1963-11-26

[Stage Direction]
Mr. O. J. Godin (Nickel Bell) presented the first report of the standing committee on mines, forests and waters, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, in responding to a question from the hon. member for Danforth on October 211 undertook to inform the house on the current status of the preparations for the round of GATT trade negotiations scheduled to get under way next year. This round is colloquially known as the Kennedy round, a phrase which recalls to all members the courage and the wisdom of the late president of the United States.
On May 24 I reported to the house on my return from a meeting of trade ministers in Geneva that it had been agreed in principle to convene a comprehensive trade negotiating conference on May 4, 1964. This major negotiation is to cover all sectors of trade, including agriculture. In taking this decision the GATT ministers recognized that a great deal of preparatory work would be required before the opening of negotiations. For this purpose a trade negotiations committee has been established, composed of representatives of all the participating countries, to elaborate the rules for the tariff negotiating plan to be adopted, to work out the means for dealing with the special problems of agricultural trade and non-tariff barriers to trade, and to consider the participation of less developed countries in the negotiations.
This committee, of which Canada is a member, has held a number of meetings and established a series of subsidiary groups to work on particular questions. A subcommittee on the tariff negotiating plan has been at work. The elaboration amongst the countries concerned of a suitable across the board linear reduction plan designed to be largely automatic in operation requires the most careful
and detailed examination. Hon. members will recall that while GATT ministers agreed on the adoption of a linear plan for the negotiations, it was accepted that for countries such as Canada, for which a linear plan would not be appropriate because of the characteristics of our production and trade, the objective would be the achievement of reciprocity through an exchange of concessions of equivalent value.
In the field of agriculture a general agricultural committee has been established by the trade negotiations committee. The terms of reference of this committee are as follows:
The committee shall consider and submit to the trade negotiations committee recommendations in regard to the rules to govern, and the methods to be employed in the creation of acceptable conditions of access to world markets for agricultural products in furtherance of a significant development and expansion of world trade in such products.
A cereals group has met to examine the possibility of coming to general international agreement on acceptable conditions for access to world markets for wheat and other cereals. This group is meeting again during the present month. A group on meats has held one meeting, and a similar body will be established on dairy products. Other subcommittees are dealing with non-tariff barriers and the participation of the less developed countries.
Preparation for a major trade negotiation of the scope which is contemplated is a complex process involving progressive recalculations of the varying interests of participating countries. Agreed methods and procedures will take some time to work out. Indeed, there has already been what the technicians refer to as some slippage in the schedule originally envisaged for the preparatory work. The house will appreciate, however, that the negotiating conference itself is not scheduled to open until May of next year.
Canada is participating actively in the preparatory work and will continue to do so. We wish to ensure so far as possible that the negotiations will have broad coverage and will be substantial and successful. It is important for Canada that the foundations for the negotiations should be soundly laid and should accommodate our own negotiating interests as well as those of the larger participants such as the United States and the European economic community. Our current efforts are directed to this end.

Tariff Negotiations
In addition to the preparations being undertaken internationally, each participating country in the months between now and the formal opening of the negotiations next year will be developing its own negotiating position, including its assessment of benefits and the elaboration of its contribution to the bargaining in the light of its national and particular interests. As I have mentioned on a number of occasions, the government will be very anxious to have the views of all affected Canadian interests in preparing the Canadian negotiating position. However, announcement of procedures for receiving these views has been deferred until the framework of the negotiations can be outlined with more certainty, and I regret to say that it is not possible to give the necessary certainty at the moment.
Nevertheless, for many of the Canadian interests concerned there may be useful preliminary studies which can be initiated now. I know that some organizations in particular sectors of the economy have already begun such studies. The scope of the tariff reducing authority of the United States is known, as is the objective of the United States administration to use this authority to the maximum consistent with the procedures laid down in the trade expansion act and an adequate response from its trading partners, in particular the European economic community. It would be useful for industry to begin to identify and evalue the export opportunities which may be presented in the United States and other main markets so as to be able to respond quickly and effectively when the government is in a position to consult on a more precise and specific basis. It would also be useful if at this stage exporters would advise the Department of Trade and Commerce of barriers to trade other than tariffs which may stand in the way of the expansion of their sales to particular countries.
This statement which I am making today is in part an announcement to the business community, as well of course as to the members of the house, of the procedures we contemplate. The Department of Trade and Commerce itself has been in touch with exporters generally. Indeed, within the next few days I expect to have some informal discussions with leading members of business communities. It is in the light of the government's assessment of the trade benefits of the prospective negotiations that consideration will be given to the concessions that may be appropriate on Canada's part.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: The general purport of the remarks of the Minister of Trade and Commerce will receive the support of Her Majesty's loyal opposition. Indeed, I recall that in September of 1962 I brought before the prime ministers' conference in London the need of a world conference amongst democratic and like minded nations to the end that an arrangement could be entered into for multilateral trade. This suggestion, when made to the prime ministers' conference, was received with criticism in Canada by some of the hon. gentlemen now sitting opposite. However, in the month of October I submitted the matter to the late President Kennedy, set out in the same detail I used when I placed this matter before the prime ministers' conference. Within four days thereafter he informed me by letter, which is available to the house, that he would join with Canada in this initiative which he considered would be of major importance and beneficial to the extension of trade multilaterally throughout the world.
Mention has been made by the minister of preparations being made for the conference next May, I think it is, in Geneva. Certainly the events of the last several weeks have not been indicative of the same determination on the part of some western nations to bring about the desirable objectives of multilateral trade in the terms enunciated by the minister as seemed probable during the summer and early autumn of this year. I hope Canadian industry will react to the suggestion of the minister, and that Canadian interests as a whole will place before the minister and the government their viewpoint on this most important matter.
When we, as the government, said that across the board tariff cuts were not possible unless Canada was prepared to be sacrificed in various industrial areas, that view was ridiculed. However, today it is accepted; it is recognized, as the minister has said, that a linear cut, an across the board cut, would not bring about for Canada that degree of economic certainty to which she is entitled. As a matter of fact, with United States tariffs higher than ours, were we to make the same rate of cut the result would be very little improvement in our potential for the acquisition of markets in the United States and, on the other hand, a vast increase in the potentiality of the United States to trade in Canada.
Therefore I am sure that since the government has accepted the view that was ours, we will naturally follow the course of supporting whatever may be done in this connection. But I would point out one fact, namely that the last two or three lines in the minister's statement indicated to me that certain sacrifices might be asked for on the part

of Canada. My hope is that in whatever action is taken we will maintain to the largest degree possible our preferences within the commonwealth, those preferences having meant so much to our country. The United States throughout has desired to remove those preferences. I know we had discussions in this regard during the so-called dialogues that took place between our government and the government of the United States; but we took the stand, and we still do, that the commonwealth has something to offer, and that there should not be a sacrifice of those preferences because of the desire of other countries to bring about such changes.
Mention was made of agriculture, and I would think this is going to be a very difficult field. One has only to look at the events of the last few days to realize what the situation is in the European community. There were many who claimed that we should try to secure associate membership in the European community but, sir, you do not hear so much about that now.
We find there is grave disagreement among the nations of that community, and in particular with reference to agriculture. I would like very much, and I am sure the house would also like, to have the opportunity to hear the minister explain what the result will be to Canada's markets for wheat in the event that the plan proposed by Mr. Sicco Mansholt, vice president of agriculture for the common market, were carried into effect. The other day he suggested that the common market should have uniform grain prices. That means the uniform grain price in West Germany, France, Italy, Belgium, The Netherlands and Luxembourg would be $100 a ton. I have not worked this out, but mental arithmetic leads me to believe it would be about $2.90 a bushel, which would be 9 per cent above the current price in France, the community's chief producer of wheat.
If this plan is accepted it means a large increase in France's production of wheat. It is actually all important to wheat production, and I am sure this is something that will command the attention and consideration of the Canadian government. In endeavouring to bring about extension in trade I hope there will be no sacrifice of Canadian agricultural interests because of the action of the European common market.
It is difficult to follow the minister in the detail which he has given. No advance notice was given that there would be a statement in this regard, but I thought I ought to make these observations:
1.	Having consistently advanced multilateral trade during the period we were in office, we support the action now outlined.
28902-5-325
Tariff Negotiations
2.	We are pleased to find that the old idea of linear and across the board cuts has now been departed from.
3.	In connection with agriculture we hope the European common market's initiative, which I mentioned a moment ago, will be watched carefully throughout and that our markets on continental Europe shall not thereby be sacrificed.


