, in October, 1952?
2.	Was Mr. Grenier dismissed in July, 1956?
3.	If so, on what grounds?
4.	Was an order in council passed pursuant to section 52, Civil Service Act, chapter 48, R.S.C., 1952?
Answer by: Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Acting Minister of Labour):
1.	Yes, effective September 1, 1952.
2.	Yes, effective July 5, 1956.
3.	Failure to comply with instructions with regard to travelling expense accounts.
4.	No.


RADIOACTIVITY TESTS
Mr. Martin (Essex East): 1.	Have recent tests been made in the level of radioactivity with regard to permissible limits?
Questions
2.	Do these permissible limits correspond to those laid down by the national committee on radiation protection and measurement in the United States?
3.	Are tests made of samples of milk to determine whether or not radioactivity exceeds the maximum permissible concentration for regular consumption?
4.	According to the latest tests in Canada, what has been the concentration of strontium 90 found in milk samples?
5.	Have other foods been selected for purposes of testing radioactivity levels in Canada?
Answer by: Hon. J. W. Monteilh (Minister of
National Health and Welfare):
1.	Yes.
2.	The recommendations of the international commission on radiological protection serve as a guide to the radiation protection work of the Department of National Health and Welfare. The United States national committee on radiation protection and measurement works in close co-operation with the international commission, and their recommended maximum permissible levels correspond closely.
3.	Yes.
4.	The strontium 90 content of the milk powder samples tested in February ranged from about 4 to about 15 micromicrocuries per gram of calcium. These figures may have to be slightly revised when further calibration data are available.
5.	Yes.
1107

Friday, June 13, 1958