1963-11-27

[Stage Direction]
Mr. Robert Temple (Hastings South) presented the second and third reports of the standing committee on standing orders, and moved that the reports be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.


Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise a question of privilege. I would have preferred to do so when the Minister of Agriculture was in the house, since it involves a statement he made. I had better put on the record the statement he made, apparently in an interview, which appeared in the Edmonton Journal of Monday, November 25, 1963. This is what I take exception to, and I want to make a statement on it. He is reported as having said:
Douglas Fisher, he's a kind of odd duck.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I appreciated that the Minister of Agriculture took a metaphor from his own field. Then he went on to say:
Three times he didn't have enough guts to stand up and vote.
I want to raise a question of privilege in order to put it to the house that if the Minister of Agriculture is using the term "guts" in the sense I think he is, that is, courage, I have the right to say that if I did not vote, I was in the house and it was not a question of lack of courage.


Mr. Byrne:: What was it?


Mr. Pigeon:: We will auction the minister.



MR. CAOUETTE    REPORTED ULTIMATUM BY PREMIER OF QUEBEC

Mr. Real Caouette (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, as we are now on motions and in view of the national importance attached to the federal-provincial conference, I take the liberty of rising on a question of privilege and
bringing to the attention of the house the following motion:
I move, seconded by Mr. Gilles Gregoire, member for Lapointe, that this house express the wish that the requests, even the ultimatum, of the Hon. Jean Lesage, premier of Quebec, for better tax sharing as well as for participation of the provinces in the development of monetary policy in Canada, be approved to enable all provinces to be in a better position to meet their responsibilities through decentralization.


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I do not feel it is in order at this time to consider either as a question of privilege or a point of order the motion moved by the hon. member, because his motion is clearly out of order.
It is out of order first because the statements made by the Prime Minister and the federal government have not been made public-except for press releases-and I am about to table those documents.
This motion is also out of order because the statements made by the premier of Quebec this morning were certainly not in the nature of an ultimatum; on the contrary, they constituted a clear account of the policy of his government.
It is completely out of order for an hon. member to introduce a motion concerning a proposal which is under consideration. As far as this motion is concerned, it is obviously out of order since the federal-provincial conference is not yet over.


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: I think I can handle this matter myself.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. My task is to find whether there is a prima facie case of privilege, and I see no point of privilege in this on at least one ground, besides many others. This is in the nature of a substantive motion which requires notice. No notice has been given under our rules; therefore on that point it is out of order. On the other point, I do not see a prima facie case of privilege; therefore I must reject it.

Question of Privilege



MR. CAOUETTE    REMARK IN DEBATE BY MEMBER FOR WINNIPEG NORTH CENTRE

David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. Yesterday afternoon when the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) delivered his speech, he stated, as reported on page 5415 of Hansard for yesterday:

My hon. friend from Villeneuve is interjecting. I happened to notice his name in one of these Hansard volumes, when he was here before as the hon. member for Pontiac, and I find that on one occasion he too voted against redistribution by an independent commission.

Mr. Speaker, I want to set the record straight by referring to page 697 of Hansard for February 24, 1947, when I stated, following the amendment introduced by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre-


Mr. Speaker:: Order please.

I regret I have to interrupt the hon. member, but this is a matter which could be dealt with on the orders of the day rather than at this time, or else it is in the nature of an explanation which could better be made in the committee of the whole. I suggest to the hon. member that he reserve his explanation for the committee of the whole, at which time he will have ample opportunity to make it, rather than continue on motions.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE TABLING OF SUBMISSIONS PRESENTED BY DELEGATIONS

Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table copies of the submissions presented by the federal and provincial delegations to the federal-provincial conference which opened on November 26.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Acting Prime Minister would care to move that the documents relating to the federal-provincial submissions be printed in Hansard for the convenience of hon. members. Would that be possible?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I must bring to the attention of the house that there are many hundreds of pages in these briefs, and I do not think it would be possible to get Hansard at the usual time tomorrow if this were done. In fact I think it would take quite

some time before it could be done even in a separate Hansard. What I would suggest, if it has the approval of the house, is that I will endeavour to get copies from the secretariat as quickly as possible so that hon. members may have them in their possession.



EMERGENCY GOLD MINING ASSISTANCE


Hon. W. M. Benidickson (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: Mr. Speaker, with the permission of the house I would like to make a brief statement with regard to the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act, which expires at the end of this 1963 calendar year.
Representations have been received recently by the government from municipal authorities of the affected gold mining communities and from representatives of the gold mine operators setting forth the continuing need of assistance to the industry. The government has decided to ask parliament to extend the act to prevent the hardship to dependent communities which would result from the abrupt closure of a substantial number of gold mines.
In order that the industry may have as much notice as possible of the terms under which assistance will be paid, I wish to announce that the government will introduce legislation shortly, effective as from January 1 next, extending the application of the act for a period of another four years without change in the present formula for computing the amount of assistance payable.
The amending legislation will also provide for a restriction on the amounts of assistance payable to any new lode gold mines commencing production after June 30, 1965. Lode gold mines brought into operation after that date will be eligible for assistance only if the mine provides direct support to an existing gold mining community. A gold mine will be deemed to provide such support if the majority of the persons employed at the mine reside in one or more of a number of gold mining communities which will be specified.
The purpose of the restriction is to prevent the establishment of new gold mining communities which would be dependent upon government assistance from the outset and which would add to existing social problems. The restriction will not affect those gold mines which are now in operation with respect to eligibility for assistance payments now or in the future. The restriction will not apply to placer mines. The date upon which the restriction will become effective has been set at July 1, 1965, in order that these new lode gold mines which are currently under development will have a reasonable opportunity to qualify for assistance.

Emergency Gold Mining Assistance
In conclusion may I express the belief that the extension of the act will assist the gold mining industry to meet its special difficulties, and by extending the operation of many gold mines will enable them to continue support of their dependent communities.


Hon. Paul Martineau (Poniiac-Temisca-mingue):: Mr. Speaker, I think there will be general satisfaction among the gold mining communities of Canada at the announcement of the minister indicating the decision of the government to seek the further extension for four years of the present cost-aid formula. The house will recall that this formula was devised in its present form in 1958 by the previous Conservative administration, and generally speaking it has provided for a very considerable sector of the gold mining industry the kind of assistance that was necessary and continues to be necessary in order to keep these mines in operation and retain in a viable condition a very vital industry of Canada.
I did not have previous notice of this announcement and I have not studied the possible implications of the new formula as it will affect new mines. I hope it proves to be a workable formula and will not prejudice small mining operations. In that connection it will be essential to study very closely the restrictions the minister has indicated. In particular I would like to have a great deal of information with regard to the manner in which communities or mines that will be eligible for this new assistance will be selected. There is something in the form of the announcement of the minister that could give rise to quite a bit of anxiety among gold mining communities in this regard.
I am happy to note that the minister has received favourably the submissions which were placed before him, and particularly the submission which was made by the gold mining communities just a few weeks ago. In that submission a request was made for the continuation of the present formula, that is to say the Fleming formula of 1958.
I am glad the government has acceded to this particular request; but I think it is now time, and more than time, for the government to consider this whole question of the gold mining industry in Canada and to take a very positive step, not only in ensuring the continuance in operation of the gold producing mines for some time yet, but to further develop this very vital industry for Canada. I think the government should communicate with the international monetary fund authorities to see what co-operation or interest is shown there to the possible increase in the world price of gold. In the final analysis the future of not only the gold mining industry
but of the entire mining industry of Canada lies in this area. Very responsible and competent mining and financial authorities in Canada and outside Canada have requested that the government look into this facet of the needs of the gold mining industry. I think now is the time to go ahead and initiate certain negotiations in that respect.
In conclusion I wish to say that we on this side of the house will be studying with very much interest the details of the announcement, and we look forward to the early submission to this house of legislation which will give effect to the announcement made by the minister this afternoon.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I suppose I should start off by doing what the previous speaker did and saying that the legislation was originally passed by a Liberal administration. I am sure my hon. friends on the other side appreciate that.
There is always a fundamental contradiction, when we deal with this particular matter, between a government subsidy of a fairly open, even crass kind such as this and the free enterprise ethos of the men who promote the mine. I do not suppose any of us need remind ourselves that the reason for the subsidy really relates not to an attempt to protect the promoters or the shareholders but to an attempt to protect communities. That is why the qualification which the minister indicated is going to be introduced is important and interesting. I am sure it will raise in mining circles a tremendous amount of discussion. I can already foresee some of the arguments, particularly in a case where a mine may start off by having quality ore and not needing a subsidy, but as its reserves dwindle or the venture moves into new ground it reaches the position where it will qualify. I am sure that type of discussion will be held in mining circles.
We welcome the announcement, Mr. Speaker, remembering always that we still feel somewhat uncomfortable about a subsidy which buttresses communities but at the same time happens to buttress the private enterprises which are often entered into by people who are very much aware that a government subsidy is involved. This points up one of the contradictions we are always encountering in the Canadian political scene, and I think it is worth while reminding free enterprisers of them.


Mr. Beri Leboe (Cariboo):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say on behalf of the gold mining industry in the province of British Columbia, and particularly the constituency of Cariboo, that we welcome the extension of this assistance program. However, we believe

Questions
whether it was instigated by a Liberal government or a Conservative government is not a question that should be continually tossed around in this house. I think the time has come when we have to face the fact that we have a job to do, and that we should get on with that job. I thank the minister for his announcement.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, the announcement just made by the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys (Mr. Benidickson) that the government will continue to pay grants to gold mines, affects very closely the area I represent in this house.
There is one suggestion however that I should like to make to the minister. In my opinion, he should consider increasing the price of gold as an incentive to this industry to develop a great number of new mines, not only in our area, but also in all parts of Canada where there are gold mines.
In the Villeneuve riding large amounts of money are paid to the gold mines in the Val d'Or and Malartic area. Yet, the miners of Val d'Or and Malartic get much lower salaries than those in the Noranda, Temiscamingue and Timmins areas, as well as other communities of northern Ontario.
Since grants are paid provided that certain requirements are fulfilled I think that the factor of miners' salary should be taken into consideration, when such grants are paid to mines in our area. Finally, we should not only endeavour to maintain gold production, but also to provide miners with living conditions which will enable them to improve their lot and to bring it up to the level of that of our fellow citizens working in other Canadian industries.



QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)


Mr. Bell: What was the assessment of responsibility in the Bagotville air crash on October 11, 1962 in the inquiry of the Department of Transport?


Mr. Mcllraith:: The Department of Transport does not assess responsibility, and this matter is before the courts.




Mr. Bell: What was the assessment of responsibility in the Bagotville air crash on October 11, 1962 in the inquiry of the Department of National Defence?
[Mr. Leboe.l
Answer: In view of litigation recently commenced, it would not be in the public interest to answer this question at this time.



FEDERAL EMPLOYEES EARNING $12,000 OR MORE

Mr. Rheaume: 1.	How many persons employed by the federal government, including the armed forces and the R.C.M.P., earn $12,000 or more annually, shown by department or agency?
2.	Of the above employees, how many, during the past two fiscal years, have submitted expense accounts for travel, removal, accommodation, entertainment or miscellaneous expenditures totalling $6,000 per year or more?
3.	Does the information contained in part 2 above include such expenditures as telephone and telegram charges, memberships in professional or business associations?


Mr. Benson:: 1. 2,443.
2.	During the fiscal years 1961-62 and 196263, 182 of those included in the 2,443 mentioned in (1) submitted expense accounts or received reimbursement for expenditures by means of allowances, amounting to $6,000 or more in at least one of these years.
3.	It includes telephone and telegram charges incurred while away from headquarters, and certain membership costs for persons posted outside Canada.



* MANUFACTURE IN QUEBEC OF AIRCRAFT AND ENGINES

Mr. Cole (Chicoutimi): 1.	Has a contract or agreement been signed to permit the manufacture at Longueuil, Quebec, of Pratt and Whitney engines for installation in the French made Potez aircraft and, if so (a) when was such contract signed (b) what are the details of the contract?
2.	Is the Minister of Transport engaged in any negotiations relating to the acquisition by T.C.A. of Caravelle aircraft and their manufacture by Cana-dair Ltd., at St. Laurent, Quebec and if so (a) have negotiations reached the contract stage (b) when is it expected that such a contract will be signed?


Mr. Caniin:: 1. There has been an exchange of letters of intent between United Aircraft of Canada Limited and Etablissement Henry Potez.
(a)	The letter of intent is dated October 14, 1963.
(b)	Since it will be a commercial contract passed between the two companies, particulars are considered of a private character and cannot be made public without the consent of the parties concerned.
2. The announcement made by T.C.A. on Friday, November 22,	1963, contains the
answer to this part of the question.



C.N.R. TRUCKING POLICY

Mr. Laprise: 1.	To what degree, if any, does the Canadian National Railways intend to enter into competition with the trucking industry in the field of road transport in Canada?
2.	Is it Canadian National Railways' policy to provide its own trailers to certain private trucking concerns and, if so, what qualifications must a firm possess to take advantage of such assistance?


Jean-Charles Cantin: The management of Canadian National Railways advise as follows: 1. The company's trucking policy was given in a statement by the president at the sessional committee meetings held in June 1961 and November 1962. Reference thereto is made on page 260 and page 93 of the 1961 and 1962 evidence respectively. Stated briefly, the Canadian National is making a strenuous effort to meet the problem of erosion of its share of the transportation market.
2.	In order to improve service to its customers, Canadian National will enter into agreements with duly licensed private trucking concerns to haul its merchandise laden trailers, but only after proper authority has been granted by provincial regulatory boards.



PROSTHETIC SERVICES, D.V.A.

Mr. Maiheson: 1.	What variety of prosthetic services are supplied by the Department of Veterans Affairs?
2.	How many service centres are presently operated for disabled veterans, and where are these located?
3.	How many fittings were provided to (a) veterans, and (b) others, in each of the years 1950, 1960 and 1962?
4.	Under what circumstances and terms are prosthetic services available to the non-veteran public?
5.	Has consideration or study been given to the feasibility of transferring these facilities to the Department of National Health and Welfare or some agency capable of providing prosthetic services to all the Canadian disabled?
Answer: 1. Services supplied to veterans and others, by the Department of Veterans Affairs, are prosthetic and orthoptic appliances, as follows:
(a)	Artificial limbs, arms and legs; (b) Appliances and accessories, hearing aids, belts and trusses, braces and splints, elastic hosiery, stump socks, wheelchairs, various related accessories; (c) footwear, orthopaedic boots, and modifications to boots; (d) ophthalmic, eyes-plastic and glass, glasses, miscellaneous, magnifying reading glasses, facial masks.
2.	The Department of Veterans Affairs has at present in operation for disabled veterans 12 service centres located at Camp Hill hospital, Halifax, Nova Scotia; Lancaster hospital, Saint John, New Brunswick; Queen Mary
Questions
Veterans hospital, Montreal, Quebec; Defence Medical Centre, Ottawa, Ontario; Sunnybrook hospital, Toronto, Ontario; Westminster hospital, London, Ontario; Deer Lodge hospital, Winnipeg, Manitoba; Motherwell Building, Regina, Saskatchewan; Colonel Belcher hospital, Calgary, Alberta; Shaughnessy hospital, Vancouver, British Columbia; Veterans hospital, Victoria, British Columbia; University hospital, Colonel Mewburn pavilion, Edmonton, Alberta.
3.	(a) 1950, 17,758; 1960, 22,839; 1962, 24,412. (b) 1950, 3,019; 1960, 3,969; 1962, 3,850.
These figures may not be completely accurate as the records for the year 1950 are not entirely reliable.
4.	The circumstances and terms under which prosthetic services are available to non-veterans are as follows:
(a) Supply of appliances is made to serving members of the armed forces on presentation of a medical prescription under section 18 of the veterans treatment regulations; (b) Supply of appliances is made to members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police on receipt of a medical prescription under section 19 of the veterans treatment regulations; (c) Under section 20 of the veterans treatment regulations, at the request and expense of a provincial workmen's compensation board, Saskatchewan branch of the Canadian Red Cross Society, the War Amputations of Canada, the Canadian Paraplegic Society, and any other organization designated by the director general, treatment services, as a responsible body, politic or corporate, upon their written certification that facilities for the required service are not otherwise available, and subject to the prior approval of the director general, treatment services; provided that appliances shall be restricted generally to those manufactured by prosthetic services (without precluding the incorporation of purchased components) and further provided that, when original sponsorship ceases, appliances supplied under this section may be serviced for the individual, subject to prepayment, during the life of the appliance but will not be replaced excepting under legitimate sponsorship; (d) Under section 21 of the veterans treatment regulations, at the request and expense of any department of the government of Canada; (e) Under section 22 of the veterans treatment regulations, at the request and expense of an allied government.
5.	Officials of the Department of Veterans Affairs believe that there is a need among disabled persons in Canada for a better prosthetic service than is at present available. These officials have given consideration to a

Questions
number of ways in which the skills and services of the prosthetic division of the department might be made available to a larger segment of the Canadian population, including the possibility that the division might be transferred out of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Consideration is still being given to this matter.