Mr. Reid Scott (Danforth):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the New Democratic party I want to thank the minister for his statement, of which he has given us notice from day to day in the past. We knew the statement was coming and were eagerly awaiting it. Those of us who are interested in this field have had so many communications from business and agricultural communities across the country that I for one realize we really cannot deal with this matter adequately on a statement on motions. The issues the minister has raised and the implications of this policy upon the whole Canadian economy are so great that I would earnestly suggest that some time in the new year the minister try to arrange a general debate on this subject; because the matters raised in this statement are far too complex and difficult to deal with at this stage, although we can make some general observations.
I would urge the minister to try to arrange a convenient time at which this matter could be more thoroughly explored. I am sorry, for example, that the minister has not said anything about the implications to the whole program of the French position. Those of us who were on the recent trip to Europe were very impressed by the apparent determination of the French government to torpedo these talks. None of us yet knows the effect of President Kennedy's death upon the whole proposal that is now before us. There are signs in statements now emanating from officials in Washington which seem to indicate that some of these people are having second thoughts about this particular program. I hope the minister will be able to give us some information on this score.
But I come back to the main complaint we have been making from the beginning in regard to the whole Kennedy tariff negotiations. We still do not feel that the government is taking the country into its confidence. The minister has spoken about the desire to enlarge export opportunities, but there is still no clear indication from this government as to where it is going with respect to the concessions it intends to make and how these concessions are going to affect the Canadian economy. I suppose the business community from coast to coast is still in a quandary wanting to know whose ox is going to be gored in these negotiations and what

Tariff Negotiations
plans and programs the government is going to develop to assist them through what will be a fateful transitional period.
I still feel that we are no wiser now than when the minister commenced his statement. The detailed portions of it are of course helpful and will be studied, but so far no clear indication is given to the business community as to what kind of program the government are going to follow, what kind of concessions they are willing to make, who is going to be affected by this, and what plans the government has to assist these industries through the transitional period. We still have no clear indication from the government where it is going in this regard. We have no announced policy in regard to adjustment assistance, without which we have been told we are seriously handicapped and cannot carry on effective negotiations. We were glad to hear the minister talk about commodity agreements, because in many areas these are the only long term solution. We would like to know what the plans are to work out agricultural problems with the European economic community.
All I am saying, Mr. Speaker, is that it is just not possible to deal with this matter on motions. It is so serious, so far reaching, so complex, and carries with it such great implications for the whole Canadian economy that I urge that at some convenient time in the very near future a thorough debate be scheduled to discuss this matter.


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, this not being the time for speech making or debate, I would impress upon the Minister of Trade and Commerce the necessity of keeping the house informed on this matter. I support the remarks just made by the hon. member for Danforth and urge that an opportunity be provided for not only a debate on this entire issue but also for studying this whole question, because certainly trade is one of the basic problems that we must face in this increasingly competitive economic world.
I congratulate the minister for having again raised this matter, and I think his remarks indicate something that is sorely needed in our economy. I refer to the need for more consultation and co-operation among the various aspects of our economy. It is a good thing that business is being brought into it. I believe the work of Canada on the committee and the leadership which Canada can give in relation to trade can be made much more effective on this basis.
I would just add that we in Canada do stand in need of a permanent and projected

trade policy for agriculture which will give the necessary assurance to what is still our basic industry. I also remind the minister and his government that along with this question of trade one of the most vital aspects which cannot be separated from it, is the problem in the world today concerning the balance of payments. Along with the newer trade patterns there must also be a new financial arrangement worked out which can facilitate the trade policies which are developed.
I would also remind him that we have not only an obligation but an opportunity within our own commonwealth of nations, and I trust that as we are looking over the entire trade situation we do not forget the aspect of trade that relates to the commonwealth. It is now some six years ago that Great Britain offered us free trade as far as their part of the commonwealth was concerned. The government at that time turned their back on this suggestion; but certainly in the over-all picture there is no better place to begin than with the commonwealth.


Mr. Real Caouelle (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I had not been told beforehand about the statement just made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Sharp). Nevertheless, that statement is indicative of the great interest shown by the government in external trade and our trade relations with countries all over the world. It seems intent on increasing negotiations to get a bigger share of international trade, especially with Europe.
The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) said preference should be given to commonwealth countries. Personally, I think preference should go to countries offering the best guarantees and the best terms, wherever they may be.
Those which do business with us do not do so out of love for Canada but because it is to their interest. Thus we sell wheat to foreign countries at prices lower than those in force in our own country.
It is desirable of course that we seek to deal as much as possible with foreign countries but we must not forget that our domestic market comes first.
We have overseas ambassadors, trade commissioners and others; our industrialists are represented and see to it that our trade relations are maintained and improved in those countries.
There should be government representatives in all regions of Canada to stimulate our domestic market and try to get all the countries of the world to buy our surplus production.
That is our wish and our hope in this corner of the house; moreover, we would ask

the minister to introduce as early as possible a bill or a resolution that we could discuss so as to meet as quickly as possible the needs on both the domestic and foreign markets.



RAILWAYS, AIR LINES AND SHIPPING PERSONNEL OF SESSIONAL COMMITTEE

Mr. Maurice Rinfrei (St. James) moved:: That the sessional committee on railways, air lines and shipping appointed November 15, 1963, be composed of Messrs. Addison, Balcer, Bechard, Bell, Deaehman, Fisher, Forbes, Granger, Gregoire, Gundlock, Hahn, Leboe, Lloyd, Macaluso, Mitchell, Monteith, Muir (Lisgar), Nugent, Prittie, Pugh, Richard, Rideout, Rouleau, Rock, Sauve and Southam.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mr. S. Perry Ryan (Spadina) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-113, to provide for control of the use of collateral bills and notes in consumer credit transactions.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Sylvester Perry Ryan: Mr. Speaker, as hon. members know the Small Loans Act regulates part of the cash loan field in Canada. Somewhat by analogy to that act, this measure is designed to regulate the consumer credit field as far as I believe it is possible for the federal government to go at the present time until interpretations have been handed down by the courts defining provincial and federal jurisdiction with more certainty.
This bill has two main purposes; first of all, to give warning to makers of promissory notes given as collateral to deferred payment agreements in consumer credit transactions that they may become liable for payment of the notes to third parties who are innocent purchasers of the notes for value and without notice of the sale of goods transaction; second, to limit the rate of interest chargeable on such notes.
This bill offers alternatives and a somewhat different approach to ideas already contained in one or two bills which are before the special joint committee of both houses on consumer credit. It is my hope that with the unanimous consent of the house the Solicitor General will move to refer this bill to the joint committee on the motion for second reading.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
28902-5-325i
Inquiries of the Ministry EXTERNAL AFFAIRS



SENTENCE IMPOSED ON ARRESTED


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, while appreciative of the fact that the Cuban government provided an open trial for the two Canadians charged with offences against that country, the sentence imposed on one of them of 30 years is difficult to understand on the basis of ordinary humanitarian principles. I would ask the minister what the government intends to do in this regard, and what are the possibilities, if he is able to say, of there being a major amelioration of the term imposed.


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of Slate for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, at the present time all I can say in answer to the hon. gentleman is that an appeal is being lodged against the sentence in the case of one of the accused. What the result will be I cannot, of course, say; the course to be followed will depend on the outcome of the appeal.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, would the minister say to whom the appeal is being taken? Is it to a court, or is it to the president, or what is the technique?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I understand, Mr. Speaker, that the appeal will be taken to a military body that is of a judicial nature. It may be that the judicial body in question is the same body that tried the accused. This, of course, would be unusual under our procedures, and this has been indicated already in the discussions and conversations we have had with the ambassador here and with the government of Cuba itself.


John George Diefenbaker: Would the minister not say that an appeal like that, from the trying and sentencing body to that same body sitting en banc, would not be much of an appeal, although we have had that experience in our own country in connection with certain administrative appeals in the past? What has been the suggestion of the government of Canada in connection with the appeal? Has it been suggested that the appeal be direct to the president?


Mr.   Mariin@Essex East: Mr. Speaker, I have already indicated the particular steps which would be involved under our procedures. The judicial body involved in the appeal may not be in accordance with our procedures. Having in mind the interests of the accused, I feel I cannot say any more at this moment.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquillam):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Ronald Patrick Lippert is alleged to have confessed that he was an agent for the United States central intelligence agency. I wonder whether the minister's department has made any inquiries as to the accuracy of this statement, and whether the confession was actually made and is in accordance with the facts. If so, does the minister intend to make any protest to the government of the United States for having one of its agencies involve a Canadian citizen in illegal acts against another country with which we have normal diplomatic relations?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. gentleman will understand why I would not want to comment now on these alleged facts. I make no comment on whether they are true or whether we have any indication to lead us to believe they are not true. I make no comment on this point at all. Certainly until the judicial proceedings have been completed I do not propose to say anything that might prejudice in any way the conclusion of those proceedings.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question. Does the minister intend, however, to carry on an investigation to see if the facts as alleged in the said confession are accurate?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I do not want to say anything at this time until the judicial proceedings have been completed.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The minister has succeeded in not saying anything.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Did a Mr. Garfat, a Mr. Rueben or any other businessman from Ontario visit the minister or any of his officials to discuss arrangements for the flying of these canned goods to Cuba?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether the particular canned goods in question were discussed with the minister, but I shall look at the documents and see what is the situation.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Justice if an investigation is being undertaken, in view of the evidence at the trial in Cuba, into the reported canning of the explosives in the Toronto area.


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid this is a matter which does not fall within the responsibilities of the Department of Justice. This is an event which has taken place in another country.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Some hon. Members:: Toronto.


Lionel Chevrier: If I may be allowed to complete my answer, in the light of the question which the hon. member has put I will be glad to ask our people to look into the matter.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Surely the minister must have misunderstood the question. The question the hon. member asked was with reference to certain goods which it is alleged were canned in Ontario, and now it is claimed that the cans contained explosives. Surely it is the responsibility of the police authorities to see whether persons are canning explosives under the guise of canning food.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I must admit at once, and I apologize to the hon. gentleman, that I misunderstood the question as it was put. However, having regard to the answer already given by the Secretary of State for External Affairs to a related question, I have nothing to add to what he has already said.


William Arnold Peters: We do not want to carry the question any further, but the suggestion has been made that this canning was done in Canada, and this question has no relationship to the problem of external affairs. If this is being done I presume a criminal offence would be committed, and this could be investigated irrespective of the decision made by external affairs.


Lionel Chevrier: I shall be glad to look into the question. I am sure my hon. friend realizes that if there is an offence under the Criminal Code the constitution is quite clear that this would fall within provincial jurisdiction. So the attorney general of the province is the one who normally, under those circumstances, would have a certain responsibility. I do not want to take responsibility from the Department of Justice, if there is any, and I shall be glad, as I said earlier, to look into the matter.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I desire to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Would the minister inform the house whether canned goods being exported from Canada are subject to inspection by inspectors of the food and drugs division of her department?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: I do not know offhand, Mr. Speaker, but I know we do not inspect them to see if they are explosives.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. Could the minister tell the house whether there is any truth in the report, published in this morning's edition of Le Devoir, to the effect that the government is considering a cut of its military expenditures within NATO, in order to put more money at the disposal of the Canadian provinces?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: No, Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is any official basis whatsoever for that report.



TRANS-CANADA AIR LINES SASKATCHEWAN    INQUIRY AS TO PROVISION OF JET SERVICE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. N. Ormiston (Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Does the minister know whether Trans-Canada Air Lines has plans for jet service in Saskatchewan when, or before, the DC-9's go into service in 1966? In particular, will Regina and Saskatoon be included in transcontinental jet service?


Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the only way T.C.A. jet service could be provided to Saskatoon and Regina before the delivery of the DC-9's would be by the DC-8's. At the present time T.C.A. has no plans for making DC-8 intermediate stops between Winnipeg and Calgary in the case of Regina and Winnipeg and Edmonton in the case of Saskatoon. I would expect that both Regina and Saskatoon would have jet service after the DC-9 has been placed in service.



RECOMMENDATIONS RESPECTING NEW PLANES AND WINNIPEG MAINTENANCE BASE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Jolielie-L'Assompiion-Monlcalm):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Justice in his capacity as Acting Prime Minister?
Can the minister tell the house why, on the one hand, the government accepted the recommendations of Trans-Canada Air Lines on the choice of the DC-9, while on the other hand, it rejected the advice of those experts who
Inquiries of the Ministry recommended the transfer of T.C.A. workshops from Winnipeg to Montreal?


Lionel Chevrier: The Prime Minister made a statement in the house last week on three questions relating to the activities of Trans-Canada Air Lines. He has thus outlined the government policy, and it is not for me to comment on the Prime Minister's statements.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question?
As Canada has an adverse trade balance with the United States, has the government reconsidered its decision, and bought for Trans-Canada Air Lines another plane instead of the DC-9?


Lionel Chevrier: If the hon. member is trying to imply that Canadair did not get its fair share of contracts with the United States, he is mistaken, for I feel that the statements of the Prime Minister clearly establish that this company will get quite a considerable number of contracts.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I asked the minister a specific question. I asked him if buying a DC-9 from an American company, and the fact that some parts for it would be made in the United States, would not contribute to increase the deficit in our trade balance with the United States?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, there is no point of order.
It seems that the answer I gave the hon. member did not satisfy him, but he should remember that the purchase of DC-9 planes will involve very important sub-contracts which will promote the expansion of the Canadian economy.


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Justice, in his capacity as Acting Prime Minister?
Does the minister intend to make known the report of experts in favour of the DC-9 aircraft instead of the Caravelle and to disclose the reasons that brought about the purchase of the DC-9 aircraft rather than the other?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether it is in order to publish or make known technical reports such as that one.
Of course, the decision rests with the Minister of Transport, but according to the stand taken by the previous government and of the preceding one when technical reports were submitted, it will be recalled that they were considered as privileged material between the crown corporation and the government.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, may I put a supplementary question to the Minister of Transport?
Does the minister intend to make known the experts' report and can he assure the house that no member of the house had the opportunity to see this report?


George James McIlraith: The Minister of Transport does not intend to publish the report. The Minister of Transport can assure the members of the house that this report has not been shown to any members of the house, but its contents have been shown to members of the cabinet.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Justice?
Would the minister tell the house why the government recommended the purchase of an aircraft that has not been tested yet, leaving aside two other aircraft, including the Cara-velle, which has already stood the test on an international scale?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, the answer to this question is very easy. It is not the government that recommended the selection of that aircraft; it is the crown corporation, after a careful study, that made the recommendation, and the government accepted it.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: The government interfered with this decision.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the uncertainty that exists at Winnipeg over the question of whether the T.C.A. overhaul maintenance base is going to be retained there, as a result of the statements made by the minister and the president of T.C.A. after the Prime Minister's statement the other day, will the minister consider having prepared a clearcut statement that will do away with this uncertainty and tell us what the work is that will maintain the base there and the full employment that has been indicated for the next 10 years?


George James McIlraith: I might try to do that, but I have a suggestion for the hon. member. I hope the officials of Trans-Canada Air Lines will be before the sessional committee within the next week or two, and it would seem to me that would be the place to have such information put on the record.


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg Souih Centre):: May I ask a supplementary question. Last week the minister said, and these are his

words, "I would hope it would be maintained and probably increased, but I cannot be precise on the matter at the moment."


George James McIlraith: What is the page reference?


Gordon Minto Churchill: It is page 5055. Is the minister not holding out false hopes to the people of Winnipeg by statements such as that? On what does he base the statement that employment might be increased, when the jet planes are not going to be serviced at Winnipeg and the Viscounts are going to be withdrawn?


George James McIlraith: I tried to explain this to the hon. gentleman on Friday last. The significant part of the announcement is that the Viscounts are not to be withdrawn, as was previously indicated in the announcements a few months ago. This is the significant part. Now, those Viscounts are becoming older planes which certainly will require to be serviced.
I have not got the Hansard reference, but in answer to a question I indicated that I expected the employment level would be maintained or even increased above the present level. In answer to a further question from the hon. member I indicated that I would not give an assurance that the DC-9 maintenance work would be done at Winnipeg.
That is what has been said on this subject so far; and should any further assurance be wanted, if the hon. gentleman will phrase his question carefully I will try to get a careful answer for him, because I am as anxious as he is to have these fears in Winnipeg removed. I have indicated that the fears in Winnipeg have grown larger than the facts warranted, even before the announcement, and for that reason as well as others I am anxious to have them quite allayed. I believe the situation in Winnipeg with respect to this matter is very much better than I was able to convey to the hon. member in answer to questions on last Friday.


Gordon Minto Churchill: As a further supplementary question, can the minister give an assurance that the number of Viscounts now in T.C.A. service will be maintained at the same level during the next 10 years, and that they will be serviced at Winnipeg?


George James McIlraith: No. It would be utterly irresponsible to give an assurance in those terms.


Stanley Howard Knowles: As a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, in view of the uneasiness in Winnipeg to which the minister has referred, and even though that committee is going to meet soon, will the minister consider giving a carefully prepared statement which will reconcile what Mr. MacGregor said with what the minister has said, and thus get this thing cleared up? I am sure he read what Mr. NOVEMBER 26, 1963
MacGregor said the day after the announcement was made, and that he realizes there is a real basis for the uncertainty that exists in Winnipeg.


George James McIlraith: I will be very glad to consider that, Mr. Speaker.

On the orders of the day:


Mr. Guy Marcoux (Quebec-Monlmorency):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Transport. Could the minister tell the house whether Trans-Canada Air Lines is considering the possibility of increasing its fares to make up for the $20 million deficit that will follow from retaining the maintenance base at the Winnipeg airport?


George James McIlraith: No, Mr. Speaker.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a
supplementary question. Does the minister, by that answer, confirm the figure to which the hon. member referred?


George James McIlraith: No, Mr. Speaker.



REQUEST FOR EMPLOYMENT OF BILINGUAL PERSONNEL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport, and I want to make it one of personal privilege.
For the last two sessions I have been insisting that French be spoken on T.C.A. aircraft, especially by hostesses on duty aboard Vanguards or Viscounts.
I have to inform the minister that yesterday several members, including Your Honour, Mr. Speaker, and the hon. members for Iles-de-la-Madeleine (Mr. Sauve), Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire), Charlevoix (Mr. Belanger) and Shefford (Mr. Rondeau), boarded a plane at noon, at Montreal, on flight 351. We had but one hostess and she was not bilingual.
Will the minister tell me if he is making fun of us when we ask him for bilingual hostesses on T.C.A. aircraft? We are not asking that English be done away with but that French be spoken at least between Montreal and Ottawa.


George James McIlraith: This whole matter is one which has received very close attention. I am sorry I do not have the details with me at this
Inquiries of the Ministry moment, but a great deal of work has already been done in this connection. Efforts are being made to ensure that in all these aircraft attendants should be bilingual on routes where that is desirable or required.
I am sure if the hon. member would pursue his question in the committee he would get a statement in detail as to what progress has been made in this field in the last three or four months.



TRANSPORTATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. E. Pascoe (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I also have a question for the Minister of Transport. It is somewhat related to earlier questions regarding the shortage of railway box cars, but this time it is in connection with the apparent shortage of railway coaches. Does the minister know that there is no railway passenger sleeper accommodation available from December 18 to December 24 for travel to the west? I called for a reservation during that week, and 1 was told that there were three pages of names on the waiting list. Will the minister use his good offices to see that additional facilities are provided so that people may be able to make their Christmas holiday trips as planned?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I shall be very glad to draw the hon. member's question to the attention of the railways.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Jack McIntosh (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Agriculture, but in his absence I will direct it to the Acting Prime Minister. It arises out of a statement the Minister of Agriculture apparently made to a Liberal audience in Red Deer, Alberta, as reported in the Edmonton Journal of Monday, November 25, in which he said in part "Patronage, what is that? I select people according to merit." If it is government policy that personnel are selected on merit why was it, in view of this statement by the minister, that Mr. George Walker, the former P.F.A.A. supervisor for Swift Current, was discharged from the government service? Either this statement is false or the minister does not practise what he preaches.
5106	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, the last half of the question is obviously one for the order paper.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lionel Chevrier: In so far as the first half is concerned, I think I will have to draw it to the attention of the Minister of Agriculture.