DENUNCIATION OF CANADA-QUEBEC TAX AGREEMENT

Mr. Caouette: Since 1942, has the Minister of Finance received written notice from the government of the province of Quebec, pursuant to section 23(5) of the agreement signed by both governments on the vacating of certain fields of taxation during the war with a view to denouncing the agreement and, if so, what steps have been taken in this respect, and what agreements are now in force?


Edgar John Benson: No. Under section 23(1) of the wartime tax agreement, it was provided that the agreement would terminate on the last day of the fiscal year of the province ending nearest to the thirty first day of December in the first calendar year which began after the date of cessation of hostilities. As order in council P.C. 7409 dated 21st December 1945 fixed the 2nd September 1945 as the date of the cessation of hostilities, the wartime tax agreement automatically ceased on March 31, 1947, and Quebec was free to resume the imposition of a provincial tax on individual and corporation incomes. As Quebec did not enter into subsequent tax rental agreements, that province has retained its freedom to tax individual and corporation incomes.

^BILINGUALISM AT MARVILLE MILITARY BASE


Mr. Cote (Chicoutimi): 1.	How is bilingualism handled at the Canadian military base located at Marville, France?
2.	Are notices of all types published both in French and in English?
3.	Do the fuselages of Canadian aircraft carry bilingual inscriptions?
4.	Are the menus written in both languages? [Translation]


Mr. Cardin:: Mr. Speaker, the answers to Nos. 1 and 2 are as follows:
Instructions, notices, etc. are posted in French if needed. French magazines and newspapers are sold on the base and records to learn French can be obtained free of charge from the base library. French courses are also available to those who want to take advantage of them.
Answer to No. 3:
No, the inscription is made up of only the letters R.C.A.F. and the rosette with a maple
leaf in the centre of it, which is known throughout the world.
Answer to No. 4:
The menus are written in English or in French as need be.



SURPLUS, EXPORTS AND STORAGE

Mr. Latulippe: 1.	Is there a com surplus in Canada and, if so (a) how many bushels are stored in each of the western provinces (b) what percentage does the 1963 total corn sale represent of the country's total surplus (c) what was the storage cost in 1962-63 for the corn surplus (d) what were the administrative costs of the corn surplus during 1962-63?
2.	To what countries did Canada export corn during the year 1962-63 and (a) how many bushels were exported to each country (b) at what price per bushel (c) what are the conditions of payment to each country?
3.	What was the storage cost in 1962-63 for the surplus corn?


Mr. Hays:: 1. No. (a) None, corn, other than for canning purposes, is not produced in commercial quantities in western Canada (b) not applicable; (c) not applicable; (d) not applicable.
2.	(a) Belgium-Luxembourg, 1,399 bushels; Austria, 5 bushels; France, 1,939 bushels; West Germany, 28 bushels; Netherlands, 44 bushels; Switzerland, 4,601 bushels; Japan, 18 bushels; British Guiana, 7,182 bushels; Chile, 29 bushels; Barbados, 110 bushels; Jamaica, 20 bushels; Leeward and Windward Is., 112 bushels; Trinidad and Tobago, 3,149 bushels; St. Pierre and Miquelon, 129 bushels; United States, 24,505 bushels.
(b)	These exports consist of certified and specially developed varieties of seed sold by Canadian seed producers specializing in certified and hybrid seed production for foundation stock and seed purposes. No information is available as to the price per bushel received by producers for these shipments.
(c)	Since these were private sales on a commercial basis no information is available.
3.	Nil.



BALANCE OF PAYMENTS

Mr. Latulippe: Did the Minister of Finance state at the beginning of October that the government did not intend to reduce its balance of payments deficit to the detriment of the United States and, if so (a) what practical measures does the government expect to take (b) what special meaning does the Minister of Finance attach to multilateral measures as opposed to bilateral ones (c) what are the methods presently employed to re-adjust Canada's balance of payments (d) what has been, each year for the past five years, the deficit in Canada's balance of payments (e) is a balance of payments deficit expected for the current year and, if so, what is the projected figure?
[Mr. Matheson.l


Edgar John Benson: (a) (b) (c) It is believed this question refers to a speech that the Minister of Finance gave at the annual meeting of the international monetary fund in early October. The government's policy towards Canada's balance of payments problem was indicated in that speech as follows:
"The Canadian government is determined to press on in this direction (i.e. towards a reduction of the over-all current account deficit) by constructive steps which avoid severe distortions or disruptions in our own affairs or in those of our trading partners. We do not aim at balance with one particular country or one particular area but at improving our balance with the world as a whole."
(d)	1958, $1,131 million; 1959, $1,504 million;
1960,	$1,243 million; 1961, $982 million; 1962, $848 million.
(e)	Data on the balance of payments for 1963 are available for the first six months only. The deficit on current account for the first six months of 1963 was $439 million, compared with a deficit of $695 million in the first six months of 1962.



COMPETITION FOR MANAGEMENT ANALYSTS

Mr. Fisher: 1.	(a) What is the civil service commission's training program to train civil servants as management analysts (b) how much money was spent by the civil service commission on staff training for management analysts' position during 1960,
1961,	1962, and up to the end of September, 1963 (c) what is the information on monies spent for staff training in other government departments, by name, requiring management analysts as requested in (b) above?
2.	Did the civil service commission receive any complaint from civil servants or any staff association with respect to the conduct and results of civil service competition No. 63-654 and, if so (a) who made the complaints (b) what replies were made to such complaints?
3.	(a) Was selection and interview of candidates who applied for positions in competition No. 63654 conducted in accordance with the Civil Service Act and regulations (b) does any section or sections of the Civil Service Act and regulations authorize and provide for selection boards to change their personnel when interviewing and selecting applicants for one competition (c) does any section or sections of the Civil Service Act and regulations authorize and provide for civil servants to have their friends submit applications in response to a competition, with the assurance of a position if they apply (d) does any section or sections of the Civil Service Act and regulations authorize the establishing of an eligible list before all applicants are interviewed (e) does any section or sections of the Civil Service Act and regulations authorize the appointment of applicants to positions before the selection boards have completed their interviews of all candidates whose applications were accepted?


Mr. Pickersgill:: I have been given the following answer by the civil service commission:
Questions
1.	(a) The management analysis division (formerly the organization and methods service) of the civil service commission has given training to departmental officers, as requested, since 1956. This training is done by (i) formal training courses, (ii) on the job training by the attachment of departmental officers to management analysis division officers when a project is being carried out for the department concerned, and (iii) by dissemination of selected information on management analysis work. Formal training courses in management analysis have been planned, on the basis of requests from departments, until the end of the 1963-64 fiscal year, (b) The staff costs involved in giving formal courses in management analysis have been approximately $4,000 a year for 1960, 1961 and 1962. For 1963, up to the end of September, the costs have been approximately $8,000. These costs do not include the salaries of those attending the courses, (c) No figures available.
2.	The civil service commission received no written complaints in connection with this competition. There were two telephone calls from the Ottawa office of the civil service association of Canada for information only. This information was given verbally.
3.	(a) Yes. (b) Section 38(1) of the Civil Service Act permits the civil service commission to make an administrative decision of this nature, (c) No. (d) Yes. See 3(b) above, (e) See 3(b) above.



NATIONAL WAR MEMORIALS

Mr. Matheson: 1.	Does Canada presently have a national shrine of remembrance in Ottawa or elsewhere and, if so, where?
2.	What war memorials or cenotaphs are in existence in the Ottawa area, where are they located, for what purpose were they erected, and when?
3.	Does Canada have any memorial to the unknown serviceman?
Answer: 1. Canada does not at present have a national shrine of remembrance.
2.	The following memorials in the Ottawa area are the only ones in the erection of which the federal government has participated:
(a)	The world war I memorial on Confederation square. This memorial commemorates the more than 60,000 Canadian servicemen who died during service in that war. This memorial was unveiled by King George VI on May 21, 1939.
(b)	The peace tower. The peace tower of the centre block of the parliament buildings, and particularly the memorial chamber therein, was erected to commemorate Canada's participation in world war I and in memory of those Canadians who lost their lives during that war while in the armed forces. The

Questions
peace tower was officially opened by the Prince of Wales, later King Edward VIII, on July 1, 1927.
(c)	Veterans memorial buildings on Wellington street. The veterans affairs building and the trade and commerce building, together with the commemorative arch connecting them, form the veterans memorial buildings. The cornerstone of the veterans affairs building was laid by the Hon. Hugues Lapointe, the then minister of veterans affairs, on November 11, 1952, and the buildings were occupied by their respective departments in 1955-59. These buildings were intended as a memorial to those Canadians who gave their lives while in the services during world war II.
(d)	The commonwealth air forces memorial. This memorial was erected by the imperial war graves commission, now the commonwealth war graves commission, of which Canada is a participating member, and was unveiled on July 1, 1959 by her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. This memorial is located on Green island. It commemorates the 798 men and women of the air forces of the commonwealth who died in Canada, the United States and neighbouring lands from 1939 to 1945.
(e)	Canloan memorial. This memorial consists of a commemorative stone in a small park at the corner of Stanley avenue and Sussex drive. It was placed in memory of 673 Canadian officers who served voluntarily in the British army and took part in the invasion and liberation of Europe, 1944-45. There were 128 fatal casualties among this group of officers. The memorial was unveiled by the Governor General on June 3, 1961.
3.	There is no national memorial in Canada to the unknown serviceman.



EXTENSION OF AIRPORT RUNWAYS, LONDON, ONT.

Mr. Irvine: Are there included, in the estimates of the Department of Transport, sums to extend the runways at London airport?


George James McIlraith: No. The department had earlier expected that runway strengthening would be necessary in connection with use of London airport by Vanguard aircraft, but engineering investigation indicated that this would not have to be undertaken at the present time, although an additional parallel taxiway is to be constructed.



NURSING ORDERLIES, D.V.A. HOSPITALS

Mr. Irvine: 1.	What was the date of the most recent increase in pay granted to nursing orderlies in D.V.A. hospitals?
2.	What was the amount of this increase?
3.	Has there been any reclassification of nursing orderlies since this increase?
4.	If so, after reclassification, what was the net additional pay?
Answer: 1. Salary revisions for nursing orderlies, effective from January 1, 1963, were authorized by the government on July 29, 1963.
2.	Increases varied from nothing to $540 per annum.
3.	There have been 1,737 reclassifications and an additional 212 are pending.
4.	The total additional annual salary increases when all reclassifications are made will, it is estimated, amount to $348,550.



GRANTS TO HEALTH RESEARCH PROJECTS

Mr. Orlikow: 1.	What research projects being conducted by the universities, government, and private foundations are being financed by federal health grants, in the following fields: (a) heart disease (b) cancer (c) tuberculosis (d) multiple sclerosis (e) muscular dystrophy, and (f) arthritis?
2.	What is the value of each grant?
3.	What is the total value of each grant for each province?
4.	What is the total value of these grants for Canada?


Miss LaMarsh:: 1. Under the national health grants, federal funds have been allocated to date in 1963-64, on the basis of provincial requests, towards the conduct of research at various Canadian universities, hospitals and other health agencies in the following fields: heart disease, cancer, tuberculosis and arthritis. No research project has been submitted by the provinces during this fiscal year for the support of research on multiple sclerosis and dystrophy.
2. (a) Heart disease, thirty seven research projects are being supported in the present fiscal year with the value of the grants varying from $499 to $66,812; (b) cancer, under the cancer control grant, $350,000 has been earmarked for cancer research. To date provincial requests have been approved in an amount of $223,027 on behalf of cancer research; (c) tuberculosis, nine research projects are being supported in the present fiscal year with the value of the grants varying from $4,850 to $28,950; (d) arthritis, ten research projects are being supported in the present fiscal year with the value of the grants varying from $258 to $17,000.

3.	and 4.	Heart
Disease
Newfoundland Prince Edward Island
Nova Scotia New Brunswick
Quebec	$298,871
Ontario	148,218
Manitoba	58,127
Saskatchewan Alberta
British Columbia	6,796
Northwest Territory
Yukon
Canada	$512,012



CAPE BRETON HIGHLANDS PARK


Mr. Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria): 1.	Has a contract been awarded for improvements to the water system in the Cheticamp area of the Cape Breton Highlands national park?
2.	Who was the successful tenderer and what was the amount of the tender?
3.	What are the names, addresses, and amounts, of all others who tendered?


Mr. Laing:: 1. No; tenders have been called but no contract yet awarded.
2.	N/A.
3.	Tenders were received from the following:
Maritime Builders Limited, P.O. Box 555, Sydney, Nova Scotia, $60,219.00; Stephens Construction Limited, 199 Townsend street, Sydney, Nova Scotia, $65,013.58; Albert E. Whidden, P.O. Box 30, Antigonish, Nova Scotia, $162,266.00.



HOUSE CONSTRUCTION, PORT BLANDFORD, NFLD.

Mr. Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria): 1.	To whom was the contract awarded for the construction of two dwellings at Port Blandford, Newfoundland?
2.	What was the amount of the contract, and what were the names, addresses and amounts, of all those who tendered?


George James McIlraith: 1 and 2. The closing date for tenders for this project is November 28 and, accordingly, the information requested is not yet available.
Cancer	Questions Tuberculosis	Arthritis$ 10,000 15,000	$ 21,209	$ 8,76072,419	46,650	10,758116,708	57,983	50,6738,900	
17,000
$223,027	$125,842	$ 87,191



POSTAL TERMINAL BUILDING, EDMONTON

Mr. Lambert: 1.	Have plans and working drawings been completed for a new postal terminal building and related facilities in Edmonton and, if not, when is it expected that these shall be completed preparatory to a call for tenders?
2.	When is it expected that tenders will be called and; when is the anticipated date of awarding a contract and, what is the target date for the commencement of construction or completion?
3.	Do the plans call for air conditioning all or part of the proposed building and, if not, what are the reasons for such a decision?


Mr. Badanai:: 1. No, but it is expected they will be completed early next month.
2.	The department expects to call tenders in late December, 1963, and to award the contract in March, 1964. Construction is expected to commence immediately following the award of the contract and take about three years to complete. This estimated time includes the installation of mail handling equipment as well as construction of the building.
3.	Yes, for all of the building.



PERSONS ON PAROLE CONVICTED OF CRIMES

Mr. Orlikow: In the past five years, how many people released from prison on parole have been convicted of further criminal activities?


Lionel Chevrier: The national parole board has only been functioning since January 1, 1959. From that date to November 1, 1963, 10,264 persons have been granted parole. Neither the national parole board nor the R.C.M. police have statistics showing the number of such persons who were convicted of further criminal activities after their parole

Questions
periods were completed. Of these 10,264 cases however, 501 had their parole forfeited by reason of conviction for an indictable offence while on parole and 61 had their paroles revoked in whole or part because of summary conviction offences. The national parole board conducts follow-up studies of recidivism among persons granted conditional releases by five and 10 year periods from 1950 and publishes the results in the annual reports of the board.



INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LOANS

Mr. Caouette: 1.	What is the total amount of the loans granted by the industrial development bank since its establishment in 1944?
2.	What is the amount of the loans granted by the industrial development bank to each of the ten provinces of Canada for each of the past five years?
3.	Has the industrial development bank purchased shares or debentures issued by companies or individuals with which the bank had entered into underwriting agreements and, if so, (a) what were the amounts (b) what proportion was acquired in the province of Quebec?
4.	What was the number of the loans granted by the industrial development bank (a) in Canada (b) in the province of Quebec?
5.	What was the average amount of these loans?
6.	What is the paid up capital of the industrial development bank?


Edgar John Benson: 1. Total amount of loans
granted by the industrial development bank since its establishment in 1944 to September 30, 1963: $542,159,000.
2.	The bank has no authority to lend to provincial governments.
3.	(a) $45,000; (b) nil.
4.	(a) in Canada: 10,131; (b) province of Quebec, 2,378.
5.	(a) in Canada, $54,000; (b) province of Quebec, $65,000.
6.	$33 million.



CRITERIA FOR DEVELOPMENT AND UNEMPLOYMENT AREAS

Mr. Latulippe: 1.	What are the criteria under which an area can qualify as a development area?
2.	What are the criteria under which an area can qualify as a high winter unemployment area?
3.	Is the national employment service Megantic area considered a high winter unemployment area and, if so, for what reasons?
4.	Does the national employment service Megantic area qualify as a development area and, if not, for what reasons?
5.	Can municipalities in the high winter unemployment areas expect that the federal government will take their 10 per cent share in the winter works program?
6.	Which municipalities in the Compton part of the constituency of Compton-Frontenac are in the high winter unemployment area?
7.	Is the Compton region considered as a development area and, if not, for what reasons did it not qualify?