REQUEST FOR OPEN MARKET FOR GRAIN AS BETWEEN EAST AND WEST

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Raymond Langlois (Megantic):: Mr. Speaker, I had a question for the Minister of Agriculture but he is a busy man, so I will direct it to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I think he can answer it. Is it the intention of the government to have a more open grain market between the western and eastern provinces such as exists between the United States and our eastern provinces now?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member gave me notice of this question, but it has not helped me very much to answer it. I am afraid I do not understand the purport of the question, because I find it difficult to make a comparison between the situation that exists as between the United States and the eastern provinces and the situation that exists as between the western provinces and eastern provinces of Canada. I hope the hon. gentleman will rephrase his question and put it on the order paper.


Raymond Langlois: It is very short. One can order wheat or corn from the United States for delivery directly to the eastern provinces, and you cannot do so in Canada from the western provinces.


Raymond Langlois: I should like to address my question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce or to the acting Prime Minister. What has been done in response to representations made a few weeks ago by the farmers' union of Quebec concerning eastern and western grain sales?


Mitchell William Sharp: Perhaps I might be permitted to answer that question. This whole question of the movement of grain from western to eastern Canada has been engaging the attention of the government, and there have been representations from many sources. I can assure the hon. member that we are not lacking in representations. We are looking into this matter and following it continuously.



REDISTRIBUTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Martineau (Poniiac-Temisca-mingue):: I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State. Has the chief electoral officer, Mr. Castonguay, been approached by the minister or other persons in authority to become chairman of the proposed new commission for redefining the electoral boundaries?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Secretary of State):: There is no such office proposed and therefore it would not be possible to suggest to Mr. Castonguay that he be considered for the office described by the hon. gentleman. However, I do not want to quibble. There is a resolution on the order paper having to do with a representation commissioner and I intend, as soon as we reach orders of the day, to discuss this at length. I shall be glad at that time to answer what I think is the hon. gentleman's question.



INQUIRY AS TO INTERIM AND FINAL PAYMENTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. Nasserden (Rosthern):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Can he indicate whether there is going to be an early interim payment some time in the new year, or an early final payment on last year's wheat crop, to take care of the lack of capital of farmers on the prairies?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, in reply to a similar question the other day I said I had already had a preliminary discussion with the wheat board, and they intend to follow the same procedure as in other years. I am sorry I cannot give a date at the present time.



HAMILTON FALLS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Roberl Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Secretary of State. Could the minister advise us whether the Atlantic development board is going to assist in financing the Hamilton Falls development, as was indicated by Premier Smallwood of Newfoundland over station CJON last Sunday morning?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I did not hear the broadcast, and I would be exceedingly surprised if the hon. gentleman is accurately informed about it. I assume he did not hear it himself. I know of no basis for the statement that the Atlantic development board is considering helping in the financing of the Hamilton Falls development. I would be very surprised indeed if that had been considered.



PROTECTION OF CANADIAN PRODUCERS IN LONG TERM AGREEMENTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. H. A. Thomas (Middlesex West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In view of the minister's statements concerning negotiations now going on for future supplies of raw sugar, and in view of his statement that our domestic sugar beet producers will be protected, would he be willing to arrange for representatives of the Canadian sugar beet growers' association to be present at and take part in these negotiations?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. gentleman for giving me notice of this question. I can assure him at once that I have already had discussions of a very informal character with representatives of the sugar beet producers, but perhaps I might add that officials of my department have received suggestions from various overseas producers, some of them suggesting exploratory discussions, and it is expected that meetings will be held within a few days in Canada. When the nature of the offers from these producers is better understood, and if these offers merit serious consideration, an opportunity will be made for consultations with representatives of the sugar beet producers.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: As
a supplementary question, will entering into any such arrangements for the bulk purchase of sugar, with any of the countries which have indicated some interest in this, require legislation, or has the government sufficient authority to proceed with the matter at the present time?


Mitchell William Sharp: Well, Mr. Speaker, I have not examined this question because I am not certain as yet about the nature of the offers or suggestions that may be made. Hon. members will understand there is a wide variety of possibilities, some of which doubtless would require legislation and some of which might not.
Inquiries of the Ministry



EFFECT OF PRICE INCREASES ON BAKERY INDUSTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. K. H. More (Regina City):: I should like to address a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce and ask him whether he has received representations from the bakery industry or from a consumer group with regard to the impact of the price of sugar upon the final product, specifically bread.


Mitchell William Sharp: I have not had representations from that particular group, but I have from other groups.


Kenneth Hamill (Ken) More: I should like to address a supplementary question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Can he confirm the suggestion I have heard that the annual cost to the bakery industry due to the increase in the price of sugar is $13 million, and that the net profit of this industry last year was only $4 million?


Mitchell William Sharp: I had not heard this, but I thank the hon. gentleman for informing me.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reynold Rapp (Humboldt-Melfori-
Tisdale): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Will the minister consider meeting with the premiers of the three prairie provinces to discuss the very important question of railroad abandonment, since these gentlemen are presently in Ottawa?
George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I have already discussed this problem with the premiers of each of the provinces, but I would be very glad to discuss it with them again if they so wish.


Mr. R. R. Southam (Moose Mountain):: As
a supplementary question, since a meeting was held last Friday in Regina between officials of the minister's department and officials and members of the Saskatchewan government, would the minister care to give the house a report on that meeting with regard to railway abandonment?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I do not know if it is proper for me to give a report on that meeting. It was called by the Saskatchewan provincial authorities and officials of my department were sent there only as observers, but I will look into it and see if a report can be given.

Inquiries of the Ministry HEALTH AND WELFARE



REQUEST FOR REPORT ON CONFERENCE ON SMOKING AND CANCER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Would the minister give us a report on the discussions and dealings at her successful national conference on the relationship between smoking and disease?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for having given me notice that he would ask such a question. In the gallery at the moment there are some representatives of the industry and individuals who were present at the conference, which lasted for a day and a half. The conference was also attended by representatives of the departments of health of each of the 10 provinces and in some cases representatives of the departments of education and of youth, as well as the voluntary health agencies, the cancer society, heart foundation, public health institute and representatives of the growers from the provinces of Ontario and Quebec.
As a result of a very co-operative day and a half the provincial representatives agreed unanimously on the fact that smoking is harmful, and agreed to undertake co-operatively a program of education and research directed toward young people in the country and their commencing the habit. The federal government then announced it was prepared to put up $400,000 for a program of education which would be addressed to adults, which education would take the form of a positive program and not a program based on fear. In addition the federal government announced that it is prepared to expend the sum of $200,000 to add to funds already available for research on lung cancer and motivational research into the smoking habit-why it is picked up and why it persists so strongly.
May I say that notwithstanding the obvious conflict of personal interest the conference proceeded in a spirit of great co-operation, in a spirit of moderation, and with a real concern for something which, it agrees, has become a national health problem in Canada.


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: I should like to ask the minister if this allocation of $600,000 is reflected in the estimates now before us or in supplementary estimates, or whether it will be included in a later supplementary estimate.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I omitted to say that there would be a technical committee set up at once to deal with the specifics of the program. As
[Mr. Mcllraith.l
the hon. member knows, the estimates which are now before the house are not estimates which were prepared during the time the present government has been in office. It is expected this sum will be included in the next estimates.


An hon. Member:: For 1964-65.


Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe East):: I wonder if this information will be available to the press and to members here as well as to members of the other place, so that we may know what went on at this conference.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Apart from the briefs
prepared by my department, briefs were prepared by each of the agencies involved. Though they were invited to bring sufficient copies for distribution to the press and to interested people, they did not bring copies in any great numbers. Representatives of the press were invited to a press conference last evening, and they were given copies of all the briefs where additional copies were available; and of course delegates were free to discuss with members of the press what had been going on. I have made myself available to the press to answer any questions which might be raised. As to the specific programs, these will be announced after the working groups have met and determined on them.


Philip Bernard Rynard: I wonder if I may ask when this material will be available to members of the house. Is there a printed record of the meetings, with recommendations and so forth?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: No, there is not. Reading of the briefs took up much of the time. On behalf of the department some notes were made of the discussion, but there will be no printed record. As I indicated previously, it was the intention to hold these meetings in camera so that discussion might not be inhibited by the possibility of material being extracted from the proceedings as they went along which might not be supported by later submissions.


Mr. Joseph Slogan (Springfield):: I wonder if the minister can indicate whether there was any discussion at this conference with regard to the restriction of cigarette advertising in Canada. Could she tell us what attitude the conference took toward the extensive advertising of cigarettes in this country?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: 

DOMINION-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE REQUEST THAT COPIES OF STATEMENTS BE MADE AVAILABLE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In view of the interest in the federal-provincial conference which is taking place, I wonder whether the Acting Prime Minister could tell us if copies of the various provincial statements and of any formal statements which are made by the federal government could be made available to members at an early date.


Lionel Chevrier: My understanding is that all these statements are public and that they are available, but I will inquire at once to see if they can be given to members in their boxes in the usual way.



RAILWAY ACT


George James McIlraith: the third reading of Bill No. C-110, to amend the Railway Act.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise to say I am glad to see that the point I raised yesterday has been met. I refer to the fact that in the previous copy of the bill there was a difference in wording between the marginal note and the text of the bill. That has now been corrected and the same terminology is used in the text and in the marginal note; this has been done both in English and in French.
Thus the matter has been taken care of.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



REDISTRIBUTION


John Whitney Pickersgill: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
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
Redistribution Commission 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.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, before the hon. gentleman goes ahead with his presentation, I am wondering whether he would be prepared, in view of the fact that this is part and parcel of a general electoral change, to agree that the whole field be covered at one time in general discussion, rather than going over the same ground later or restricting the discussion in committee to the terminology of this particular resolution.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, the right hon. gentleman has anticipated a suggestion I was going to make to the house, which I think is a very helpful one and I appreciate his suggestion very much. I assume he is speaking for his friends, and I hope I am speaking for mine, and I appeal to hon. gentlemen in the corner to agree that we regard the debate on this resolution as a general debate on the problem of redistribution and the proposals which are being laid before the house for a method of dealing with this problem. In that context perhaps-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, may I say that we agree but we wonder, in view of the fact that such agreement could have been anticipated, why the minister did not proceed with first reading of the other bill today.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I was just going to explain that too.