Mr. MacEachen:: 1. The national employment service area will be designated:
(a) if it has been a labour surplus area for at least half of the summer months of the past eight years and employment growth has been less than half the national average, or (b) if it has been a labour surplus area for at least one third of the summer months of the past eight years and employment has declined over this period, or (c) if it has been a surplus labour area for at least half of the summer months of the past three years and employment has declined in each of these years. On the other hand, an area will not be designated if there has been a steady and considerable decline in unemployment over the past three years, a decline large enough to take the area out of the substantial labour surplus category.
2.	To qualify as an area of high winter unemployment, the average ratio of national employment service registrations to estimated paid workers must have been 25 per cent or more in the three months January, February and March during the years 1961, 1962, and 1963.
3.	Yes. In the Megantic area, national employment service registrations represented more than 25 per cent of the paid workers during the winter months of the past three years, thereby meeting the conditions outlined above.
4.	No. The Megantic national employment service area does not qualify as a designated development area because it has failed to meet the employment criteria.
5.	Municipalities in areas of high winter unemployment will receive higher payroll incentive payments under the municipal winter works incentive program. Municipalities in these areas will receive an additional 10 per cent, or a total of 60 per cent of payroll costs of winter works projects.
6.	All of the Compton part of Compton-Frontenac constituency is in the Sherbrooke local office area. Sherbrooke is not an area of high winter unemployment.
7.	The Compton region is part of the Sherbrooke local office area. Sherbrooke has not been designated a development area because it failed to meet the established employment criteria.



FISH BREEDING STATIONS

Mr. Laiulippe: 1.	Has the Department of Fisheries received any representations or requests with regard to the building of a fish breeding station in Compton-Frontenac constituency?
2.	How many fish breeding stations are there in the eastern townships of the province of Quebec?
3.	What were the expenses incurred by the federal government with regard to fish breeding stations (a) in Canada (b) in the province of Quebec, indicating (i) the cost of each project

(ii) the number of employees at each station and the salary of each (iii) expenses incurred for building and repairs during the past ten years?
4.	What are the rules that govern (a) the choice of a site for a fish breeding station (b) the organization of such an establishment?
5.	What amount was spent on research in fish breeding stations during the past five years (a) in Canada, (b) in Quebec?


Mr. Robichaud:: 1. No. The provincial government operates fish breeding stations in the province of Quebec. Consequently, the following questions are not therefore relevant.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	Answered by No. 1.
4.	Answered by No. 1.
5.	Answered by No. 1.



BUTTER STORAGE, QUEBEC

Mr. Latulippe: 1.	Has the Department of Agriculture received any requests from the constituency of Compton-Frontenac concerning the building of refrigerated warehouses for butter surpluses and, if so (a) from whom (b) on what date?
2.	At October 31, 1963, how many pounds of butter indicating value and carrying charges, were stored in the constituency of (a) Compton-Frontenac (b) Sherbrooke (c) Megantic (d) Beauce?
3.	What individuals or private firms have such warehouses and (a) what is the annual rent (b) since when, in each case (c) has the rent been raised in the past five years and, if so, by how much in each case?


Harry William Hays: 1. No. (a) Not applicable, (b) Not applicable.
2.	(a) and (b) As at October 31, 1963, there were 6,106,384 pounds of butter in storage warehouses in the constituencies of Compton-Frontenac and Sherbrooke, valued at $3,430,632 and storage charges amounted to $11,786.79 per month; (c) and (d) As at October 13, 1963, no butter was stored in the constituencies of Megantic and Beauce.
3.	Societe Cooperative Agricole, Lac Megantic; Metropolitan Storage, Sherbrooke; Eastern Townships Produce Co., Sherbrooke; W. Lowney Company, Sherbrooke; Lansdowne Storage Company, Sherbrooke.
(a) Storage charges are 13 cents per box per month for the first eight months plus handling charges which are included in the first month's storage, and 10 cents per box per month for the ninth and subsequent months; (b) Societe Cooperative Agricole, 1961; Metropolitan Storage, 1963; Eastern Townships Produce Co., 1961; W. Lowney Company, 1963; Lansdowne Storage Company, 1963. (c) No.



REAL ESTATE CREDIT ADVISER, AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT

Mr. Gauthier: Is there an agronomist employed in the Department of Agriculture as a credit adviser authorized to deal in real estate while discharging his departmental duties?
Questions


Harry William Hays: There are no agronomists employed by the Department of Agriculture as credit advisers. The Farm Credit Corporation, however, does employ credit advisers who are not authorized to deal in real estate while discharging their duties for the corporation.



MINING OPERATIONS, COMPTON-FRONTENAC CONSTITUENCY

Mr. Latulippe: 1.	How many mining firms or companies operated in Compton-Frontenac in 1963?
2.	What assistance did the federal government grant each of these companies, and under what program?
3.	What firms or companies hold mining properties in Compton-Frontenac?
4.	What revenue did the federal government receive from those companies during the past three years?


William Moore Benidickson: 1. One.
2.	No direct assistance.
3.	Several companies hold mining property in Compton-Frontenac county, two of which justify comment. Copperstream-Frontenac Mines Limited holds mining rights on a molybdenite property of 2,990 acres in Gay-hurst and Dorset townships in Frontenac county, and has reported reserves of 2 million tons averaging 0.50 per cent MOS2. The Moneta group, financed by Moneta Porcupine Mines Limited, Dome Mines Limited, and Hastings Mining and Development Company Limited holds property in Marston and Clinton townships and has done exploration work on a large low-grade copper deposit.
4.	No information available.



TARIFF PROTECTION ON SUGAR

Mr. Mather: What is the amount of tariff protection enjoyed by Canadian sugar refiners against competition from foreign refined sugar?


Edgar John Benson: The duty on fully refined sugar is $1.09 per cwt. under the British preferential tariff and $1.89 per cwt. under the most favoured nation tariff. The duty on raw sugar depends upon its polariscopic test. On 96 degree raw the rate is 28 cents per cwt. under the British preferential tariff and $1.28 under the most favoured nation tariff. In comparing rates of duty on raw and refined sugar account should be taken of the fact that there is a loss factor of shrinkage of about 7 per cent in converting raw sugar into refined sugar. Moreover it should be kept in mind that in general commonwealth producers take about 85 cents of the $1 per cwt. margin of preference on raw sugar.

Questions



FEDERAL TAX RECEIPTS FROM SASKATCHEWAN

Mr. Watson (Assiniboia): What was the amount of all taxes received from the province of Saskatchewan by the federal government in each of the years 1961 and 1962, and of this, what amount was derived from income tax?


Mr. Garland:: The following are the
amounts collected by the Department of National Revenue in the province of Saskatchewan:
Income Tax*
Fiscal Year	Total Included in Total
1960- 61	$88,940,148	$67,505,1611961- 62	$91,509,591	$71,826,579
includes old age security tax



FEDERAL TAX RECEIPTS FROM QUEBEC

Mr. Watson (Assiniboia): What was the amount of all taxes received from the province of Quebec by the federal government in each of the years 1961 and 1962, and of this, what amount was derived from income tax?
Answer: The following are the amounts collected by the Department of National Revenue in the province of Quebec:
Fiscal Year	Total Included in Total
1960- 61	$1,748,906,370	$860,609,2301961- 62	$1,830,377,564	$910,730,574
*Includes old age security tax



ROADS TO RESOURCES, MANITOBA

Mr. Knowles: 1.	How many roads have been built in northern Manitoba, in whole or in part, under the roads to resources program?
2.	What is the length and description of each such road?
3.	In how many cases were payments made to private mining companies toward the cost of constructing such roads?
4.	What mining companies received such payments and, in each case (a) what figure was submitted to the federal government as the cost of the road (b) how much thereof was paid by the federal government and (c) to whom were such federal government payments made?


Arthur Laing: 1. Three.
2.	Thompson road, approximate mileage 191. New construction commencing at No. 10 highway near Simonhouse, thence to a point on the Wekusko-Snow lake road to the town-site of Thompson; Osborne lake road, approximate mileage 12.2. New construction from a point on the Wekusko-Snow lake road to the Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting Company at Osborne lake; God's lake road, approximate mileage 384.2. New construction from the northern terminus of the Interlake road system near Gypsumville through Grand Rapids to the Thompson road and thence east as far towards God's lake as can be completed.
3.	None.

4.	None. However, the International Nickel Company of Canada has agreed to pay to the province one third of the cost of such portions of the work on the Thompson road as are of direct interest to the company, and the Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting Company has undertaken to pay one third of the total cost of the Osborne lake road, leaving the balance to be divided equally between the federal government and Manitoba.
Under the roads to resources agreement with Manitoba the province is primarily responsible for arrangements with the mining companies concerned. Provincial returns to date do not show the contribution by the International Nickel Company of Canada toward the construction of the Thompson road; they indicate that the Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting Company has contributed $199,065 toward construction of the Osborne lake road.



RADIO AND TELEVISION SERVICE, WABUSH, NFLD.

[Stage Direction]
Question 1,695-Mr. Fisher:
1.	What plans has the C.B.C. for providing radio and/or television service to Wabush, Newfoundland?
2.	What is the population estimate the C.B.C. is using in its plans for service to this area?
3.	Has the C.B.C. any radio and/or television service for any communities in Canada, in hinterland areas, that are smaller in population than Wabush and, if so, what are they, and what is the population in each?
John Whitney Pickersgill: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows:
1.	Applications have been submitted to the Department of Transport for authority to establish two low power radio stations, one at Wabush and the other at Labrador city. There are no immediate plans for television.
2.	Estimated at 5,000 within the combined coverage area proposed for the two low power transmitters referred to in part 1.
3.	Yes in radio but not in television. The corporation has more than 100 low power radio transmitters in operation now and eleven more have been authorized but are not yet in operation. Many of these are or will be serving communities with smaller population than that estimated for Wabush/Labrador city area. Some of these are:
Place	Population (estimated)
Latchford, Ontario	1,500
White River, Ontario	900
Foleyet, Ontario	800
Beardmore, Ontario	1,800
Nakina, Ontario	1,300
Cassiar, B.C.	600
Clinton, B.C.	1,300
Fort Nelson, B.C.	1,800
Fort St. James, B.C.	1,500
Houston, B.C.	1,600

Place
Population
(estimated)
Lytton, B.C.	1,500
Holberg, B.C.	1,200
Dawson, Y.T.	900
Elsa, Y.T.	600
Watson Lake, Y.T.	600
Fort Smith, N.W.T.	1,800
Hay River, N.W.T.	1,400



FRENCH COPIES OF TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT BOOKLET

Mr. Fisher: 1.	Was a booklet "Department of Transport Directory" and in the blue section a "list of officers of boards, commissions and corporations reporting to the minister", dated at Ottawa, June 1963, printed in French?
2.	Were 1,500 copies of these booklets printed in French, the same as in English or, if not, how many were printed?
3.	Of the 1,500 or so copies printed, how many were distributed as at October 1, 1963?
4.	What was the cost of the booklets printed in French?
5.	What disposition will be made of the remaining booklets printed in French which were not distributed by October 1, 1963?
6.	Will another issue of this directory be published in French?
7.	Who are the members of the departmental publications committee and for what reason did they consider the publication of this booklet in French necessary?
8.	Was economy taken into consideration?
Motions for Papers


Allan Joseph MacEachen: 1. Yes. Recipients are
selected by provincial government and university selection committees.
2. Information is not available.



BRAS D'OR ILLUSTRATION STATION

Mr. Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria): Has the contract for the Bras d'Or illustration station expired and, if so, will it be renewed, and for what period of time?


Harry William Hays: No, the contract for the Bras d'Or illustration station has not expired.



BUREAU OF STATISTICS FIGURES ON MERCHANDISING VOLUME

Mr. Mather: Do dominion bureau of statistics figures indicating increases in merchandising volume, such as in department store sales, take into account the increased prices of goods sold?
Answer: The dominion bureau of statistics retail sales series represents the value of merchandise sold.



ROYAL CANADIAN NAVY


Mr. Fisher: How many (a) admirals (b) commodores (c) captains (d) commanders, and (e) lieutenant commanders are at present in the Royal Canadian Navy?


George James McIlraith: 1. No. As pointed out in the answer made on November 6, 1963, to parts 5 and 6 of question No. 1,452 the booklet is not for the purpose of providing information in narrative form but is simply a listing of names, residences and telephone numbers of personnel.
2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. Not applicable.
7.	At the time the booklet was published the committee comprised the senior assistant deputy minister, director of administration and personnel, chief of office services.
8.	Not applicable.



EXTENSION OF HARBOUR FACILITIES, NOEL, N.S.

Mr. Kennedy: Has the government any intention of extending the harbour facilities at Noel, Nova Scotia, so as to accommodate ocean-going vessels for movement of pulpwood, etc?


Hubert Badanai: Not at the present time.
Answer: (a) Vice admiral, 1; rear admirals, 8; (b) commodores, 23; (c) captains, 69; (d) commanders, 239; (e) lieutenant commanders, 849.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if I might be permitted to say a word at this moment. I have had consultations through the usual channels, arid I believe that in order to assist the government, because so many ministers are not able to be here at this time today on account of the federal-provincial conference, it would meet with the wishes of the house if Your Honour were to call only motion No. 169, which the government is willing to accept without any discussion. It would be a service to the government which would be greatly appreciated if the other motions could stand until next week.



SCHOLARSHIPS TO CHILDREN OF OVERSEAS SERVICE PERSONNEL

Mr. Matheson: 1.	Are the children of overseas service personnel eligible for dominion-provincial scholarships and, if so, how are they selected from the graduates of Department of National Defence schools in Europe?
2.	How many such scholarships have been awarded to Department of National Defence school graduates in each of the past five years?
28902-5-328


Mr. Speaker:: I take it the house agrees with the suggestion made by the Secretary of State.


Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: I notice that the Postmaster General is in the house, and since motion No. 152 has to do with his department I wonder whether he would be prepared to make a reply today, or has the agreement been on an over-all basis?

Inquiries of the Ministry


John Whitney Pickersgill: It was an over-all agreement.



TELEGRAM FROM B.C. FISHERIES ASSOCIATION

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 169-Mr. Howard:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of the telegram received from the fisheries association of B.C. which was referred to and quoted in part by the Minister of Fisheries at page 2945 of the House of Commons Debates for August 2, 1963.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: I should like to ask the Acting Prime Minister a question regarding the briefs which have been presented to the dominion-provincial conference, particularly that presented by the premier of Quebec. In view of the fact that the hon. gentleman is a member from that province, can he say whether it is the intention of the government to capitulate to this ultimatum as has been the case in the past?


Lionel Chevrier: I am somewhat surprised at the language used in the last part of the right hon. gentleman's question.


An hon. Member:: Answer the question.


Lionel Chevrier: If hon. members will allow me, I will do my best to answer it. In the next place I should like to say that there is nothing either in the statement made by the premier of the province of Quebec or in the statement I listened to this morning that is in the nature of an ultimatum. Finally I should like to say that all these matters, not only the brief prepared and submitted by the premier of the province of Quebec but those prepared and submitted by all the provinces, will, as stated by the Prime Minister this morning and yesterday, be considered carefully, sympathetically and fairly to all provinces.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, so far as the last observation is concerned, that the consideration will be fair to all provinces, that is what is expected by everyone in this house. I ask the minister, though, whether an opportunity will be given to the house to debate this question at an early date.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, the briefs were tabled by me earlier today. They will be submitted to hon. members just as soon as the secretariat has word that they should be, which will be this afternoon. In so far as the matter of debate is concerned, I think that is

something that will have to be left to the discretion of the Prime Minister when he returns.


Erik Nielsen: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the federal-provincial conference is under way, I wonder whether the Acting Prime Minister could tell me who is representing Yukon and the Northwest Territories at that conference?


Lionel Chevrier: That question has been asked on several occasions and the Prime Minister said he would look into it, but I must say that there is no official representation from the Northwest Territories or Yukon.



On the orders of the day:


Mr. Georges Valade (St. Mary):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. Can he tell the house if it is true that, at the request of Ottawa, the province of Quebec has agreed to withdraw from the pension plan for the blind and the disabled in return for tax concessions?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, since the question of joint programs is now being studied by the federal-provincial conference, I feel it would be out of order for me to make a statement in that respect.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Acting Prime Minister a supplementary question. Without knowing the decision taken, can he tell us if such a suggestion was discussed at this morning's meeting?


Lionel Chevrier: I think the hon. member should be satisfied with the statements made a while ago. With regard to the statements made this morning, I am not in a position to say what happened at that meeting.



REPORTED EXCLUSION OF OUTSIDE PRESS PHOTOGRAPHERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heward Graffley (Brome-Missisquoi):: I should like to address a short question to the Acting Prime Minister. Has the government received written protests from 17 press photographers complaining of their exclusion from an opportunity to take photographs for their newspapers at the federal-provincial conference, while at the same time an official government photographer was provided with full facilities? Can the Acting Prime Minister give reasons for such exclusion?


Lionel Chevrier: Well, Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of any such difficulty that has arisen. I was present this morning when a photograph was taken of those who were there, so I would not think there was any difficulty in that respect. However, in view of the hon. member's question, I shall be glad to look into it.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, with further reference to a question asked a little earlier, I would like to ask the Acting Prime Minister whether it is the attitude of the government or the decision of the government that the national film board should be a monopoly agency in so far as these photographs are concerned to which reference has been made, at the dominion-provincial conference, and also whether it is the view of the government that the right of competition from free agencies should be denied.


Lionel Chevrier: Well, Mr. Speaker, in answer to the question put by the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi I indicated that I was not familiar with the circumstances as he outlined them from the memorandum he had before him. When I said that a picture was taken, I was referring to the usual picture that is taken of the Prime Minister and the premiers of the provinces. That was taken shortly before I left at noon. So far as the rest of the question is concerned, I am afraid I shall have to inquire into the position to ascertain what it is.