John George Diefenbaker: Is it because there was not a resolution?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, Mr. Chairman, it is because the resolution which is now before the committee envisages all the payments that would require to be made, and all the financing, for both measures. Perhaps I should explain right away why that is. The bill that I did not introduce today was not introduced

Redistribution Commission for the very good, technical reason which the right hon. gentleman has indicated, in order to conform with the rules of the house. The bill as it is now drafted envisages a procedure not for one redistribution but, if it meets the wishes of both houses, is something that would become a fundamental statute; it would provide the means of carrying on redistribution for the future.
It seemed to me that it would be desirable not to include in that measure, which has a general application for the future, a lot of mechanical and financial provisions relating to the specific redistribution measure that is now before us. That is the only reason for there being two bills. It would have been quite possible to put everything into one bill, but it seemed to me that looking to the future, if we could in our wisdom in this chamber and in the other place provide at the present time a means of dealing with this problem whenever it arises after each decennial census, so there would not have to be basic legislation brought before parliament every ten years, we would be doing a service to future parliaments. I am sure the right hon. Leader of the Opposition, the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre and the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings, who have very recently served in the government of Canada, are just as conscious as anyone who is on the treasury benches today of the immense demands that are made for parliamentary time. If we can do something, and do it well, that will save parliamentary time in the future, it seems to me it would be a sensible thing to do.


John George Diefenbaker: Without abridging the full rights of parliament.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Precisely. The right hon. gentleman is more than right about that; without abridging the full rights of parliament. I think-and here again I have been assisted by the right hon. gentleman-that before I go on to talk about any of the details of this measure it would be proper for me to indicate the kind of attitude with which the government is approaching this problem and with which I, as the spokesman for the government in this particular matter, am endeavouring to approach it.
The measure now before us and the other bill, of which notice has been given on the order paper, represent a serious endeavour by this government, after a full study of the matter, to eliminate abuses of the past, to make the House of Commons truly representative and at the same time give this commission certain ground rules and directions from parliament as to the principles it should accept. It is an endeavour at the same time to grant flexibility in the
fMr. Pickersgill.]

interests of fairness in ordei to ensure that the considerations that have always been in the minds of governments since 1867 shall be maintained.
It must also be pointed out to the commission that rural ridings must necessarily, in the experience of the past, have less population in general than urban ridings, and that there are other considerations, such as geographical lines, rivers, county lines and the like which must be taken into account. But all these considerations shall be based on the assurance that an independent commission will bring about a redistribution that is fair, just and reasonable; one that will be determined not on the basis of the frailties of human nature, which all of us have, but on a basic principle that the political advantage of the government or a majority in the house shall not be one of the considerations to be taken into account or given any attention.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Whitney Pickersgill: In other words we want to follow the lead that has been given by almost every nation, certainly by commonwealth nations and the mother of parliaments, that membership in parliament shall be determined fairly by the people.
Hon. members may suspect and indeed some hon. members may know, because I have read this statement, that it is not my own. These were the words used by the right hon. gentleman opposite in April of last year when he introduced a similar resolution, and with his permission-I did not ask it in advance but I hope I have it now-I am making them my own, because the spirit in which the right hon. gentleman was approaching that matter at that time is the spirit in which this government is seeking to approach it at this time.
It is true that the word "commission" occurs on several occasions and that when the other bill, of which notice is given, is seen by the house and the public it will be seen that it should be in the plural instead of the singular. But with that exception I do not think there is a single word in this statement with which I would quarrel. I do not think there are-I hope there are not-many words in that statement with which any hon. member of this house would quarrel, because it does seem to me it is the objective that all of us have in mind. It is the objective to which all political parties in this house, I am happy to be able to say, seem to me to be committed. Moreover, the business, the task, the burden, if I may put it that way, of redistribution is a constitutional obligation which is imposed upon parliament, and particularly, of course, upon this chamber. I say that because, unless I am greatly mistaken-and I must confess

I have not done any detailed research-the other place has never altered what has been done in this place in the past. Therefore, because it has to do with the composition of this house, and because it is imposed upon all of us by the constitution, the question of redistribution is peculiarly the duty-and not one that any of us regards with much relish, I think-of all of us in this house.
I may say at once that the government has no intention of trying to impose its will, and has no desire to do so; I want to emphasize that. As I said earlier we are committed to the principle of an independent, impartial redistribution to be performed outside this house. But as I indicated in answer to a question from the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre the other day, we in the government do not feel that we are committed to any detail on either of these measures. We do not intend to regard the bills as government measures except technically. Because technically they are government measures; they are taken up in government time and are introduced by a minister of the crown. However, we feel that the collective wisdom of this house should be brought to bear on this problem and that any good suggestion from any quarter should be incorporated into these measures without any thought of partisan consideration. We will welcome improvements from any quarter of the house to either of the bills. It is true, of course, that for the financial provisions of the bill which would follow this particular resolution the government has naturally to take its proper responsibility and, of course, intends to do so; but for every other aspect of these measures if there is a better way that anyone can suggest of doing these things than that suggested in the bills, and if it commends itself to the majority of the house, I can assure hon. members in all parts of the house that there will be no quarrel from this side.
I should like to say a word or two about the history of the proposals I am now seeking to outline. We in the government regarded the problem of redistribution, I think rightly, as one of the most urgent problems facing us when we took office. I discussed this matter with the chief electoral officer the day I became a minister. The following day the cabinet authorized the chief electoral officer to enlist the co-operation of the bureau of statistics and of the surveyor general's branch of the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys with a view to making every kind of technical preparation which could properly be advanced. At that time the census information was available, and this would have made available the technical material required for redistribution as soon
Redistribution Commission as parliament could act and determine upon how it should be accomplished.
The chief electoral officer suggested to me that it would be helpful if he visited Australia and New Zealand, where they have a very long experience of impartial redistribution, and where in Australia the situation is very similar to our own. That suggestion received my approval, and I think his visit has been one of the most useful things which could possibly have been done. The chief electoral officer had studied the system in those countries and in Great Britain and elsewhere, but actually seeing those countries and talking to the people who carried out these functions I think gave him a much better appreciation both of the difficulties and of the methods that need to be applied in this very complicated kind of problem.
I should perhaps add that the chief electoral officer told me something at the beginning of our discussion which horrified me. He told me that his estimate was that it would take a commission so long to consider the question that it would not be possible to have an election under redistribution before the autumn of 1968. I see the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings smiles; I suppose I am not the only person who has received such advice. I must say that I said I should not like to have to make a proposal to parliament with that kind of timetable attached to it, and I remarked that there must surely be some other way of doing this more rapidly. But the more I went into it the more complex and difficult it appeared; and to be quite frank with you, sir, the more impossible it seemed to me to expect one single commission composed of eminent persons who would have to be selected for this purpose, but who would probably feel they could not give their full time to it, to accomplish it in any reasonable time.
Therefore I made the suggestion to the chief electoral officer that we have four commissions, one for Quebec, one for Ontario, one for the four Atlantic provinces and one for the four western provinces. We gave quite a lot of thought to this possibility. Then when the chief electoral officer came back from Australia he advised me that in Australia they had a separate commission for each of the states, that to have a commission straddling two or more states would mean that one would not save very much expense but that one would lose a good deal of time, and that one would not have within the commission the same intimate knowledge of local conditions which one would have within a commission from a single state. I must say that this argument seemed to me to be very compelling, besides which it seemed to me
5112	HOUSE OF
Redistribution Commission that it would still further reduce the time likely to be taken in carrying out the redistribution. It also seemed to have another advantage to me; it meant that if we had commissions composed of three persons in each province we would have three people with knowledge of local conditions. These three people would be as independent and as impartial as we could find. They would collectively have three kinds of experience, and three outlooks would be brought to bear on this problem. I thought that would be much better than having only one person from each specific province in the case of the smaller or less populous provinces, and therefore it was decided that in the proposals which would be laid before the house provision would be made for a commission for each of the provinces.
There is at once the problem which will have occurred, I think, to every hon. member-that of making sure that all the commissions would proceed on a relatively uniform basis. It was then that the suggestion was made, one which I believe I made myself, that an office should be created by parliament and an officer of parliament appointed by parliament who would be ex officio a member of each of the 10 commissions and who would have the task of co-ordinating their activities.
Here I come to the point where I feel I should answer the question put to me earlier by the hon. member for Pontiac-Temiscamin-gue. The question of how this office should be constituted did not seem to present many difficulties. It was quite obvious it would have to be created by parliament and, like the chief electoral officer, the appointment of the commissioner would have to be made by a resolution of parliament.


Mr. Balcer:: I am sorry to interrupt the minister, but earlier he raised the point that the chief electoral officer had advised him that if he were to follow a certain system he might not be able to achieve redistribution before 1968. Before the minister proceeds to another subject, I wonder whether he could tell us now what would be the time envisaged by him if this resolution should be approved?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am going to deal with that point. I am very easily confused, as the house knows, and in order to save me that embarrassment I wonder whether hon. gentlemen would let me do it in my own order and in my own time.


John George Diefenbaker: You do not want help in that direction.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The right hon. gentleman is quite right. I do a sufficiently good job of it myself that I need no help. However, I try not to confuse others. I was saying that it seemed to me whoever would be appointed to


the office of representation commissioner should, of course, be appointed in the same way that the chief electoral officer is appointed, by a resolution of the house. It is true, of course, that I have envisaged in my own mind, and I think it is true that my colleagues have the impression, that there is one person who would be better able to fill this office than anybody else we know anything about in Canada, and I do not want to hide for one minute from the house that that person is the present chief electoral officer. I did not conceive that I had any right to offer to that gentleman a position which had not yet been created by parliament, but in my own mind I feel he is a man who, if he would accept the office, would be better qualified to fill it than anyone else I happen to know anything about.


Paul Raymond Martineau: I wonder whether the
minister would satisfy the curiosity of the committee and say whether or not he or some other person in authority has approached the chief electoral officer to find out if he would consider accepting this office, if and when it is created by parliament.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think I should be quite frank and say yes, I have reason to believe that the chief electoral officer would accept if he felt that he would be acceptable to all quarters of the house. But, knowing him as we all do, we know he would not wish to accept unless he knew that the appointment would be agreeable to all quarters of the house.
I do not mind saying at once why I feel he would be acceptable. We have had four elections since 1957 in a period of a little over six years. Although some of those elections were quite bitterly fought and many hard things were said, I have not heard in any quarter of the house, no matter who was in office or who was in opposition, any suggestion that they were not conducted with the utmost propriety. I think that all of us as Canadians can be proud of that. I do not want to seem unduly sentimental about this, but as we look about the world today and see with what difficulty other countries change their governments and how impossible it is in so many countries to change them at all without bloodshed and strife, I think that we can be exceedingly proud of what has gone on in this country in these last years. The way in which we have operated the system itself is in my view further evidence of the proposition some of us accept, that our system of parliamentary government is unsurpassed anywhere in the world.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the Secretary of State permit a question? If I am anticipating what

he is coming to, he can tell me. He has referred to the fact that each of these 10 commissions would consist of the representation commissioner and three others. Does the government have in mind that a pattern such as we now have in Manitoba, and which has worked out very well, might be the pattern to be followed? As the Secretary of State knows, in that province we have an independent commission consisting of the chief electoral officer of the province, the chief justice, and the president of the university.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think the hon. gentleman is trying to make my speech for me before I make it myself. While I represent a province other than Manitoba, I have spent over half of my life in Manitoba, I share his pride in the way things are done there and I will have something more to say about that in a moment. Because I have just reached it I should like to deal first with the point raised by the hon. member for Three Rivers, about the timetable envisaged on the assumption that this legislation would be acceptable before the end of this calendar year to the house, not necessarily in precisely the form in which it is presented but in a form that may and I feel sure will be somewhat amended by our collective wisdom.
If that were possible, and if it were possible, as I think it should be, to get the commissions set up by about the 1st of February, it would appear to me that under the procedures envisaged in this legislation the reports would be available early in 1965, that the necessary period for the kind of parliamentary approval envisaged in the legislation would be another two or three months and that, if we wanted, for other reasons, to have a general election, it would be possible to have it on the basis of redistribution in the autumn of 1965. But it does not appear to me that it would be practical at all to consider that any election held earlier than that could be held on the basis of any distribution of constituencies except the present one. Of course, this timetable would correspondingly have to be extended if for any reason the legislation did not prove acceptable and if we did not get it completed before the end of 1963. If we got the legislation enacted say by April or early May of 1964 I would not then envisage the possibility of its coming into operation so that an election could be held under it earlier than the spring of 1966.
I think this view is realistic. If we are going to do what I take it all of us are pledged to do, if we are going to have redistribution done by an impartial body, I do not think it is possible in any shorter period. I might
Redistribution Commission add that I believe, that once the pattern has been set, a second redistribution would not take nearly so long.
Once the pattern has been set the adjustment of boundaries in a future redistribution will be more a matter of taking account of the changes in population in a single decade which, although they can be quite explosive sometimes as we know, are not likely to be anything like as great as those which we will have to take into account this time, when this commission will be seeking to deal with situations that have persisted, in some cases, for the best part of a century. The first redistribution, therefore, under the new scheme, if and when it takes place, is going to be a much more difficult operation, I feel sure, than any subsequent redistribution will be.
Now, I come to Manitoba. I went to Winnipeg for a couple of days just before parliament resumed this session in September. Unfortunately, one of the three commissioners who performed the redistribution in Manitoba, the only complete redistribution by an impartial body that has been done in Canada as yet, is dead. I refer to the late Chief Justice Adamson. I had a most interesting conversation with the other two commissioners, the president of the university, Dr. Saunderson, the chief electoral officer, Mr. Prud'-homme, lasting for almost two hours. I was impressed particularly by one thing. As they related their experience to me, I noted that the methods they followed, the procedures they used, were almost precisely the same, having in mind the great difference of circumstances, as those which the chief electoral officer described to me as having been followed in Australia. It did seem that almost any independent and impartial commission going about this task would have very little choice but to follow these methods. I was rather reassured to have this notion confirmed. From what I could learn, all parties in Manitoba regarded that as a most successful experience in that province.
Moreover, I should like to hope that this would be the kind of commission, if this legislation is adopted, that would be established in each of the provinces. It seems to me these are the kind of people one would naturally look to. Of course, this is a problem with which we will deal when we get farther along. In this opening statement today, I am merely trying to deal with the general principles.


The Deputy Chairman:: Order; I must advise the hon. gentleman that his time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Go ahead.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am grateful to the committee because I think it would be preferable

Redistribution Commission for me to complete my statement at this time. I shall attempt not to trespass unduly on the time of the committee.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is a very important subject.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is very important, there is no doubt about that. It is the very foundation of our system of government and nothing we could be considering could be more important.
Now, in general, what is suggested in this measure is representation by population. There are departures, of course, from the strict principle of representation by population. There is no thought of interfering with the representation by separate members of the two territories. I mention two territories, but we may possibly have three territories, and in that case I think we would still envisage what is now called the Northwest Territories being represented by one member. There is no thought of changing the senatorial floor provided in the constitution which, at the present time, protects the representation of the provinces of New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island. One of the most agonizing problems in the whole of redistribution, of which we are all aware, is the problem of Manitoba and Saskatchewan.
As all hon. members know the population of Manitoba in recent years has grown much more rapidly than the population of Saskatchewan. At the time of the 1961 census, if my memory serves me correctly, Saskatchewan had only about 5,000 more people than Manitoba. I believe an estimate made in June of this year indicated that Manitoba had about 20,000 more people than Saskatchewan. Practically speaking, one has to say that the two provinces have equal populations. I do not think there are any other circumstances connected with the two provinces which would justify any of us in feeling that when they are equal in population they should have equal representation. It seems to me that that is a valid proposition. I know this is not going to be a very easy thing to accept in Saskatchewan.
I had some little experience, before I was a member of the house, with the problem that faced Saskatchewan when the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam was the premier. After the war, there was the hope and expectation that the growth of Saskatchewan, which had been somewhat arrested by the war, would resume on a very rapid scale. Certain special measures were taken, which I have never regretted and which I always thought were justified, to ameliorate that situation in the post-war redistributions. We are faced now with the fact that Manitoba and Saskatchewan are equal in population
[Mr. Pickersgill.l

and I think all of us feel only one conclusion could reasonably be drawn from that fact.
We are also aware of the fact that Alberta and British Columbia are, at the moment, quite substantially under-represented in this house. These provinces are a long way from Ottawa and there is certainly no argument for their being under-represented, if that can be corrected. We are also aware of the fact that ever since confederation, in nearly every part of Canada, the rural population has been represented by more members than the urban population. I echo the words of the right hon. gentleman a year ago when he said he did not think that could be entirely departed from. I noted with some interest, as I am sure other hon. members did, a speech made not long ago by a distinguished former member in this house who is now the lieutenant governor of Ontario on this particular point. I feel confident that any commission, taking account of our history, taking account of our background, would feel that in the tolerances they would have to allow-


John George Diefenbaker: What did the lieutenant governor say?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps on a later occasion I could get that. I would not like to paraphrase it, but the gist of it was that the disparity in representation was not likely to continue on the scale on which it now exists. This was the point. I would rather use his own words, and perhaps it was a mistake to even mention the statement without having it under my hand.