John George Diefenbaker: It seems completely inexcusable.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Could he tell the house if his department has any information as to whether the confession of Ronald Lippert, a copy of which I hold in my hand, was secured under duress or under promise of clemency? Has this matter been looked into by his department or by his officials in Havana?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, this matter has been looked into by the Department of External Affairs.
While I am on my feet may I deal with questions that were asked of me yesterday by several hon. members. At no time has it been suggested or charged, before or during 28902-5-328J
Inquiries of the Ministry the trial itself, that the explosives were of Canadian origin. Neither is there any evidence that they had been brought into Cuba from Canada.
The hon. member for Kootenay West asked me a question concerning the visit to my office on August 21 of Mr. William J. Garfat and Leonard Rosenberg. These gentlemen came to see me, and discussed a project for the export of food parcels from Canada to Cuba. This proposal for a commercial food parcels scheme is completely distinct from the alleged smuggling of explosives in food tins from Miami by one of the accused, in connection with a flight said to have been made for the purpose of obtaining some aircraft engines.
The Department of External Affairs sent Mr. Garfat a letter dated September 11 saying that we were of the opinion, after looking into the food parcels proposal, that it did not appear to be feasible. In the letter it was pointed out that the United States Cuban assets control regulations would not permit the transfer of funds to Canada by Cuban refugees in the United States for the purchase of food packages in Canada.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The minister has told us that his department has looked into the question of the alleged confession. Could I ask the minister what his officials have found as a result of their investigation?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, the appeal has been lodged, and I prefer to say nothing which in my judgment might in some way prejudice that appeal.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Could I ask the minister if the Canadian ambassador in Havana has seen the prisoner or the other accused, Mr. Milne, who was acquitted? Has the ambassador himself seen either of them?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, the ambassador or the vice consul, who himself happens to have legal training, saw both prisoners prior to the trial on at least three occasions, I believe. The individual who has been found not guilty is expected to be leaving Havana momentarily.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister consider having this individual appear before the external affairs committee when it sits, to give his side of the story?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I should think that at this particular moment we would all want to express ourselves in a manner that would not prejudice the due process of law currently under way.


S158 HOUSE OF COMMONS
[Stage Direction]
Inquiries of the Ministry
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. A few moments ago he said that the Canadian ambassador in Cuba, and I believe the vice consul, had interviewed the two Canadians held in custody there. I am asking the minister if he would undertake to check the accuracy of that statement. I am told by those who have recently been in Havana that the only person from the Canadian embassy who visited either Milne or Lippert was Mr. Warren, the third secretary, and they had no conversations with any persons or personal interviews with anyone other than the third secretary, who has had only one year's experience in the overseas service.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I will be glad to look into my hon. friend's earlier question and my responses thereto, but I would be greatly surprised if I were in error.


TABLING OF CORRESPONDENCE RESPECTING
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Jack Davis (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, November 20, 1963, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) asked the Prime Minister if there had been any correspondence between the government and the Canadian Jewish Congress on the subject of anti-Semitism in the Soviet union. The Prime Minister replied he understood there was some correspondence, and I now wish to table it.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State. Has the Secretary of State been able to determine whether the Atlantic development board has the Chignecto complex under study and, if so, can he report to the house on their progress in this regard?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, if I heard the hon. gentleman correctly his question concerned the Chignecto complex. If so, the answer is that the government has approved in principle a proposal for an exploratory study, and the board is at present engaged in seeking the most competent persons to do it.



NORTH SYDNEY-NEWFOUNDLAND  MAINLAND FERRY TERMINAL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breion North and Victoria):: I should like to ask the Minister of Transport what reply he has given to a communication he has received from the Sydney board of trade in reference to the mainland terminal of the ferry running to Argentia, Newfoundland. I refer particularly to the final paragraph of the letter, which reads:
We of the Sydney board, feel it is only natural that North Sydney should be this terminus, and wonder if the latest press releases are in error?


George James McIlraith: It is rather difficult, when one signs so many letters, to recall a particular one without notice. My recollection is that I told them their representations would be borne in mind when this matter was considered. I appreciate very much the importance of a decision like this to each community that aspires to have the terminal in its locality.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. E. Cardiff (Huron):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Acting Prime Minister to tell the house when we can expect to have a full time minister of agriculture. Last week he was away two days, and this week he has not been here at all. I think the house is entitled to know if we are going to have a full time minister.
Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Aciing Prime
Minister): I should like to answer that question by saying that following a question by an hon. member yesterday in connection with a statement alleged to have been made by the Minister of Agriculture I communicated with his office, and learned that unfortunately he is ill and that is the reason he is not in the house.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the Acting Prime Minister whether the Minister of Agriculture is now attending the federal-provincial conference or an auction sale?
[Textl


Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a question supplementary to that of the hon. member for Huron.

I should like to ask the Acting Prime Minister who is representing the federal government at the federal-provincial conference, since the question of marketing boards apparently has been discussed there.


Lionel Chevrier: I am glad to answer that. It is the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Tremblay).


Mr. Charles Lamb (Victoria, Oni.):: As I
have been an auctioneer for over 40 years, I should like to offer my services to the Minister of Agriculture so that he can spend more time in the House of Commons.



COLUMBIA RIVER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs a question based on the Columbia. It is a current and very interesting issue. Can the right to divert water from the Columbia for consumptive purposes be assigned for multipurpose projects under the terms of the proposed treaty?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. May I suggest that this is really a question for the order paper, as it requires a little research.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, a number of publishers and newspapermen are anxious to hear the answer to this question.




[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. O. Cooper (Roseiown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs regarding the Columbia river project. As a member representing a lot of people interested in water, and therefore directly concerned, and in view of the Prime Minister's promise in writing that a Liberal government-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Please come to the point of your question.


Clarence Owen Cooper: Will the Secretary of State for External Affairs refer the treaty, before it is signed, to the external affairs committee in order that the people directly concerned will be consulted prior to any decisions being made?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, the government has clearly indicated that if an agreement is concluded between the United States
Inquiries of the Ministry and Canada, the government will unhesitatingly announce its policy and submit the treaty-after the government has taken the position which constitutionally it should and must take-to the committee which, under those circumstances, would have an opportunity for the widest possible examination.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: As
a supplementary question, in view of the Prime Minister's promise in writing to numerous organizations that the government would not renegotiate the treaty and no decision would be arrived at until the people directly concerned were consulted, does the minister think the promise of the Prime Minister is being kept in this respect?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, the promise of the Prime Minister is being kept in this as in all other respects.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Acting Prime Minister a question?
Does the minister intend to ask for an investigation of the C.B.C. which interferes with the freedom of expression by cutting out one character from the T.V. serial "De neuf a cinq" following a petition signed by the authors association?


Lionel Chevrier: I shall consider this question as notice.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Public Works. I direct the minister's attention to question 1,237 on the order paper, which was placed there on October 4, some 54 days ago. Does the minister intend to have his department reply to that question before the expiration of 60 days next Tuesday?


Hon. J. P. Deschatelels (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I am going to look into this matter, and as soon as possible an answer will be provided the hon. member.

Inquiries of the Ministry HEALTH AND WELFARE



CONFERENCE ON SMOKING AND CANCER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe East):: In the
absence of the Minister of National Health and Welfare I should like to address a question to her parliamentary assistant. Yesterday, in reply to a question, the minister stated that all matters before the national conference on smoking were finally referred to a working group. In view of the great interest of the members of this house in this subject, may I ask if it is the intention of the minister to report to parliament as findings are made and conclusions reached by this group.


Mr. Stanley Haidasz (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: I shall be glad to bring this question to the attention of the minister upon her return.


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: May I ask a
supplementary question. Can the parliamentary secretary say whether it is the intention of this department to do any research on this matter of the cancer-producing elements in tobacco, with a view to trying to find out (a) what they are and (b) removing them?


Stanley Haidasz: I shall be glad to bring this to the attention of the minister also.



TORONTO


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reid Scoff (Danforth):: I wanted to ask a question of the Minister of National Health and Welfare, but in her absence I shall direct it to her parliamentary secretary. Has the government received a communication from the chairman of metropolitan Toronto pointing out that urgently needed new hospital construction cannot proceed on the basis of the present grant? If so, what plans does the government have in mind for increasing the grant in order to assist metropolitan Toronto and relieve this critical hospital shortage?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This is a question for the order paper.



TRANS-CANADA AIR LINES USE OF WORDS &quot;AIR CANADA&quot; ON NEW PLANES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Beaule (Quebec East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Transport.

Could the minister assure us that the words "Air Canada" will appear on the DC-9 aircraft which are to be built?
[Text1


George James McIlraith: I cannot assure the hon. member as to the painting of the aircraft.


Jean Robert Beaulé: Could I ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker? How is it that the Minister of Trade and Commerce nods his head?



WINNIPEG MAINTENANCE BASE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, a question was asked of the Minister of Transport regarding the T.C.A. maintenance base in Winnipeg. The minister stated he would look into the statement purportedly made by the president of T.C.A., Mr. McGregor, who is quoted in the Globe and Mail of last Saturday as follows:
"If the Winnipeg base is worth that ($19,800,000) then Mr. Pearson is the man to decide," Mr. McGregor said. "I'm not pleased with any decision that has the effect of increasing T.C.A.'s costs,"
I wonder if the minister has been able to get a statement from Mr. McGregor. I know that the government of Manitoba, which intends to bring a delegation to Ottawa about this matter, is very interested in getting all the facts. If that is the cost, I think the government of Manitoba is entitled to know on what these figures are based.


George James McIlraith: I was unable to hear the first part of the hon. member's statement because of some disturbance in the house. As to the latter part of his statement, I have no comment to make at this time.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the Minister of Transport heard my question earlier, and I would like to rephrase it slightly. Can he bring to the house an explanation about the difference between the figure used by Mr. McGregor of $19,800,000 for keeping the T.C.A. repair base at Winnipeg, and the figures used previously by the government on other occasions? Can he do that shortly, or does he suggest that we wait until Mr. McGregor appears before the appropriate committee, at which time he will certainly be subjected to long and intensive questioning?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I am not quite clear as to the difference in figures to which the hon. member refers. It is not possible for

me to say what a committee will or will not do, but I would expect that in the normal case the president of Trans-Canada Air Lines would be before the committee in a few days, and it seems to me that this question might be more appropriately dealt with at that time.



OATS AND BARLEY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce; possibly he will not be able to answer it now but would rather take it as notice. It has to do with the export possibilities respecting oats and barley. There was a statement made the other day, as the minister knows, by one of the commissioners of the wheat board to the effect that the situation in so far as these two farm commodities are concerned is not favourable for export. Would the minister be prepared to make a general statement in this connection so that the farmers affected in all parts of our country will have the views of the minister in this regard?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Certainly, Mr. Speaker. I am happy that the right hon. gentleman values my views so much.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask a supplementary question of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Does he intend to make a statement at this session of parliament regarding the government's intention concerning the two-price system for wheat?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker, it had not been my intention to make any such statement.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask a supplementary question. Are we to take it from this that the government has dropped this as an integral part of its program?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker. I answered the question the hon. gentleman asked me, and I said it was not my intention to make a statement at the present time.



AMOUNT RECEIVED BY BOARD FROM SALE TO RUSSIA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Raymond Langlois (Megantic):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Considering that in
Inquiries of the Ministry last week's sale to Russia the figure of approximately 500 million was mentioned, was that the price received by the Canadian wheat board in that series of wheat transactions?
Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade and
Commerce): Mr. Speaker, that was an approximation. As I recall, it was the price to be paid by the Soviet union for the wheat on board ship in Canadian ports.


Raymond Langlois: As a supplementary question, that was the price paid by Russia, but was that the price received by the Canadian wheat board?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, this is a very technical question. I see no urgency in it, but if the hon. gentleman would like an answer in detail I think he should put the question on the order paper.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: have a question I should like to direct to the Minister of Fisheries, and it has to do with the upcoming federal-provincial fisheries conference which will be held in a month or two. I understand that the fisheries council of Canada, that is the operators, have been invited to make representations to this conference. My question is, will the minister request the labour and co-operative groups of the industry to make similar representations?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: To my knowledge no official invitation to the fisheries council of Canada to express its views at the forthcoming fisheries conference, which will be held here during the week of January 20, 1964, was extended. However, when inquiring about this possibility they were informed that they would be permitted to present their views on the opening day of the conference. Similar information was given verbally, on October 29, to the fishermen's and allied workers union of British Columbia, and a similar reply is being forwarded to the Ontario council of commercial fisheries, which wrote recently asking if they could be allowed to present their views.
I wish to make it clear that any labour or co-operative group interested in the fishing industry which will express its wish to give its views to the conference will be afforded a similar opportunity.

Inquiries of the Ministry REDISTRIBUTION



POSSIBLE INCREASE IN HOUSE MEMBERSHIP BEFORE COMMISSION ESTABLISHED

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. P. Antoine Belanger (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State.
Could he inform the house whether the government intends to introduce, during this session, legislation to amend the British North America Act in order to increase the number of federal members, and that, even before the proposed commission now under consideration has made a start?
[Text 1


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I notice the question of the possible amendment of section 59 of the British North America Act, for the purpose the hon. gentleman suggests, has been discussed a great deal in the press. The government at the present time has no intention of making any such recommendation; but as I indicated yesterday in the debate on the subject of redistribution, this is a matter about which members of the house will probably wish to make representations, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre did. I am sure the most careful consideration will be given by the whole house and by the government to any such representations.



WORLD FAIR


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. Could he tell the house if the federal government intends to pay part of the building costs for a second combined bridge-tunnel which would connect both shores of the St. Lawrence river, and cut through lie Verte? That project, conceived in view of the world fair, has been announced by the minister of municipal affairs of the province of Quebec.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Speaker, this plan has been conceived by the world fair authorities, but the federal government has not received, as yet, any plans or specifications.



REPORTED STATEMENT BY MEMBER FOR RED DEER RESPECTING POSTMASTER GENERAL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Postmaster General. I wonder whether his attention has been drawn to a news dispatch of the Edmonton Journal of late last week which states as follows:
National Social Credit leader Robert Thompson has charged that Canada's Postmaster General was lying to parliament, comparing the action with the John Profumo affair.
This article is referring to certain discussions that took place in this house. I am asking, Mr. Speaker, whether the attention of the Postmaster General has been drawn to this very serious charge.


Hon. Azellus Denis (Postmaster General):: No, Mr. Speaker, I have not seen the article in question. I shall read it and, if need be, take whatever steps are necessary.



REDISTRIBUTION


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, November 26, consideration in committee of the following resolution-Mr. Pickersgill-Mr. Lamoureux in the chair:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure respecting the office of representation commissioner and to define the duties of the commissioner under the said measure, in addition to those assigned to him under the Canada Elections Act and under a measure to provide for the establishment of electoral boundaries commissions to report upon the readjustment of the representation of the provinces in the House of Commons and to provide for the readjustment of such representation in accordance therewith; to provide for the salary and expenses of the commissioner; to provide for the appointment of a substitute commissioner and for the payment of his salary and expenses; to authorize the commissioner to appoint such officers and employees as are necessary for the conduct of his office and to engage on a temporary basis persons having technical or specialized knowledge of matters relating to the work of the commissioner; to increase the salary of the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada and to effect certain other changes in the Canada Elections Act consequential upon the said measure; and to provide for the payment out of the consolidated revenue fund under the authority of the said measure of all amounts required for the payment of salary and other expenses under the said measure and under the measure to provide for the establishment of electoral boundaries commissions, including expenses of administration thereunder.
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) is reported on page 5131 of Hansard as saying the following during the debate on this resolution, yesterday afternoon:

My hon. friend from Villeneuve is interjecting. I happened to notice his name in one of these Hansard volumes, when he was here before as the hon. member for Pontiac, and I find that on one occasion he too voted against redistribution by an independent commission.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to set the record straight. I have before me the official report of the debates of the House of Commons for February 24, 1947, and on page 697 I find the amendment introduced at that time by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. I quote:
This bill be not now read a second time but it be resolved that in the opinion of this house the readjustment of the representation in the House of Commons should be referred to an independent commission to be appointed for that purpose.
As reported on the next page, I stated then:
As for the amendment of the hon. member who spoke before me (Mr. Knowles), I grant him the right to his own views. Once again I repeat that I do not, in the least, fear the manner in which the government, or the committee which is to be appointed, will proceed to the redistribution of electoral constituencies.
However, the hon. members whose constituencies will be affected should be invited to state their case. I imagine the committee will invite ail those concerned, those hon. members to come and see how that committee works, how redistribution is done in their respective constituencies.
This is what was going on in 1947. Well, the vote was taken on February 24-page 737-and contrary to what he was saying yesterday afternoon, my name does not appear among the hon. members who voted. 1 did not vote either for or against it, but I took position anyway in regard to the way the government was behaving then.


Mr. Knowles:: Mr. Chairman, very briefly on this question of privilege may I apologize to the hon. member for making a statement yesterday which technically was inaccurate. He interrupted when I was speaking, as hon. members will recall, and from memory I recalled the debate in 1947. I should not have said that he voted against my amendment because, as he has now pointed out, he did not vote at all on the amendment. What was in my mind was that the members of his party had voted against it and that he, by the remarks he had made, had in effect spoken against my proposal for an independent commission. I apologize to him. If I had said he had spoken against it, rather than that he voted against it, I would not have been in error.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to traverse what has been said by hon. members who have participated in this debate prior to this afternoon. We have heard mem-28902-5-329
Redistribution Commission bers of very long experience in this house, particularly the right hon. Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, speak on this matter. I put myself in the category of rather approaching middling years in this house, and I think all hon. members will agree that, regardless of the length of time they have served in the house, as one goes along in years of service here he forms a greater admiration for our parliamentary system. With all its imperfections, one develops a greater and greater affection and respect for this house, notwithstanding some of the things that may be said elsewhere, many times without too much knowledge.
Be that as it may, Mr. Chairman, we do face a problem as regards redistribution. I will not go into the details of that problem, as to the differentiation between an urban voter and a rural voter, the great disparities between some electoral divisions, some protected by a statutory floor provided in the constitution as against those rather large and, as I believe the hon. member for Carleton is wont to use the term, suburban constituencies that keep growing and growing and growing. I represent such a constituency, and many times people have said to me, "How is it that it requires five, six or seven persons to equal the representation given to a much smaller riding in the eastern provinces?" This includes the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, and of course those in the maritimes, which it is understood are covered by a statutory floor. We do have these rather grave disparities.
The right hon. Leader of the Opposition made reference yesterday to a certain province where he thought the population of two cities, unidentified by him, represented half the population of that province, and yet they had less than a quarter of the seats in the provincial house. This happens to be the province of Alberta, and I know that in so far as the cities of Edmonton and Calgary are concerned, it is very clear that they are very much under-represented in the provincial house. I would be interested to know just what proportion hon. members of the Social Credit party think would be the proper balance as between urban and rural voters.
However, one thing does puzzle me, and that is the nature of the resolution that is before us. I have seen some omnibus resolutions in the past, but this must come close to being the champion of them all. I do not know how many bills the Secretary of State intends to bring forward in connection with this resolution, but it does speak of at least two measures, and therefore I assume there will be at least two bills. If I read correctly his remarks of yesterday in concluding his speech, the Secretary of State did refer to "bills".

Redistribution Commission


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I could clear this up and save the time of the hon. gentleman and the committee. There is one bill that depends on this resolution. That bill will provide not only lor the payment of the representation commissioner but also for the expenses of any boundary commissions or commission which may be set up. That will all be done, and there is a department or agency for this purpose. There is another bill, of which there is notice on the order paper which, because the expenditures are all being made in connection with the first bill, I was advised did not require a resolution. They were the two bills I referred to; but there is only the one bill depending on this resolution. That bill also makes one or two consequential amendments under the Canada Elections Act.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for clearing up that point, but I am wondering about the wording. Let us go to the nature of the resolution. The first portion says:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure respecting the office of representation commissioner and to define the duties of the commissioner under the said measure-
That is clear, and I think it is the main purport of this resolution. Then there are consequential provisions to provide for the payment of salaries for the commissioners and those persons whom they require to assist them. That too is quite clear. It says:
-and to define the duties of the commissioner under the said measure, in addition to those assigned to him

that is the representation commissioner-
-under the Canada Elections Act-
Now, that must mean under the Canada Elections Act as amended, because I have perused the Canada Elections Act and I must say, subject to correction by someone better informed than I, that the words "representation commissioner" do not appear in that act. I think there is a little looseness in wordage here which will have to be cleared up in due course; perhaps the Secretary of State will make note of these matters for his explanations in due course, so that they may be coherent and in sequence. Then, third, it continues:
-and under a measure to provide for the establishment of electoral boundaries commissions to report upon the readjustment of the representation of the provinces in the House of Commons and to provide for the readjustment of such representation in accordance therewith-
That is all relating to the representation commission. The next few lines of the resolution are all consequential and are quite clear; but when I come to the seventh last line I find some difficulty in understanding. Although we

are dealing with a measure concerning a representation commission and what is to follow therefrom, we have a completely extraneous thought introduced, namely:
-to increase the salary of the chief electoral officer of Canada-
-and now we come to an amendment of the Canada Elections Act-
-and to effect certain other changes in the Canada Elections Act consequential upon the said measure-
I ask, what measure? There have been two measures before us already, so therefore I think we need some technical explanation and clarification.
I have perused the remarks of the Secretary of State made yesterday afternoon, but I think that before this committee is asked to adopt the present resolution the appropriate changes in the Canada Elections Act should be indicated. Otherwise I put it to the Secretary of State that he is asking us to buy a grab bag-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Might I just ask the hon. member a question. He was a former presiding officer of the house and, if I recollect some of his rulings he ruled that the adoption of a resolution only gave the government permission to introduce a bill, and did not approve a bill. I suggest that all this resolution is asking for is this: It is saying that it is expedient to introduce a measure on which this house would exercise its judgment when it saw precisely what it was going to exercise its judgment upon. If that is not a correct interpretation of this resolution perhaps the hon. gentleman-


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: So far as the argument the Secretary of State now wishes to make in the form of a question is concerned, namely that he is asking the committee to approve a resolution referring to certain changes to a certain act, I think we should be taken into the confidence of the Secretary of State in the matter.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would love to. I thought I had done that in the remarks I made yesterday.


Mr. Lamberi:: I do not believe that is so, and I think we should have this information. But be that as it may, so far as the resolution is concerned. I will be interested to see just how the bills are drafted and what they will provide.
Let us now turn to the main portion or purpose of this resolution, which is the question of the representation commissioner and the commissions. The Secretary of State did indicate that there were alternatives which had been opened, and I think he was very fair, almost beguilingly fair, in his approach to

the whole problem which is before us, namely whether there should be one commission, four commissions, or ten commissions. He indicated that if there were one commission of unspecified number it would take until 1968 before the report of that commission could be formulated and acted upon, and an election held in consequence. I should like to know the reasons which led to the decision or conclusion that it would take five years before that commission could sit, make its report, have it adopted and the electoral machinery put into operation as a consequence of the changes made.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. gentleman appreciates that that was not my view. I was merely giving the view of the chief electoral officer.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Perhaps the Secretary of State has been taken into the confidence of the chief electoral officer and given those reasons. Personally I have some reservation about ten commissions. Notwithstanding the fact that there is a formula for the representation commissioner of Canada to be an ex officio member of each of the provincial commissions, I would think that there would be the likelihood of a difference in interpretation of the criteria or extenuating circumstances permitting the commission to deviate from the norm. It is for that reason that I feel it is quite important that we have consistency in this regard; I think we should and must have it.
Let us assume for argument's sake that they are permitted to depart from the quota to the extent of 25 per cent. In one province they may interpret that as being 23 per cent, but in another province only 18 per cent, because it is permissive up to 25 per cent, and they would try to be as far away from the 25 per cent in certain cases as possible. I am wondering whether among the factors which will be considered by the proposed representation commissions there will be such contingencies as those which apply in Australia-the community or diversity of interest, means of communication, physical features, existing constituency boundaries and provincial electoral boundaries, etc. These are all matters which must be considered. Then there are historical boundaries, which must also be taken into account.
I have yet to be persuaded by the Secretary of State that ten commissions would be preferable to one. If it is felt that one commission would take too long in reaching its decision, why not appoint a larger commission which could be subdivided into committees dealing with specific areas? All those concerned could then work together to produce a final report. I feel this would be preferable to having ten independent commissions related through the person of the 2S902-5-329J
Redistribution Commission representation commissioner. We all feel, perhaps, in the shadow of the excellence of the person who may be designated to fill this post but, being mortal, he cannot be with us forever and his successors may not be as acceptable in their qualifications.
If the government does intend to proceed on the basis of ten provincial commissions, I should like to know with some precision who the persons to be appointed are going to be-not necessarily by name, because it might be invidious or even impossible to include the names in the legislation. But, let us say we have first of all the chief justice of the province. Then someone suggested the president of the university. But some provinces, like Ontario, do not have a state university, neither does Quebec. One might appoint the clerk of the elected assembly. In Australia-and I am subject to correction here-there is a state legislative official who usually sits. So I offer that as a suggestion- that the clerks of the legislative assemblies be included. Such persons as these could be identified by the offices they hold. They are not identified by name. This would dispose of the criticism which could easily be levelled against a formula which provided that one member should be named by the Prime Minister, one by the Leader of the Opposition and a third by agreement-and if there should not be agreement, then by the governor in council. We know this would be likened to packing the court, because there would never be agreement; it would not be in the interest of the government of the day to accept any suggestion made by the Leader of the Opposition. This is why I would prefer to see a completely independent commission.
I would rather see one commission composed of as many judicial officers as possible, because we must wish to remove partisan political bias from this area. If we say we cannot remove political bias from such a body as I have suggested we are accepting the proposition that our judges are politically biased; and I do not think anybody would "buy" that as a general proposition. So I would like to see a judicial commission composed as far as possible of judges, from different parts of the country, named by the government and by the opposition. It would have to sit once in ten years; it might have to sit for a couple of years while its members were, in addition, carrying out their other duties. Let us not say it would be wrong to do this, bearing in mind the number of judges we have and the practice followed by both this and previous administrations of taking judges away from their normal function. Possibly I am prejudiced,

Redistribution Commission being a lawyer, but I think these men are eminently qualified to carry out these special duties.
A suggestion was made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre or by the member from Fraser Valley that the number of members of parliament might be increased. I cannot, myself, accept that suggestion as a way out. I do not think it is necessary to increase the number of members of parliament. To think in these terms implies, I would suggest, a misconception of the role of a member of parliament. I know there is some difference of opinion about this, and I do not intend to enter upon a philosophical discussion at this time, but I believe the prime duty of a member of parliament is to be a legislator, not necessarily an ombudsman for his constituents. True, that in part may have become his function, but let us go back to the fundamental reason for the existence of this chamber and of parliament. Members are here for the purpose of granting and withholding supply and of enacting legislation. They are legislators, first. As I have indicated, I do not believe we should try to deal with the disparity in the size of constituencies by increasing the number of members-not in this country, with a population of 19 million. We know that in the British house there are 600 odd members representing a population of some 50 million. The French national assembly has 500 odd members for a population of roughly the same size.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Ours are not odd, except the hon. member for Port Arthur.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Well, I will make it "500 plus".
There is one final question I would put to the Secretary of State. Would there be provision for an appeal from a decision of the commissioners within a province before a report was made to parliament? Somehow, I think there should be an intermediate step. I feel that if a certain proportion of the members from a province were so minded, if they believed a wrong principle had been applied or that some grave injustice was being done, they should have access to some means of appeal before the matter came to parliament for final determination. I put this forward as a suggestion for consideration. It may be there are more minuses to it than pluses, but I do think it would be better if provision were made for such a review within a province, rather than before parliament where the membership from a province might be lost in the ensemble of the far greater number gathered in this house.
I have referred to a number of questions which bear upon the subject and, in closing, I would only say that I shall be most interested

to see the bills and the provisions they contain. Again, I would address a word of caution to the Secretary of State. I know it is not necessary to disclose in a resolution all the details of the legislation to be contained in the bill which is to follow but, in these circumstances, to ask the committee to accept certain unspecified changes is, surely, asking a great deal. If I am asked to vote for a resolution which includes the words "to effect certain other changes in the Canadian Elections Act" I am obviously at a disadvantage because I do not know what is meant by those words.
He may have a little clause at the end saying that this act is hereby repealed and re-enacted. There are a few other things that could be very dangerous, and if he has failed to disclose them and if we have failed to question him about them I do not think we should accept the resolution in principle until he does so. I hope the hon. gentleman will make these disclosures to the house, because I think we could then look upon the resolution with a little more equanimity than we can at the present time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the hon. member for Edmonton West permit a question? My question relates to the interesting observations he made about the problems connected with increasing the size of the house. I think we all appreciate those observations and accept the fact that there is a problem. However, has the hon. member any suggestion to make as to how we might cope with the situation that would develop if some provinces were called upon to lose seats, not having the protection of a senatorial floor that other provinces have? I ask this question in the same good faith in which he made his observations. Does he have any suggestion to make to cope with this problem?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I agree that this does present a sort of public relations problem but, be that as it may, is there an accepted principle of a vested interest by a province in a specified number of members in the house? We know the historical reasons-


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is evident the hon. gentleman comes from Alberta and not from Saskatchewan.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: That may be, and maybe it is a little easier to be on the side of the haves than the have nots. But we know that certain of the Atlantic provinces have statutory floors. This was a condition of admission into confederation.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We also have a floor, but it is no help to us.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I realize that Manitoba can go down to six and no fewer. But does it

mean any more to say that, instead of reducing the number on this hand we will increase the number proportionately on the other hand? Proportionately one would have to increase the numbers in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec and perhaps in other provinces. Therefore I do not think there is any great difference between a province having 12 members and being reduced to six and its remaining at 12 members while others are increased to 24. Any way you look at it the others still have double the number of members. Why go through all that change to get ourselves into other problems and complexities? I crave the indulgence of the house for having developed arguments more than answering questions, but I have put forward these arguments in support of the principle I enunciated.


The Chairman:: The hon. member for York-Scarborough.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, without my taking the time of the hon. member for York-Scarborough I wonder whether he would permit me a few minutes to clear up one point. I am not going to attempt to reply to the hon. member for Edmonton West now. I think he made a very constructive speech. However, there is one point in the resolution itself that I thought I had explained yesterday , but on looking through Hansard hastily I find I did not. I think I perhaps explained it somewhere else to some of the hon. gentleman's friends. I was pretty frank yesterday about my own views, and I expressed my own view as to who would be the most suitable person to be the representation commissioner.
I am glad to see that my views on this matter seem to have found an echo in all quarters of the house.
We know it is a very difficult task indeed that the chief electoral officer has in that office, and I believe that the feeling is shared on both sides of the house, perhaps in all quarters of the house, that it would be desirable to provide for a transitional period at least and maybe for something more than that when, after the appointment of a new chief electoral officer, the person to be made representation commissioner would have certain functions given to him under the Canada Elections Act of a perhaps somewhat supervisory and appellate character, which would not be envisaged to be of a continuing character necessarily over a long period, but which would provide for a transition.
It is for that reason that, in the proposed bill to set up the office of representation commissioner and to provide for the financing and the administrative machinery, as well as the hiring of the clerks and so on that would be required to assist the boundary commissioners
Redistribution Commission in carrying out their functions, it is suggested that certain consequential amendments should be made to the Canada Elections Act giving the proposed representation commissioner certain functions under the Canada Elections Act, redefining the functions of the chief electoral officer and providing for a salary for each of these officers. The salary, of course, has always been provided by statute and has never been left to the governor in council, for the same reason that judges' salaries are fixed by statute, so that the governor in council, even by the fixing of the salary, could not be said to be seeking to interfere with their complete independence. That is the sum and substance of the reasons why these amendments to the Canada Elections Act are included within the scope of the bill it is proposed to introduce, once this resolution has been passed.
As for the drafting of the resolution, the hon. gentleman is a lawyer and I am only a layman and I do not pretend for one minute that I drafted it. It was drafted by the law officers who are far more competent than I am. If I as a layman were going to draft it I would put "will have been" and tenses of that sort in it. I think it could be drafted even better in French than in English, because there is more precision in the use of French verbs than in our sloppy way of doing things.
To my own knowledge, and I am sure to the knowledge of the hon. member for Edmonton West, the draftsmen have drafted a great many resolutions and I am sure they have taken these matters into account, but I will bring his observations on grammar, syntax and style to the attention of the draftsmen and if any changes should be made we will seek to make them. But I did want to clear up this one point of fact as much as I could, because the house is entitled to know about it and I am seeking to be completely frank.


Mr. Moresu:: Mr. Chairman, it is not my intention to delay the committee very long, in view of what I consider to be the extreme urgency of this legislation. There seems to be general acceptance of the principle of redistribution, and the fact that we should have an independent commission do the job. There also seems to be general acceptance of the statement by the Secretary of State that the whole house has a responsibility to get on with the job, and I did not perceive any contrary views in listening to the lead-off speakers for the parties on the other side of the house. I am sure this unanimity will not always exist when we are considering the specifics of the legislation, but if we are determined to proceed to get the job done I

Redistribution Commission am sure we can work out an acceptable, fair and equitable solution to the whole problem.
It seems to me that we must face up to the fact that the house no longer reflects the make-up of our nation through its elected representatives. The shift in population from rural to urban, which has accelerated very rapidly in recent years, has resulted in very serious inequities in representation in the house. These inequities are well known, and it is not my intention to dwell upon them at length. However, it might be useful to make a few comparisons by way of example of what really has happened since 1952. I am going to compare the rural and urban situations, rather than getting into other complicated factors such as constitutional guarantees and so on. In fact, I intend to stick within my own province of Ontario to indicate how the situation has got quite out of hand.
The constituency of Grey-Bruce has a population of approximately 36,000 people, and they elect one member to this house. On the other hand, the constituency of York-Scarborough, which I have the honour to represent, had a population according to the 1961 census of 267,000 people. Now, this is a ratio of one to seven. Surely, the first consideration of responsible government is representation by population. I am equally certain, Mr. Chairman, that a man with the capabilities of the hon. member for Grey-Bruce is capable of looking after twice as many people. I am sure, for that reason, we will probably not hear very much objection from him.
When I was coming into the chamber, someone told me that there was a total of
280,000	farmers in the whole of western Canada. The population of my constituency has increased since 1961 and I now have more people than the total number of farmers in western Canada. I hasten to add that I realize I am comparing nuts and bolts, or something to that effect, and I do not expect my remarks to be taken too seriously.