Mr. Winkler:: There were some very good members in that group.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Of course I do not conceal from the older hon. members-it would be useless if I tried-that I was brought up on a homestead in the bush in northern Manitoba and I may have a slight rural bias myself. It is also well known there is no town of more than 4,000 people in my riding, and possibly that might create a slight bias in my mind-I hope not too great a bias-but I know too that some very distinguished members have been elected to this house from some of the great Canadian cities, notably the city of Winnipeg, and I would not like to see that municipality unduly under-represented in the house. We all know the great burden borne by the hon. member for Edmonton West in representing that huge and growing constituency.
Neither do I conceal from the house that probably all of us in our hearts would secretly like to leave the whole thing alone if we could, and if it were not our duty to do something about it. All of us probably tend to have a somewhat proprietary interest

in our constituencies. Sometimes we may even think we have almost a proprietary-right to them, and after we get comfortably situated in a constituency, especially if we keep on getting elected, all of us feel that having new areas added to which we will have to go around and spread our charm, would constitute a strain we would rather avoid. However, the constitutional obligation is here, and I think all of us should remember that, whether they live in our own constituencies or not, no one can vote in this country who is not a Canadian elector.
It is our duty to treat all the people of this country equally, so far as we can, and if we really mean what we profess about self-government, then roughly each of them should have an equal voice in this house, which has the responsibility for overseeing the government of our country.
The House of Commons is supposed to be a mirror of the population. At present we all know it is a somewhat distorted mirror, and when I say that I am not reflecting on any hon. member. Under the constitution we all have a duty to replace the distorted mirror by a mirror which will better and more fairly reflect the whole population. That is what a redistribution is for; that is what it means; that is what this task is. It is, as I said earlier, a task which imposes a collective responsibility on all of us and in which each of us has an equal share. I do not think the right hon. gentleman or I have any more responsibility than any other hon. member for this task, except that we have certain positions the house has given us. I may say that the government hopes for and invites a co-operative effort in this difficult task.
Since this parliament came into being last May we have heard quite a lot about what is called the image of parliament. I think a lot of what we have heard and read about it is a rather distorted mirror too; but then I am probably biased, and probably some of the rest of the hon. members are, too. I think when we look back at the end of this year at what this parliament will have achieved, we will have no particular reason to apologize to anyone.
I have never apologized to anyone and never intend to, for being partisan in this parliament, because party is the essence of parliamentary government. It is what saves us from having dictatorship. If we do not believe in our parties and what they stand for, and if we do not uphold them, then we are not doing our job. That is why we can have peaceful change under the parliamentary system, instead of having to shoot the head of a government when we do not like him. Happily we do not have to do that.
Redistribution Commission We have another method. Perhaps it is not altogether unpainful. It may leave a few scars, but it also leaves an opportunity for recovery. It gives the people a chance to make up their minds, to change their minds, to change them again, and even perchance to change them still again.
Neither do I think that parliament should always be a model of decorum. If we are going to feel seriously about these things, then there are going to be times when we are going to behave in a way that perhaps some of us would like to undo when we think about it later in the day, or early next morning; but by then it is too late. We are human beings; we are engaged in an activity in which sometimes we are seeking to reconcile differences, and at other times seeking to make those differences as great as possible because we believe good will come from making them as great as possible. That is part of the normal activity of parliament, and I think there has been a lot of talk by people who perhaps have not appreciated that, even in the great parliaments, all was not a model of decorum.
Sir, I will be breaking the rules when I say this, but perhaps you will let me. I was very much impressed the other day when the right hon. gentleman said, in the debate when we were setting up the committee on procedure, that all was not peaceful in this chamber in the days of Borden and Laurier, in the days of Tupper and in the days of Macdonald, and that perhaps on balance there are better manners and better behaviour in parliament today than there were in a great part of the nineteenth century.


Mr. Nicholson:: We were not here.


John Whitney Pickersgill: As my hon. friend reminds me, we were not in this house then. Fortunately there are a lot of books appearing at present in which we can read about those days. That is a good thing. In saying that, I hasten to add it is not an advertisement for my own book.
But here, sir, we have a different kind of task. We have a task that the government is trying to approach, and which I believe the right hon. gentleman and the government he headed were trying to approach a year ago, in an entirely different spirit. Here is a task about which there need not and should not be any partisan differences.
I do not think any hon. member in his heart, no matter what party he belongs to, thinks we should try to win elections by rigging the machinery. I think we should try to win elections by putting our causes before the people and making sure the people have a fair chance to register their opinions fairly and honestly. That, sir, is the spirit in which we are approaching this matter.

Redistribution Commission
I would like to close what I have to say now by repeating once more the words of the right hon. gentleman a year ago, on April 9, 1962 when he said:
We want to follow the lead which has been taken by almost every nation-certainly by the commonwealth nations as well as by the mother of parliaments-that membership in parliament shall be determined fairly by the people.


John George Diefenbaker: Orpheus had the reputation of being able to bring the birds out of the trees by the suave manner in which he spread his charm.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Orpheus was a piker.


John George Diefenbaker: I am still on a high mythological level and the word "piker" was not then good usage. But had it been, it would have been most appropriate. I have been in this house a long while, but I have never heard the hon. gentleman, to use his own expression, and to repeat it once more, spreading the charm as he has done today. I know he will not misinterpret what I have in mind if I say that in direct proportion he arouses in me fears as to what may be contained in this legislation. I know I shall not be misunderstood, and I am in no way contravening the rules by ascribing motives- because I am not doing that-when I say that to the extent he has carried himself into the elevated airs of high non-partisanship the committee will look with even greater care at the provisions of the bills which he is to bring before us. Can I say that without imputing motives?
I am very much in agreement with what the hon. gentleman had to say regarding the image of parliament. I think what he said represents the wide knowledge he has, not only of the history of our country and its constitutional development, but also the practical knowledge which came to him when he was in the position of adviser to one or more prime ministers. Apparently in those days the views he holds today were not expressed as strongly as they might have been. Certainly the redistribution measures which were introduced while he was in the august position of being more or less a director of prime ministers did not bring about the idealistic bills which, he has now stated, will be laid before parliament.
I am in agreement with him, too, on the question of each of us standing for parliament and the principles for which parliament stands. When I read what has been written by those who elevate themselves to a position of punditry, that parliament is today an institution unworthy of its traditions, the Secretary of State and I are at one in our attitude in that regard. I have seen the parliament of the United Kingdom in action.
[Mr. Pickersgill.}
I recall on one occasion in 1957 going over to London after the conference of NATO powers in Paris in December. Prime Minister Macmillan was reporting on the conference that afternoon. I was in the gallery and making due allowance for the difficulties I may have had in hearing, I do not think the members of the house heard much more than I did by reason of the interruptions and the din in that chamber. I recall very well one occasion in this house back in nineteen-I shall not fix the year because that would identify the Speaker-when it became somewhat noisy and the Speaker said. "Let me make this clear: as long as I am Speaker of this house there is going to be a minimum of decorum."
All of us realize, as the hon. gentleman has said, that in the crucible of discussion there will be fire, and things will be said which in the retrospective hours might very well not have been said. I, naturally, feel gratified that the hon. gentleman should have seen fit to quote at some length the remarks I made. I was glad to see that before he identified me as the speaker there was applause on the Liberal side of the house. That paragraph aroused their support.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if the right hon. gentleman will permit me to say that before I identified the speaker there was also applause on his side of the house?


John George Diefenbaker: There is no doubt about that, because they have always been appreciative of the good things of life and the best of parliament. But today there was that unanimity which does not always exist, when the hon. gentleman quoted from the observations I have made.
Speaking more seriously, I think our purpose and our aim must be to do our part to elevate representative government, to bring about the assurance that election shall be determined by the people, not by the manipulation of the ballot box or of constituencies. I think, also, that we shall have to give serious consideration to a problem which is becoming more and more difficult; with the mounting costs of election campaigns the state will have to step in and determine limitations upon the expenditures to be made by each and every one of us in our constituencies. All these things take time, but I feel there is unanimity in this regard. When I look back to the early days when I was a candidate-and an unsuccessful candidate- many thoughts occur to me. Indeed, I was just reading in the life of Mackenzie King, volume two, that when I was defeated in 1929 in Prince Albert, the then attorney general of Saskatchewan wrote to the right hon. member for Prince Albert, the then prime minister,


Mr. King:: "We have heard the last of Diefen-baker". That was interesting, because that was 34 years ago and many things have happened in the intervening time, and many similar predictions have been made. However, that is aside from what I am endeavouring to present to the committee.
With the purposes in mind that the hon. gentleman has indicated, there can be no argument. Over and over again we in this party advocated an independent commission. I am not going to clutter up the record by going back over the years and referring to the numerous occasions on which we advanced the concept of an independent commission. However, for the members who were not here in those days I would point out that there are several ministers now sitting on the treasury benches who in the early 1950's voted against there being an independent commission. But public opinion develops, and as a result of public opinion there today is unanimity that action in this regard should be taken.
There was one other matter to which the minister alluded and about which I wish to say a few words. He referred to the length of time it would take for this planned commission to be operative. Apparently he had not brought that to the attention of the chief organizer of the Liberal party, because hon. members will recall that a few days ago that gentleman was predicting that an election was just around the corner. The Secretary of State, who has a close acquaintance with the operations of the Liberal mind in this regard, has stated that if this plan is brought into existence he cannot foresee a general election based on redistribution before 1968.


Some hon. Members:: Nineteen hundred and sixty six.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I am sure the right hon. gentleman misheard me. That was the suggestion, if there was one commission for the whole of Canada. I said that in implementing the proposals that are now being put forward, the earliest date I could foresee was the autumn of 1965.


John George Diefenbaker: I beg the hon. gentleman's pardon-the autumn of 1965. Again I say that apparently there was not liaison between the one who determines the date and the one who provides the ammunition for the next election for the government and the Liberal party. I do not think it will take anything like that length of time. We were in a position where we could not proceed with redistribution until the completion of the census. I could argue that at the moment, but I am not going to, by referring specifically to the statute in that regard. We proceeded as early as we could in 1962 with a plan for the setting up
Redistribution Commission of a commission independent of parliament in so far as political considerations are concerned. The following words appear in the January, 1962, speech from the throne:
My government will ask you to take steps to ensure that the forthcoming redistribution of electoral districts is made in an equitable manner upon an objective basis. To this end you will be asked to approve for the first time in our history a measure to create an independent commission to recommend the changes required in the electoral districts as a result of the decennial census.
There is, therefore, agreement in principle, agreement in objectives and acceptance of the principles that were enunciated by me in introducing an earlier resolution.
Now we come to a consideration of the terms of the commission. What kind of commission shall it be? We have taken the stand that a commission is difficult to set up unless it is in fact in large measure a judicial one. We have support for the stand taken in that regard on the part of Mr. Mackenzie King, who in 1933 suggested a commission of six judges from different provinces, three to be nominated by the government and three by the opposition. However, in addition to the judges-


John Whitney Pickersgill: I beg the right hon. gentleman's pardon, but I did not catch the date of that reference.