Mr. Fane:: Nobody will.


Maurice John Moreau: Much has been made in the debate so far about the difficulties of campaigning in large rural or sparsely populated ridings. I can assure hon. members that the difficulties of organizing a campaign in a riding like York-Scarborough, which in the last election had 643 polls, are equally great. I can assure hon. members also that the difficulties of serving such a populous riding after being elected are literally impossible.
The Leader of the Opposition indicated yesterday that he favoured a one third


tolerance from the average representation per constituency, and he went on to point out the difficulty of communicating with constituents in a very large riding. As the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has said, the difficulties envisaged at the time of confederation in connection with this question have been dissipated by the improved channels of communication and methods of travel. However, I think we have to recognize the special situation of those far northern constituencies such as Churchill, Saguenay and so on. Mr. Castonguay has reported to us that in Australia they make a 20 per cent tolerance work very well indeed, in spite of the fact that the differences in population density in that country are similar to our own, where the development is largely a ribbon development along the sea coast, with vast stretches in the interior that are sparsely populated. The situation in Canada, therefore, is not so different from that in Australia.
In spite of the fact that I represent an urban riding not too far from Ottawa, I find that because of parliamentary duties, the hours of sitting and so on, my constituents must, for the most part, communicate with me by mail. Indeed, a great number of them have complained already that I am never available in my riding. I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that since the members must be in Ottawa in any case, and since mail and telephone services are not very different in most constituencies, whether they be rural or urban-with the exception of the northern ridings-we have virtually the same problems. Our constituents really must communicate with us for the most part by mail. I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the members of the committee should consider seriously the adoption of the 20 per cent formula.
I suggest we could make special provisions for those constituencies outlined in schedule III of the elections act. For the benefit of those members who are not familiar with this schedule, I would indicate that in the province of Ontario we would have the constituencies of Cochrane, Kenora-Rainy River and Port Arthur. In the province of Quebec, we would have the constituencies of Chapleau and Saguenay. In the province of Newfoundland we would have the constituencies of Bonavista-Twillingate, Burin-Bur-geo, Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador, Hum-ber-St. George and Trinity-Conception. In Manitoba, we would have the constituency of Churchill. In the province of Saskatchewan, we would have the constituencies of Mackenzie, Meadow Lake and Prince Albert. In the province of Alberta, we would have the constituencies of Athabasca, Jasper-Edson and Peace River. In the province of British Columbia, we would have the constituencies

of Caribou and Skeena. The Northwest Territories and the Yukon, of couse, would be treated quite differently. The special provision might take the form of a formula in which the land area could be included along with a minimum population in determining the boundaries of these constituencies. Perhaps this would dispel a great many of the fears the members from those constituencies might have about the difficulty of representing these large ridings. Perhaps we could include the minister from Bonavista-Twil-lingate amongst those.


Mr. Winkler:: You are not going to wipe that one out, too, are you?


Maurice John Moreau: I am trying to dispel his fears.


John Whitney Pickersgill: You could not wipe that out.


Maurice John Moreau: Another factor that should be considered by the commissioners is that of growth. I suggest that the suburban ridings that are experiencing a very rapid growth should contain the minimum population requirement under whatever tolerance is accepted. Some members might ask, who is to determine which are the most rapidly growing suburban ridings? I suggest we could use, at least initially, as a measure the increase in voters between 1962 and 1963 elections. In my riding of York-Scarborough, for instance, we had an increase of over 10,000 voters in that eight month period. Certainly, since the 1961 census the population has risen from 267,000, and by now it must be past the
300,000	mark.
During the debate yesterday, Mr. Chairman, there was some discussion as to whether we should have one or ten commissions to do the job of redistribution. The hon. member for Edmonton West indicated that perhaps we could modify this somewhat and set up subcommissions of a national commission. Whatever mechanism we use, Mr. Chairman, I suggest the commission should be made up of representatives of the province, whether it be a commission or a subcommission. The hon. member for Edmonton West also indicated problems of communities with diverse interests, the importance of communications, to boundaries of provincial ridings, and so on. I would think that commissioners from a province would be in the best position to assess these factors as they applied to local conditions, and then I think they could more intelligently recommend the riding boundaries that we should have.
It is my opinion that the job could then be done very much more quickly, as the Secretary of State has indicated. Certainly, I can
Redistribution Commission assure hon. members that the people in my constituency are clamouring for a change in our riding boundaries.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What kind of a change?


Maurice John Moreau: I would hope that a change in the riding boundaries would be as far as they would go. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre also indicated that there has been a measure of education in the various parties with regard to redistribution being done by an independent commission.
He went on to say that for the first time the Liberals, when in power, have committed themselves to this principle. I would like to remind him that it was a Liberal government in Manitoba which accepted this principle. I happened to be living there at the time and took part in the debate that went on during that period. It was a Liberal government that initiated the present system, about which the hon. member was so complimentary last night.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the hon. member permit me to say I am glad he has drawn attention to that fact, and I confirm what he said. However I am sure he realizes that in what I said last night I was referring to the federal Liberals.


Maurice John Moreau: I appreciate that. The hon. member for Lapointe wanted us to write in some sort of constitutional guaranteee for the province of Quebec. I find this approach quite repulsive. I do not see how we could write in a constitutional guarantee for a province as large as Quebec when we cannot predict what changes will come about in the distribution of population in this country. I think the other provinces would immediately clamour for similar guarantees, and in effect we would be freezing the present provincial representation in this house.
As a foundation for his argument he indicated the fair treatment the English minority receives in Quebec in other matters, including provincial redistribution, but I want to indicate to him that the French minorities in other parts of the country receive pretty fair treatment by and large, and I can indicate the treatment I received in Toronto with the
22,000	vote majority the electors saw fit to give me.
In conclusion may I say how pleased I am that we are getting on with this most important job. On behalf of my constituents I wish to say how grateful they are that the government initiated the preparation of maps and population statistics immediately upon assuming office, which documents will be considered by the commissioners after the commissions are formed. The Manitoba experience indicated that the compilation of base

Redistribution Commission maps and statistics took about a year before the Manitoba commission was able to operate effectively. I cannot help but feel optimistic, seeing the general agreement in the house and knowing the preparatory work has virtually been completed, that we can have redistribution before another election.


Mr. Aiken:: Mr. Chairman, the discussion to date has been conducted on a very high plane. We all seem to be tending towards an impartial commission, but I think all of us are trying to make sure it is impartial in our favour. It is the old story of us all being equal but some being more equal than others; and I get the feeling from the discussion we have had that we want to make sure we are all dealt with equally, and that the coming redistribution does not end up with some being more equal than others.
It is very difficult to assess the expediency of adopting this resolution without having before us fairly complete particulars of the electoral boundary commission proposals. Actually we are discussing the resolution for a representation commissioner, and it has been agreed we can discuss in general the question of redistribution. I think that the really basic part of redistribution will be found when we eventually come to it in the bill which is in the name of the Secretary of State, providing for the establishment of electoral boundary commissions.
Some of us have wondered why the Secretary of State put this bill on the order paper as a bill for first reading, when normally it would be required by resolution. He has explained to us that in the bill he intends to introduce there will be no provision for payment of public expenses and therefore it will not be a money bill. But we are involved in two difficulties. The first is that we are discussing a resolution on one bill which will depend upon another for its final implementation. We are going to have two statutes. If we pass the resolution we are now concerned with, and do not pass the electoral boundaries commission bill in the same form in which the government presents it, then this may cause some very considerable difficulties.
What the Secretary of State said about redistribution was more significant for what it left out than what it included. It included the title of a bill, and I suggest that if he had introduced the bill on electoral boundaries commissions by resolution it would have more particulars in it as to what we were considering, and we would not be dealing merely with the title of a bill and its general intentions. I think we are working under considerable difficulties, and the Secretary of State was not very clear in setting out the criteria under


which the electoral boundaries commissions would act when they are set up.
However, we have to decide what is before us, and that is whether or not it is expedient to adopt a resolution to appoint a representation commissioner, and to bring in a bill in general terms along the lines of that resolution.
We have first to consider what are the real fundamentals in redistribution, and number one among these is the basis on which seats are to be added or altered. We ought to know the population and geographic content which is to be used in setting up each riding. We ought to know how many people, on an average, are to be included in a riding, and the percentage by which the commission will be authorized to deviate. That is basic to this type of bill and it has not been given to us yet. We are left in considerable doubt about the real fundamentals on which the government intends to redistribute the electoral seats.
The second thing we have to be sure of is that the job will be done in an objective and non-partisan way. I think that the intended nomination of the chief electoral officer as representation commissioner will be accepted by everyone in the house, but under present circumstances he will merely be a co-ordinating person and not the person by whom final decision is made. Therefore at this moment we do not have any assurance of equal, objective and non-partisan redistribution below the level of the one person who is well known to this house.
Third, we need some assurance that redistribution will be carried out equally in all provinces. This is one of the shortcomings of the proposal for 10 commissions because, unless the criteria are set down very carefully, each of the commissions could very well be operating on a different basis. Representation in the House of Commons is not a provincial matter. The number of seats in each province is set down in the British North America Act. The manner in which representation shall be made from each province is not. We believe we should have equal representation across Canada. It might very well be that in one province greater stress will be laid on urban ridings and less on rural, and in another province completely different criteria will be used.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I think we should be told before we pass the resolution-and I do not believe we have been told-whether it is really the intention of the government to increase the number of seats. I was under the impression that the number of seats could not be increased without an amendment to the British North America Act or a special statute of the parliament of Canada, but I

find that section 52 of the British North America Act permits the number of members in this house to be increased by parliament, provided the proportionate representation of the provinces is not disturbed. Therefore we need no formal act or amendment to the British North America Act to increase the number of seats; it could very easily be done right in the statute we are considering, or in the other one concerning the electoral boundaries commission. I think we ought to know which of these alternatives is in the mind of the government before we pass the resolution. I say that the Secretary of State has touched very little on these four matters.
I think we should be told the population average that is to be accepted, and the percentage of deviation. Figures of 20 per cent, one third, 25 per cent, and so forth, have been mentioned. These are not just figures taken out of the air. Each percentage of deviation allowed under the act will affect a great many members, and 5 per cent can make the difference as to whether a riding is to be altered or left. I think geographical limits should also be discussed; how large or how small a riding should be in connection with its geographical location. Also, I think we should know what level of tolerance will be permitted between urban and rural ridings. We do know that in general members in rural ridings represent fewer constituents. The hon. member for York-Scarborough is a classic example of what happens in an urban riding at the moment.
We should know what is in the mind of the government in connection with these questions. Other matters are also important. There is the matter of main roads and connecting roads. It has been suggested that the surveyor general and the dominion bureau of statistics could provide a great deal of information on this matter, and this is perfectly acceptable. But we cannot just draw lines on a map and redivide these constituencies. It is not too satisfactory at the moment in many ridings. The centre of gravity of the riding may be a good many miles from the northernmost or southernmost limits of the riding, and yet in another riding the centre of gravity may be much closer. I think communications are important. Radio and television are becoming more important than they used to be. I personally have no television station directly in my riding; I have to use one near the north end of the riding and one at the south end. I am not asking for any change in this regard because I think the riding which I represent is sufficiently large and well populated to be left alone.
This brings me to another point. I would like the Secretary of State to tell us, if he will, whether, if a riding comes within the
Redistribution Commission rules or the criteria of population and deviation, it will be left alone. In other words, if it is between minimum and maximum within the rules set down, will that riding be left alone in name and geographic boundaries? Or even if it comes within the limitations that are set down, will there be fiddling around with the outside boundaries of the riding? I think we should know this, because while some of the most serious problems concern the elimination of ridings by absorption into adjacent ridings, there is also quite a serious problem in regard to adding to or subtracting from ridings which at the present time are perfectly satisfactory, having regard to all the criteria that could be set down.
In connection with the commissioners, I agree to some extent with the suggestion of the hon. member for Edmonton West that perhaps we cannot name the individuals who will be commissioners under the legislation, but I think we should provide in the bill that they be named by resolution of the house. If we do not choose to name people in the bill that we pass, if we merely set out the type of persons they should be, and if the Secretary of State and the government want to keep this matter, in fact as well as in theory, a non-partisan and impartial commission or commissions, the persons appointed should be named in the house, either in the bill or by a supplementary resolution. I think only by doing this can we say there will be an impartial naming of these people, and it will not merely be a case of the government appointing people who they are quite satisfied will follow the general lines the government desires to be followed. I believe these people should be named.
Arising out of this, Mr. Chairman, it must follow that I do not agree with there being ten separate commissions. I agree that we should have a strong central body, a strong central commission, made up of a commissioner and people such as the surveyor general, an official from the dominion bureau of statistics and judicial persons. These people would make up a satisfactory central body and I think that in order to keep equal representation across the nation this primary function should be carried out by simply one body. If in each province it is desired to have people working on this problem and making representations to the central body, I would have no objection; I think that is necessary. But I think there should be a central body which would make the final decision in connection with the whole question of distribution. The provincial people should not be asked to form an independent commission.
5172	HOUSE OF
Redistribution Commission
This is one of the things we are worried about. We will have ten independent commissions and will not know who is going to be on them. If you are to have this number of people, 30 commissioners, you will have diversity of opinion, diversity in the application of rules and you will have great no trouble in agreeing that the present chief difficulty in obtaining people who are acceptable to the house in general. We would have electoral officer should be the representation commissioner. We would probably have no difficulty in agreeing on five, six or seven other people to form this commission. But if you are going to have 30 people and are taking them from different places across the provinces, I think there will be feeling that it is not going to be impartial, it is not going to be fair and-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the hon. gentleman would let me ask him a question?


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Yes.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Does the hon. gentleman think it would be acceptable to the people of Ontario or to the members from Ontario if this commission of six or seven which he envisages included nobody from Ontario?


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Well, I would agree with that. If we have seven people acceptable, I do not think it matters whether or not they come from Ontario.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That was not the question. I did not ask for his personal opinion; I asked the hon. member if that would be acceptable generally across Ontario.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I see no reason why it would not be. The province of Ontario, and I say this with some pride, I feel leads the nation. I think the attitude taken by the Hon. John Robarts, premier of Ontario, in connection with the dominion-provincial conference is a very good example of what Ontario is prepared to do to bring about uniformity in Canada. I believe he sets that up very well in his approach to the present conference. He says that we must have a formula which is acceptable. He knows that Ontario must be the main provider of taxation revenue, and we in Ontario are prepared to accept that and are prepared to accept the fact that our taxes will be distributed among other provinces in greater need. That has been very well set forth, and I would say for myself- I cannot say it for anyone else-that if there were a commission of seven people set up and not one of its members came from Ontario we would be satisfied, so long as they were suitable people.


Mr. Howe (Wellinglon-Huron):: What about Newfoundland?


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I do not think we need worry about Newfoundland. Newfoundland will be well looked after.
I should now like to make one reference to the statement of the Secretary of State, as reported at page 5113 of Hansard, where he was discussing the question of who is to be appointed to these commissions. I was hoping that he would have been rather specific about it and would have said who the government had in mind. Perhaps he will later on before the bill is passed. The hon. gentleman said:
It seems to me these are the kind of people one would naturally look to.
He had just described them.
Of course, this is a problem with which we will deal when we get farther along.
I should like to ask whether he means farther along in the bill or farther along in the procedure.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I thought that since there is a procedure suggested in the bill, of which I have given notice, it would have been preferable to deal with that when the bill comes before us. But I do not mind telling the hon. gentleman, if he would like the answer now, what is said in the bill. I know sometimes there is a technical point taken about not disclosing what is in bills to follow; but what is suggested in the bill-and the government is open to alternative suggestions-is that the boundary commissioners in all the provinces, apart from the representation commissioner who would be appointed by a resolution of this house, would be appointed, on the joint recommendation of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, by the Speaker of the House of Commons. In the event of their failure to agree the Speaker would have to resolve the difference.
However, we are open to any other method which can be found which is impartial and acceptable, and in this regard I was quite intrigued with what the hon. member for Edmonton West suggested, namely specifying not the individuals but the category of persons. My own idea is that the Manitoba commission was a model commission, composed of the chief justice, the president of the university and the chief electoral officer of the province. That is the kind of membership I would envisage for each of these commissions: a judge, a person learned in these matters, and a person experienced in the way the chief electoral officer is. And it has worked in Manitoba, and that is the only case we have experience about in Canada.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I thank the Secretary of State for his explanation. He did point up the

objection made by the hon. member for Edmonton West, that you are going to provide agreement, but that in the alternative the government wins.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think the hon. gentleman must have misunderstood me. I said the Speaker of the House of Commons would resolve the difference. The one thing I will not recommend to this house is that any decision on this matter be made by the governor in council; I think that would be entirely wrong, and I want to make that very clear. That would be taking redistribution away from the house and putting it in the hands of the cabinet, and I do not want to see that done. I want to be absolutely sure that both sides of the house have an equal voice. And I mean an equal voice-no preference, no matter who is the government. Because otherwise I do not think the public would be satisfied that the matter is being handled fairly. That is the point. With regard to the actual mechanics of it, we had to make some suggestion, until some alternative is found. After all, the Speaker, when we elected him, was elected to be an impartial person, and that was why he was suggested. If it was the chief justice of Canada I would be equally well satisfied. But it would have to be somebody like that.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Then I think that answers the point I was making, because our concern is that if there was the provision that in the event of disagreement the governor in council would make the appointment, that would in effect mean that if there was no agreement the government would make the appointment.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That will not happen.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: As we go along and prod the Secretary of State a little about those matters which concern us, I think we may get round to the point where we feel this resolution is worthy of adoption.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Could I prod the hon. gentleman a little, and perhaps the whole committee, and suggest that if we adopt the resolution and see the two bills a lot of these questions would be answered by the hon. gentlemen themselves, instead of my having to get up and give previews of little corners of the bills. I would rather have all of the bills seen; but I am in the hands of the committee.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I just want to say that we are hopeful that if the bill contains some very bad principles the government will change it before it is brought in.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Or after. They can be changed at any stage.
Redistribution Commission


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: But we like your voice.


Mr. Chreiien:: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make some remarks concerning this resolution, which deals with the position of commissioner and the readjustment of the representation in the house.
First of all, I must say that I strongly favour the establishment of an independent commission. I believe that the house must endeavour to find a solution to the satisfaction of all parties in the house.
It is necessary that the representation be changed because we find today abnormalities, situations which are no longer normal.
For instance, we see that there are members who represent constituencies 10, 15 and even 20 times more populous than others. I am of the opinion that every voter in the country has a right to be adequately represented.
We know that it is a difficult situation and that it needs to be corrected. We should then apply ourselves to find the most equitable solution for every Canadian voter because the house must reflect the true image of the Canadian people.
I fully agree with the principles put forward up to now to the effect that it is essential to find an appropriate solution in the near future. To this end, we should set up ten commissions which would look into the problem of every province. In this way, we could effect an adequate redistribution sooner, in order that the country may be duly represented in the house.
In my opinion, the formula used in Australia, with a 20 per cent tolerance between the most and the least populated ridings, should perhaps be applied here in Canada, in order to have more adequate representation in the house.
A most interesting point was raised, that is whether we should increase the membership of this house. Personally, I do not think so because I cannot see what useful purpose it would serve. It is hard enough as it is to deal with the estimates and bills with the number of members there is now that, in my view, to increase it would greatly reduce the efficiency of the house.
I am convinced that it would be in the national interest to have just about the same representation after redistribution.
After studying the resolution, I notice that it does not mention a detail which, while not of capital importance, has nevertheless some value.
A few months ago, I raised in the house the point that the names of some ridings are often inadequate. It is very difficult for the
5174	HOUSE OF
Redistribution Commission Speaker of the house, as well as for the distinguished members of the press, to easily identify hon. members. I have in mind, for instance, the ridings of Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands, Berthier-Maskinonge-Delanau-diere, Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm-


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: It is a very good name.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: -Chateauguay-Huntingdon-Laprairie, etc. In my opinion, the terms of reference we will give this commission should include power to change names and impose certain restrictions concerning the names of new ridings, because it is much easier to remember names like Hull, Longueuil, etc.
In my opinion, the commission should find names easier to memorize, and this would make the business of the house more efficient.
I therefore suggest that in addition to these terms of reference, the commission be asked to give short and simple names to the constituencies after having drawn their boundary lines, in order to simplify the business of the house and the work of the members of the press gallery.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I have had so many opportunities in the last few parliaments to speak on this subject that I have no intention of entering upon any general review now. I wish to concentrate on one element only of the redistribution problem, mostly to the exclusion of the others. This is the problem which arises in relation to area as well as to population. It is one which leads me to want to put on record some statistics.
It would be foolish to suggest amendments to an act which one has not seen, but I think it might be possible for us to consider some adjustments or amendments to any formula, such as a 20 per cent formula, so as to allow for those ridings which have huge areas and a scattered population. I think I can best make my point by putting on record the largest constituencies in area in Canada, giving their population according to the 1956 figures. We have a total of 37 constituencies in Canada which have an area greater than
10.000	square miles. If we stop to think about it, that is a relatively small proportion of the 265 constituencies represented here. Only 37, as I say, have areas greater than 10,000 square miles. To approach the question in another way, only eight constituencies have areas greater than 100,000 square miles. Most members who have a constituency of 10,000 square miles in area think it is big. But as I have said there are eight constituencies in Canada which have an area greater than
100.000	square miles.


An hon. Member:: Name them.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I will put the list on record.
Largest Canadian Constituencies in Area, with 1956 Population
Constituency	Area in Sq. Miles	PopulationMackenzie River	527,490	12,492Saguenay	374,950	56,655Yukon	207,076	12,190Churchill	170,827	48,999Port Arthur	148,482	78,111Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador	125,710	71,416Skeena	125,641	56,664Cariboo	120,544	60,464Meadow Lake	96,327	37,840Chapleau	83,640	65,456Peace River	81,900	69,725Cochrane	70,585	42,720Athabasca	62,000	56,611Kenora-Rainy River	52,308	67,356
Those are the 14 constituencies having areas greater than 50,000 square miles. I might say that the population of Saguenay, which the hon. member sitting over there represents, has been growing relatively quickly because of mineral developments in that region. Churchill is another of these large constituencies which has been growing fairly quickly. In considering the population figures, it should be remembered that the two ridings up in the north namely, Mackenzie River and Yukon, are special cases. They do not lie within provincial boundaries and that is one of the main reasons why they have representation here despite their small population.
One of the interesting things to note is that almost all these constituencies, with the exception of Meadow Lake, are of the hinterland variety. They are not rural constituencies in the sense that they have a farm basis. Their population growth has been comparable in almost every way to the national average, if not greater than the national average- certainly, in the case of Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador it has been greater-and it has been based on forestry or mining, developments which do not lead to an even population spread. There is a spotty effect-small nodules of people within these large areas. It is my contention that it is most difficult to represent ridings of this kind, particularly when they have large populations, on any basis comparable to that which applies in the case of smaller constituencies. If we take Canada's estimated population at the time of the last census in 1961-it was 18,238,000-and divide that figure by 247, which is the divisor one uses in determining the population quotient after taking away the population of New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and the Northwest Territories, we reach a figure somewhere between 66,000 and 69,000-I give that figure loosely.
I should like to call attention to the grave disadvantages of representing these immensely large constituencies. For example, the

hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador now has a constituency whose population is well over the 80,000 mark. In other words, it is above the norm, and yet he is saddled with this fantastic area. Not only that, it is an area that is separated by a considerable body of water, and while I will not say that the communications system in all this population scatter is primitive, it is certainly expensive, and many of these communities are so far apart that they have no community or affinity of interest.
I should like to suggest that right in the Canada Elections Act at the present time there is recognition of the special difficulties with ridings of this kind. That recognition is found in the fact that nomination day in these ridings is held at a different time than in the normal ridings in Canada. I should like to make a plea to the house that it consider some means of compensating and making adjustments with regard to area. I have gone into this matter very fully with the chief electoral officer, Mr. Castonguay, for whom I have a tremendous admiration. To my mind he is the most articulate civil servant I have ever encountered. I do not know whether he is in French, but certainly in English he is not only the most articulate but, with regard to the statutes and regulations that he administers, he is about the best informed man I have encountered in the federal civil service.
I have had difficulty in my discussions with Mr. Castonguay in getting him to express any interests in or enthusiasm for a recognition of the area problem. I think this is partly because he recognizes, almost in the way the Minister of Finance does with regard to taxation, that once you make any exceptions you open up all kinds of problems. But I think in this particular case some kind of exception should be considered. I know it may be unfair of me to interpret conversation with Mr. Castonguay, but I mean no unfairness and I think I am being accurate. Mr. Castonguay is willing to concede that it might be possible to make some adjustment in the formula that would make some compensation, but nevertheless he cannot quite see it.
Other people have suggested that one of the ways to do this is not to make any concession with regard to area but to give some extra consideration to members of parliament who represent such areas in terms of expense arrangements, travel arrangements or something like that. I would feel that would be the most invidious of all advantages that might be given. I think we are almost faced with the conundrum that confronts school teachers and boards of education. When you get into pay by merit you are into a morass and you need to set a standard. I do not think you can meet
Redistribution Commission the problem of a constituency of huge area by giving some kind of special financial or transport consideration to the member. I think that the consideration has to come about by making some exception in the arrangement of the population figure for such areas. In other words, any time you have or are likely to have a constituency of more than 50,000 square miles I suggest that there should be some arrangement in the instructions to the commissioners whereby they will do their best to see that the population figure is kept down when you have any area over 50,000 square miles.
I can perhaps explain this best in terms of the riding of Port Arthur which I represent. In the southwest corner you have over half the population within a few square miles in the city of Port Arthur. The riding slices up to the Manitoba boundary and actually it has several polls that lie well north of the constituency of Kenora-Rainy River. In the eastern part there are a number of polls with a considerable native population that are 350 to 400 miles from the main population centre and lie much closer to the sphere of influence of Cochrane or Algoma West or even Timiskaming and Timmins.
It seems to me that the special problem of the large riding is not one that is likely to be approached in any spirit of partisanship. From talking to members such as the hon. member for Churchill, the hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador and the hon. member for Skeena I know that the difficulties we have in representing these huge areas with scattered population are worrisome to us in terms of the kind of job we can do. I have heard the hon. member for Yukon suggest in the house the great difficulties in looking after his huge riding, but his riding only has a population of a little over 12,000. Lord knows, it is bad enough when these 12,000 are scattered over
207,000	square miles and I agree that, comparatively speaking, there should be special consideration in creating a constituency there, despite all that area and the small population; but what about the hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador whose riding has a population of over 80,000? In other words, his riding has a population roughly six times that of the riding of the hon. member for Yukon. His riding has over half the area of the Yukon and it has even more discontinuity in terms of transport arrangements.
I am not going to crystallize any suggestion I make into a definite proposal, but I should like to suggest to hon. members that when the bills are before us relating to this matter they be prepared to give sympathetic consideration to some adjustment to try to

Redistribution Commission take care of this situation that I would say affects at least 10 and maybe 15 or 20 ridings in the country. It was always easy for me to be sympathetic to the hon. member for York-Scarborough in the last few years, knowing the huge population problem there, and this sympathy, of course, becomes especially strong at election time. But I put it to the hon. member that the main thing we should be concerned about is not so much election time but servicing, looking after and understanding the interests of the people of one's riding. These interests are not only in terms of people but are a physical thing. I suggest that the physical problems in looking after a riding of over 100,000 square miles, with a population of over 50,000, are even more difficult than the physical problems in looking after one of the very large city ridings.


Maurice John Moreau: Will the hon. member permit a question? Is he aware that I proposed a formula this afternoon which would take into account land area for those ridings mentioned in schedule III of the Canada Elections Act?


Douglas Mason Fisher: I did not hear it. I meant to listen but I was called out. I appreciate that that suggestion was made. I missed it but I will certainly look at it. This is one area that needs serious consideration. One of the things that bothers me about the kind of consideration you get is that I think there will be impatience among many members to whom this kind of thing does not matter, because they are not involved with this type of constituency. I put it to the Secretary of State that he knows how ineffective members from such constituencies have been in trying to make their arguments to the C.B.C. in order to get television and radio service in many cases.


John Whitney Pickersgill: As a matter of fact, on that particular point I might say that the hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador has done exceedingly well. He is getting radio service almost immediately at Wabush and Labrador city but I admit it has taken him about three years to do it. I am sure he will be glad of the advertisement.


Douglas Mason Fisher: The Secretary of State is probably conscious of the question I have on the order paper in relation to this very matter. On this particular point, I should like to show the Secretary of State a few letters I have had from people in the Wabush area that do not express quite so much satisfaction in regard to this particular matter. They have pointed out they have been clamouring for three or four years now, and I just raised the question in order to support the


hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador because this is a problem we all have.


John Whitney Pickersgill: But the decision has already been made.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Yes, but they still have not got television service. What are you going to do about that? The minister may take a great deal of comfort from the radio coverage-


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I answer that? The hon. gentleman has succeeded in doing what no one else has succeeded in doing in this debate, and he has got under my skin. What I intend to do about that is to say publicly -I do not know that the C.B.C. agrees with me and I am sure that a lot of private television people do not-that we should have single coverage all over Canada before we worry about alternate service.


Douglas Mason Fisher: This example is a good one. In so far as getting under the minister's skin is concerned, I may say I was talking today to a gentleman who was forced to observe the proceedings of the house yesterday. He said, "When you arrived back in town, did you smell the incense burning, the perfume, and as you came to your seat did you hear the sweet tinkling of bells?" He said that yesterday was one of the sweetest, stickiest and stinkiest days he had ever seen in the House of Commons. I gather that partisanship just disappeared and pleasantries reigned.
Well, I come back to my point. When you represent this kind of constituency, which is a relatively small portion of the total number of constituencies, when these constituencies are scattered all along the northern fringe of Canada, when they do not have powerful means of communication in terms of newspapers, television stations or the kind of pressure groups that count, it is very difficult to develop the kind of sympathy and understanding that you often need from governments and from bureaucrats. I want to make the point that it is extremely difficult-I have made it too often now-to represent a constituency that runs to this particular size.
Now, there were one or two smaller points that I wanted to mention. I wonder if the Secretary of State or any members of the cabinet, have talked at all with New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia, the three provinces protected by the senate floor, and which are going to be protected by the senate floor, in order to get their views on the relationship of the number of seats they hold as a right from confederation, as against the intention that has been mooted that there will be an increase in the number of seats. There is a double-edged problem in

this particular matter. It seems very unfair if we are talking about-


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if I could ask the hon. gentleman to put his question again very carefully because I am not sure I got the purport of it properly?


Douglas Mason Fisher: At the present time, New Brunswick-


John Whitney Pickersgill: I understand the situation; it is the question I did not get.


Douglas Mason Fisher: If we increase the number of seats, obviously those provinces are not going to get any of the increase. They are set; they are protected with the floor underneath them; but their relative influence, of course, is going to diminish. I would not expect that they would quarrel about this, but I suggest that they might have made some kind of criticism.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well, what is the antecedent of "they"? Is the hon. gentleman suggesting the proposition that we should consult with provincial governments about the redistribution of membership in this house? I think that is a novel proposition, and I had never thought of embarking upon it. I do not think we should.


Douglas Mason Fisher: It is not that novel. It has been made in almost every debate on redistribution. I feel that the Senate floor is based upon the promises given these provinces when they came in. Let us be realistic about this. The minister knows that Prince Edward Island looks upon this as an article of confederation.
Now, has Prince Edward Island, for example, made any protests or has the government sounded them out as to what their views would be? I am thinking here, not of the government alone but also such people as the Solicitor General. This is one point. The second point relates to it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to answer, if the hon. gentleman would permit me. Without regard to party, I think Prince Edward Island is very ably represented in this house, and I think the people who are elected to this house to represent Prince Edward Island are perfectly capable of speaking for Prince Edward Island on this subject. I would not think of consulting anyone else but those people about Prince Edward Island.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I am very pleased to have that assurance from the hon. gentleman. Now, let us look at this from the other point of view. As long as we have this floor, the whole relationship will be thrown out of context or thrown out of balance. Given this marvellous representation from Prince Edward Island, has the minister had any discussion with his colleagues from those places that have a floor to the effect that, instead of
Redistribution Commission increasing the number of seats in the parliament of Canada, some approach be made to those particular provinces that are over-represented on the basis of population, from the point of view of accepting a voluntary reduction in their representation?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I suggest the hon. member should put that question to the hon. members for Queens.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I am just shocked that the minister is really converting this debate into a wide open, irresponsible discussion upon a measure introduced by him and by the government. Whether the minister will acknowledge it or not, and I do not suppose he will because he knows it is a rather touchy subject, this is an important consideration in this whole matter. There has been a lot of talk about the comparison of York-Scarborough, with 200,000 people with Prince Edward Island which has less than 100,000, and yet has four seats. This is part of the anomaly of representation by population.
One of the things that is quite apparent, when you look at the rules for sharing seats amongst the provinces, is that you now have some subtracted from the 265 and you are down to 247 before you get your divisors. I imagine that very soon, judging by the relationship of the population of Nova Scotia to the rest of the country, this is going to drop even further, perhaps down to 237. Then, the divisor throws things away out of kilter. As a matter of fact, if the extremes of population movement to certain portions continues, it is quite conceivable that we will be having "rep. by pop." for about three provinces, and all the rest will be protected by some kind of floor.
I am not advocating here that we do away with the floor, but I want to know what thinking the government has done on this problem as a means of getting out of increasing the number of seats. Every hon. member in this house knows that increasing the number of seats will let us off the hook. But it really does not do much in terms of getting better representation for the people in the country; and it really does not do much about meeting the fact that the old rules, including the Senate floor, are making a monkey out of "rep. by pop." I think it is just something the government might have considered because, like many other hon. members, I am not an enthusiast for seeing the membership in this house increased. I tend to agree with the hon. member for Edmonton West on that. It may well give some advantage in getting a quorum in the house, or in some of the committees of the house, but. that is about the only advantage I can see in it. I hope, having
5178	HOUSE OF
Redistribution Commission said that, I am not undercutting my argument-


John Whitney Pickersgill: I was just going to point out the hon. gentleman is pretty illogical. He argued for a low population in Port Arthur and a high population in Prince Edward Island. As the sponsor of this legislation I want to make it very clear I am not in favour of interfering with the senatorial floor which protects the maritime provinces. I think my suggestion that I am not in favour of it, that I am in favour of maintaining the constitution in that respect, is a responsible position, although I was accused by the hon. gentleman of irresponsibility.


Douglas Mason Fisher: 1 am glad to know that the minister is prepared to accept this kind of responsibility. He is probably aware I was pretty sure he could not or would not do anything other than what he has just done. But not enough people in this country who will will be considering the problem know about the Senate floor. Most of them are unaware of what it does to the beautiful logic of the representation by population argument.
The increase in the number of members in this house will again not compensate relatively for these areas that have the Senate floor. I do not think we should complain about the Senate floor very seriously, but I wish everybody would recognize that unless we plan at some future time to make some kind of adjustment to it, that will be satisfactory to those areas that are supported by it, we will get greater and greater discrepancies as shifts take place in the population of Canada.
There was one other point I wanted to touch on in relation to the commission, and how it would plan to operate. I have always felt that judges, despite their great reputation for fairness and impartiality, are not always the people with the best backgrounds to bring to this kind of problem. I would take it from what the minister said in his opening remarks that the technical assistance in terms of population, mapping, and that kind of thing, will be available to the commissioners, particularly to the chief commissioner, but that assistance will not really find representation in the person of anyone.
I have always felt that a geographer or demographer should find some representation on the national commission, and when I say representation I mean as a person. I would like to ask the minister whether this was considered at all, or whether it was felt that the chief commissioner would embody in himself all that kind of knowledge and expertise. I do not know whether he is in a position to give me an answer at the present time, or whether he wishes to, but I would like to know if this matter was considered.
[Mr. Fisher.l


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think this could be better considered when we have the bills before us.


Douglas Mason Fisher: One other thing I would like to mention in connection with the commission is the fact that in the major provinces there is such a difference, in the stretch say, from northwestern Ontario down to the Ottawa valley, particularly in terms of any intimacy of knowledge; so that I do not feel you can really make a great thing out of the argument the minister put forward, that to have a single commission for a province would allow this type of thing. I do not know how you are going to get representation on a commission in Ontario that is really knowledgeable in the sense of understanding the traditions of a riding, something about its population, its economy and its transport hookups, and one might even say the social-political watersheds of various areas in a province that size. That is why the argument the minister used, to take away the idea of a commission to represent the three prairie provinces, seemed to me somewhat insubstantial. I think that the argument I am applying to Ontario is the one he applied to the prairie provinces.
I think if the situation exists in Ontario, where we will have a commission that really is not that informed in any intimate way about the province, then the same thing could apply quite easily to the prairie provinces.
There is another point which may be irrelevant but, in view of all the commissions we are creating, are we going to be able to staff them properly? We have not heard from our friends in the corner about whether the French speaking interest is going to be protected, but I assume they will speak on it. And are we going to be able to get such population representation in a hurry? It is for that reason, while I agree with my colleague from Winnipeg North Centre that we accept and support the idea of a multitude of commissions, I still have a tendency to feel we could probably do with three or four rather than with 10.
I have enjoyed the opportunity of speaking on this topic, which is so familiar. One of the things about its familiarity is that it is balanced with the complexities, so that one tends to forget more than one learned last year. One might say it is a wonderful bag of tricks, and a cave of exploration for almost any hon. member in the house. I am sure, from the non-partisan way in which the minister introduced this, that the response he will get in the house will be a very generous one, and I know other hon. members probably look at it the same way I do-looking forward to days and days of discussion here, while we give him all the suggestions in that

spirit of harmony with which he kicked off the debate.


Mr. Bell:: I wonder if I could just interject a brief comment. It could be assumed, from what the hon. member for Port Arthur has said, that we from New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island are not interested in this subject, because we have not taken the opportunity to say something. I know the hon. member for Queens is planning to speak on this resolution, and I may say we look very seriously on this matter of the senatorial floor. For my own part I would say if any change were made that would reduce the effect of the protection of the senatorial floor, we would protest this and would want to know what is the quid pro quo.
We might settle for a couple more senators or something like that, but we are going to have our say on this, and I think the hon. member for Port Arthur has brought up a matter that is very serious and about which we will have something to say. We have considered it and the fact that we are actually silent today is because we are waiting to make our thoughts known later in the discussion.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I notice the hon. member for Sherbrooke is rising, but I wonder will he permit me to make a suggestion before he speaks. I believe someone else in the corner also wishes to speak, and the hon. member for Carleton. I wonder, would there be any chance, if they spoke very briefly, that we might conclude at six o'clock. It will not be possible to come back to this measure until next week, and I think it would help us all if we could see the two bills.
We cannot do that until the resolution is adopted, and the resolution only commits us to the expediency of going on to the next stage. It would give us and the public a chance to study these bills which, as I indicated earlier, are going to be amendable; the government is not insisting on anything in them except impartiality. If we could have them open to the public gaze until next Monday and then have our debates on them seriatim as bills, I think it would help us all in the house. This is just a suggestion I am making. I am not seeking to shut hon. gentlemen off; but if they could make their observations briefly and we could at six o'clock give first reading to the two bills, they would then be available for study.


Mr. Francis:: Mr. Chairman, the measure of agreement at a very high level with regard to what is proposed is very encouraging. We all agree that we want to see a much greater degree of equity in the basis of representation in this house and establish a procedure which
Redistribution Commission will be perhaps effective for redistribution in the future. I think we all agree, also, that we should set the machinery in motion with the least possible delay, but making due allowance for the proper amount of time needed to undertake what is really a very fundamental change. The chief electoral officer said recently in the hearings before the committee that in his opinion there would not be any riding in Canada, save the two most northerly ridings, that would not be affected by the measure if carried out by an independent commission in Canada. This is a very fundamental change, and I feel that its full import will not be realized until such time as the report of the commission is before us.
I hope that the spirit of harmony that has been evident so far will also be in effect when the time comes for us to examine the report and we find that ridings have been eliminated, boundaries have been changed, new ridings have been brought into being and individual members in the house will have to adjust their conduct accordingly and choose places in which they will seek re-election. I submit it is well worth our time at this point to make sure that the proper rules are spelled out and the proper groundwork is laid so that the independent commissions which are set up will be able to operate.
Everyone has agreed that certain rules should be spelled out. One of the first rules to be spelled out is the question of the population base. I was particularly interested in the comments of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre who pointed out that at the time of confederation the average member represented 20,000 people, and at the time of the last redistribution the population of the average riding was something like 58,000 people. If we added 15 or 20 members to this house, that would give a basis of something like 68,000 people for 280 or 285 members. I think, as the hon. member for North Centre observed, there is something of a plateau in the number of persons in a riding which a member can properly serve. We also want to give as much protection as we can to the senatorial floor, to which reference has been made, and resolve the problem as best we can of Manitoba versus Saskatchewan, and equality of representation. To do this we have no alternative but increase the number of members in the house, and I think all of us will be in agreement with that proposition, after having examined this question.
I think once you have established a population base, the question of tolerance has to be looked at very carefully. Then there is the question of area to be considered, and the northern ridings. The hon. member for Port Arthur mentioned this matter when

Redistribution Commission dealing with the suggestion of the hon. member for York-Scarborough that we consider these ridings under section 3 of the elections act as being ridings to which special consideration should be given. But this is not the rural-urban problem. This is a different problem. I represent a riding that up until recent years was an average rural riding. It is now a very large suburban riding, about the tenth largest in Canada, as far as I can determine.
In this particular kind of situation there is a very serious injustice in terms of the work loads of different members, and in spite of the best efforts of members of the house this situation continues to exist. I know, for example, that my hon. friend from Edmonton West represents a larger riding than I do, and I am sure his riding is ably represented, in a qualitative sense, in the house; but I am sure he would be one of the first to say that he could serve his people and the area better, were there a more equitable population base. I think a 10 per cent figure should be adequate in a tolerance, and certainly the experience of New Zealand suggests a 10 per cent figure. The Australian figure, according to the report of Mr. Caston-guay, was 20 per cent. Although the commissions were allowed a 20 per cent tolerance, they in fact kept within a 10 per cent margin. The problem is not only what the tolerance should be; it is to anticipate the situations that are going to develop.
For example, if we redistribute on the basis of the 1961 census this would not be very equitable because my own riding has increased in population by almost 15 per cent since that time. The hon. member for York-Scarborough pointed out that in eight months over 10,000 new voters were added to his riding. This is going to continue. If we are to take the 1961 population base and allow a 33J per cent tolerance, this will in effect mean that the largest riding could be twice the size of the smallest. The situation in regard to population growth continues to present a problem in this regard. On the basis of my riding, the riding of York-Scarborough or the riding of Edmonton West, we would have disparities at the time of the next redistribution every bit as bad as, if not worse than, the ones this house now faces.
This is not the kind of solution that can be spelled out clearly in rules. The electoral commission, when it comes to grips with the problem, will have to use a great deal of horse sense. We can give them a population base; we can say what tolerance shall apply, whether it be 10 per cent or 20 per cent- I think it should be no more than that-and we can say, "Please note the increase in
[Mr. Francis.!

voters as between the 1962 and 1963 elections", or give them the enumerations of any subsequent provincial election that may have been held; but when we spell out all the rules there will still be a great area in which discretion can be exercised by an independent commission. Even with the very best intentions, this commission will have to decide such things as some ridings at the present time representing minority groups. I would hope that an independent electoral commission would not quickly or lightly break up such ridings, because we know what the consequences would be if they did.
We know that certain ridings represent language distinctions and any electoral commission which attempted to redistribute mathematically without taking language boundaries into effect would be doing something that many of us would not like. For this reason I think the category of persons named to these independent commissions, much as I respect the judiciary, is restricted because of the limitation of time. I do not know many members of the bench who are not overworked, and seriously overworked, and when they are diverted to other functions as well, the administration of justice is thereby impaired to some degree. The fact remains that there are many people in different categories of public life who can contribute, and it is not easy always to spell them out individually or even by category. One person comes to my mind; he is a professor of sociology and worked for a number of years in the dominion bureau of statistics and on demographic studies. I think such a person is eminently qualified to serve on an independent commission. I am not concerned about the fact that we may not find people. The people can be found and they will, I am sure, be of the right independent calibre. I found it difficult to understand the reasoning of the hon. member for Port Arthur, who argued at one point that Ontario was so big that one commission could not do the job properly, and he suggested that if you put all the prairies together they would not be able to do the job properly either. The logic behind this argument is beyond my comprehension. I think at least we have to recognize the principle that within a province people are more competent in this matter, will know the province and its problems and are therefore much more likely to deal expeditiously and fairly with the problems of redistribution within the province than if we had one over-all, independent commission.
I personally strongly support the principle of setting up independent commissions for each province. The province of Ontario recently attempted a redistribution; they set up the machinery but then found the time of the

members was limited. They had to come up with a stopgap arrangement before an election, which brought a rough measure of greater equity than prevailed previously. But no member who has worked on the job of provincial redistribution in the province of Ontario will tell us that there is a complete solution. The final report, which will be some time being handed down, will have to be studied. In a large province like Ontario or Quebec the job will be a difficult one and time consuming. But certainly any attempt to lump together the Quebec or Ontario problems and combine them with other provinces will in my opinion seriously delay the functions of any group trying to grapple with the problems of redistribution.
Following the statements of the house leader, Mr. Chairman, I will not say any more. I have just one observation to make in connection with my own riding. One of the problems in my riding is that of maps. New suburban areas which are rapidly growing up outside the established boundaries of the city of Ottawa simply do not have the facilities to give an adequate breakdown of polls. I suspect that this is a serious problem, one not to be underestimated, and the services of people from the surveyor general's branch, and so on, will be absolutely essential. But this is a technical problem which takes a little time to overcome.


Mr. Chapdelaine:: Mr. Chairman, although I do not intend to speak at great length, it will not make much difference, since members of other parties have indicated that they wish to speak.
It has been mentioned this afternoon that the number of members should be reduced rather than increased. Since everybody agrees and everything has been said I shall only say a few words, in order not to delay the adoption of this resolution.
In my opinion, it is not essential to go into details at this stage, since the government is only giving notice of its intention to introduce a bill. We must make suggestions, as concisely as possible, about matters that might have been overlooked so that they will be included in the bill.
The suggestions made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) are worthwhile. He has looked fully into the problem and he referred to all the discussions held in the house on this matter since confederation. The same applies to the suggestions of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) who has studied this problem extensively. All those suggestions will be considered by the commission when it is established.
Redistribution Commission
The main point is the setting up of this commission as soon as possible. In my opinion, what could delay its establishment is the fear that the selection of its members might be tainted with partisanship.
Such is the difficulty which the government will have to face because even if this commission were composed of judges, it must be remembered that all of them have been appointed by a political party and that it is very difficult for a man to forget his political ties.
In my opinion, there is another alternative concerning the composition of this commission. It would be to appoint people who are too young to have ever been involved in a political organization or to have come under the baleful influence of certain politicians in their circle, or else people too old, having already one foot in the grave, for whom political has no lure whatsoever. Then the grounds for the steps we would be taking would be nobler and would lead to more conclusive results.
I would be remiss if I did not mention that in the riding I represent-the most beautiful of all, needless to say, the riding of Sherbrooke-we also have our redistribution problems, but when this commission is established, the time will then be favourable to make appropriate suggestions in order to settle these small problems. Since 1867, these problems have to be discussed at regular intervals; they come under the purview of the Canadian constitution, which must be amended every time it is desired to increase the membership of the house. As a matter of fact, these problems always brought about harsh political partisanship, because the party that proposed the redistribution was immediately accused of trying to derive some advantages from it, while the previous party that had wanted to change the representation in the house was itself accused of trying to do it for its own benefit.
In my opinion, the best intention the gov-government has shown is to want to relieve the house of this partisanship spirit which always inclined members of parliament to delay such legislation. Unanimity has been achieved-which is surprising, especially on the part of the opposition-and it has been agreed that we must keep partisanship out of this commission.
It was suggested to set up ten independent commissions that would look after the redistribution. That is a good suggestion but I think that the one made by the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) is preferable, if you believe it is not enough to take the provinces into consideration in this redistribution, but that each area's cultural, territorial and linguistic aspirations must also be considered.

Business of the House
Mr. Chairman, I feel that by setting up five subcommissions to represent British Columbia and the surrounding area, the prairies, Ontario, Quebec and the maritime provinces, and possibly a sixth one for the Northwest Territories, we could study the problems intelligently, because we would then have within the committee or commission all the elements that might differ across the country, and I think everyone would be treated fairly.
Mr. Chairman, may I call it six o'clock? [Text]


John Whitney Pickersgill: Is there not a disposition on the part of the committee to let the resolution go through so that we could introduce the bills?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. MacLean (Queens):: No, Mr. Chairman, I am sorry to say it is not feasible to meet with the request of the Secretary of State at the moment. There are still a number of people who wish to speak.


John Whitney Pickersgill: On the resolution rather than on the bills?


John Angus MacLean: That is right.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Churchill:: I should like to ask the house leader whether he can let us know what will be coming on Friday. We are looking forward with great expectation to hearing the minister of external affairs tomorrow, but what is happening on Friday?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I expect, as the hon. gentleman suggests, that tomorrow will be entirely taken up with external affairs, but there will be some other minister available if hon. members should run out of speeches before the end of the day. On Friday, it is

proposed, if it is the wish of the house, to abstract the estimates of the Department of External Affairs from the committee of supply and refer them to the committee on external affairs. The first item of business after the orders of the day would then be interim supply, and the government would be asking for one month's supply. If the federal-provincial conference is still going on I shall ask the indulgence of the house to present the interim supply measure on behalf of my colleague the Minister of Finance.
When that has been completed we will take the estimates of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources and we would have other departments available-the Department of Public Works would be the next one available, I think, up to live o'clock. At seven o'clock we would resume consideration of the estimates of the Department of Industry, where we left off last Friday.


Mr. Smallwood:: How about agriculture?


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is hoped the estimates of that department will be available next week.


Clifford Silas Smallwood: How about the post office?


John Whitney Pickersgill: That will come in its turn.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Can we be absolutely sure that at seven o'clock on Friday we shall be considering the estimates of the Department of Industry and the other items under that ministry?


John Whitney Pickersgill: As nearly sure as, in this vale of tears, any assurance can be given. If the minister drops dead, say, or if some dire calamity of that sort should occur, the arrangements might have to be changed. But as far as I can foresee now, I give that assurance.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If that happens you will be to blame.


[Stage Direction]
It being four minutes after six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, November 28, 1963