John George Diefenbaker: It was 1933. That was during the discussion on redistribution. Those were the views of Mr. King, who was an experienced politician. In addition to that we felt that consideration should be given to adding to the commission the chief electoral officer and the surveyor general. We felt there should be one commission for all Canada, rather than a multiplicity of commissions for each and every one of the provinces. Indeed, the hon. gentleman himself said that he thought for a while what should be established was four commissions, representative of the four sectors of our country.
What were the terms that we advocated and which we still advocate? I very much appreciate the attitude taken by the minister in this regard when he pointed out that this is not going to be a partisan matter, that every consideration of partisanship is to be left outside this chamber in what we are about to do. He mentioned the chief electoral officer as a possibility for appointment to the position envisaged by this resolution. I personally have expressed, on more than one occasion, the view that Mr. Castonguay has discharged his responsibility in a way that is as unusual as it has been generally acceptable. There has been no suggestion at any time that in his many duties he has failed to preserve a complete and a towering neutrality.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.

Private Bills


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. It being five o'clock it is my duty to leave the chair in order that the house may proceed to the consideration of private members' business, pursuant to section 3 of standing order 15.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. It being five o'clock p.m., the house will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely private bills.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. S-43, respecting The Manufacturers Life Insurance Company-Mr. Wahn.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. S-42, respecting the Canadian Equity Insurance Company-Mr. Asselin (Notre Dame de Grace) -Mr. Batten in the chair.
On clause 1-Change of name.
Guy Marcoux: Mr. Chairman, may I put a question to the hon. member for Notre Dame de Grace (Mr. Asselin)?
Is the company referred to under the name Guildhall Insurance Company of Canada now in existence and is The Canadian Equity Insurance Company merging with the Guildhall company, or is it a complete change of name?


Mr. Asselin (Noire Dame de Grace):: Mr. Chairman, in the first place, in reply to the first question of the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency, the Guildhall company is now in existence. The Canadian Equity Insurance Company is a subsidiary of that company. It is a group headed by the London Assurance Company, and the latter intends to withdraw the Guildhall Insurance Company and to do its business through the Canadian Equity Insurance Company.
That is why it is requested to change the name of the Canadian Equity Insurance Company to that of the Guildhall Insurance Company of Canada, the French version of which is "Guildhall, Compagnie d'Assurance du Canada".
Therefore, it is the Canadian Equity Insurance Company which will transact all the business of the Guildhall Insurance Company Limited-the English company-which will no longer operate in Canada.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, could the hon. member tell us what is exactly the business transacted by this company called the Guildhall Insurance Company of Canada. Is it general insurance, fire insurance, automobile insurance or accident insurance? What is it?


Joseph Patrick Tobin Asselin: With your kind permission, Mr. Chairman, I should like to read the information I have concerning the three companies concerned.
The Guildhall Insurance Company Limited, which has been in business since 1925, operates in the field of general insurance, fire insurance and casualty insurance.


David Réal Caouette: What company is that?


Joseph Patrick Tobin Asselin: The
Guildhall Insurance Company Limited.


David Réal Caouette: That company has been in operation since 1925?


Joseph Patrick Tobin Asselin: Yes.


David Réal Caouette: When did the Canadian Equity Insurance Company start its operations?


Joseph Patrick Tobin Asselin: It was
incorporated by a special act of parliament in 1956. It sells fire insurance, accident insurance and casualty insurance.


David Réal Caouette: Then, it is in the same field as the Guildhall Insurance Company Limited?


Joseph Patrick Tobin Asselin: Exactly. The Canadian Equity Insurance Company is controlled by both the Guildhall and the London Assurance-


David Réal Caouette: Is that the London Life Insurance?


Joseph Patrick Tobin Asselin: No.


David Réal Caouette: London Assurance?


Joseph Patrick Tobin Asselin: The
London Assurance Company was incorporated by a royal charter in England.


David Réal Caouette: Now, after the passing of this bill, it is the Guildhall Insurance Company of Canada which will carry on all the operations, you might say, of the Canadian Equity Insurance Company.


Joseph Patrick Tobin Asselin: Mr. Chairman, the business will be carried on by the Guildhall Insurance Company of Canada. The name Guildhall will be changed, as well as that of the Canadian Equity Insurance.


Mr. Paul:: Mr. Chairman, do I understand that it is a case of amalgamating three companies?


Joseph Patrick Tobin Asselin: No,
Mr. Chairman, I apologize, and I hope that I am not misleading the committee. The London Assurance has been incorporated in 1720 in England; it has been operating in Canada since 1862 and it deals with general insurance, fire insurance and casualty insurance.

Last year, the London Assurance entered the field of life insurance. The Guildhall Insurance Company Limited, as it exists today, is also a British company; it is one of the main subsidiaries of the London Assurance and it has been operating in Canada since 1925; it has a great number of agencies here in Canada.
In December 1962, the Guildhall Insurance Company Limited acquired a majority interest which gave it control of the Canadian Equity Insurance Company, which company was incorporated by a special act of parliament in 1956 to deal also in casualty insurance, fire insurance, etc.
It is now the intention of the group designated by the name London Insurance to take away from the Guildhall Insurance Company, which is a British company, the activities in which it has engaged itself in Canada and to use the Canadian Equity Insurance Company to manage the Guildhall company's business.
That is the reason why they wish to change the name of the Canadian Equity Insurance Company, which will deal with the business carried on previously by the Guildhall Insurance Company, into that of Guildhall Insurance Company of Canada. It will be a Canadian company and it will also have a French name.


Rémi Paul: Is the hon. member implying, in his conclusions, that the mere fact of adding the word "Canada" is sufficient for a company to become a Canadian company? Would it not rather be a Canadian incorporation?


Mr. Asselin (Notre Dame de Grace):: It
would precisely be a Canadian incorporation, since normally it can be considered as Canadian when parliament authorizes its incorporation. In order to give satisfaction to my hon. friend, I may add that out of ten directors, eight are Canadians.


Guy Marcoux: Can the hon. member give us the proportion of English capital as compared to Canadian capital invested in that company?


Edmund Tobin Asselin: I am
not in a position to answer this question definitely.


Guy Marcoux: If it is not asking too much-


Edmund Tobin Asselin: Yes.


Guy Marcoux: -could the hon. member give us the names of the directors, of whom eight are Canadians? Is it possible to have those names?
Private Bills


Edmund Tobin Asselin: I am
pleased to comply with the request of the hon. member. Here are those ten names:
Name	Address Nationality
Mr. J. A. Pollen	London,	Eng.	BritishMr. Wm. Toomey	London,	Eng.	BritishMr. W. Earle McLaughlin	Montreal,	Que.	CanadianCol. M. C. G. Meighen, O.B.E.	Toronto,	Ont.	CanadianMr. E. R. E. Carter	Toronto,	Ont.	CanadianMr. Frank B. Common, Jr. Q.C.	Montreal,	Que.	CanadianMr. E. A. W. Paterson	Montreal,	Que.	CanadianMr. J. K. Lindsay	Montreal,	Que.	CanadianMr. G. L. Craddock	Toronto,	Ont.	CanadianMr. G. C. English	Montreal,	Que.	Canadian
That is all the information I have, Mr. Chairman, and that is why the proposed change is asked for.


Mr. Ricard:: Would it be possible to know from the hon. member what is the proportion of shares held by each of the directors?


Edmund Tobin Asselin: No,
Mr. Chairman. But I may add that the bill was considered by the committee on banking and commerce and by our insurance department. I feel sure that the directors hold at least the minimum required under the law.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: You are satisfied without getting more details on that? You are satisfied with that?


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, I understand that the Canadian Equity Company or the Guildhall Insurance Company of Canada are Canadian companies and will carry on operations across the country, and I note that the bill is introduced by a good French Canadian member from Montreal. Consequently, I would ask the hon. member whether he intends to suggest to the company to have at least one French Canadian representative on its board of directors in order to please the French Canadian group in this country.


Edmund Tobin Asselin: I shall be pleased to take into consideration that suggestion by the hon. member for Villeneuve and, with his permission, I shall suggest to the company to discuss that matter with him.
[Text!


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 2 and 3 agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported and read the third time and
passed.
[Stage Direction]
Private Bills

[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Private Bills-House in committee of the whole on Bill S-44, an act respecting Adanac General Insurance Company of Canada.
Mr. Macdonald:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask for the unanimous consent of the house to move this bill on behalf of the hon. member for York North (Mr. Addison) who is unavoidably absent from the house at this hour.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
The house in committee of the whole on Bill No. S-44, respecting Adanac General Insurance Company of Canada-Mr. Macdonald (for Mr. Addison)-Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.
On clause 1-Name in French.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I might point out to hon. members that the sole purpose of the bill is to provide this company with a name in the French language as well as in the English language. For more particular details as to the company's organization and control I would refer hon. members to page 4739 of Hansard where the hon. member for York North made a statement in moving second reading of the bill.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported and read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, November 19, consideration of the motion of Mr. Rouleau for the second reading of Bill No. S-41, to authorize the construction of a bridge and a causeway over the St. Lawrence river near the city of Pointe-aux-Trembles, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Caouette. [Translation]
Mr. Guy Rouleau (Dollard):: Mr. Speaker, the last time we studied this bill, the hon. member for Mercier (Mr. Boulanger) moved that the debate be adjourned. He was to continue his remarks this afternoon, but unfortunately, important business keeps him away from the house.
Consequently, with your permission, in order that a decision be reached about the amendment moved by the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) and in case I did not make myself clear the last time, I will resume briefly my argument.
[Mr. Asselin (Notre Dame de Grace) .1
This is a bill through which the corporation Developpement Central Ville de L'lsle Inc. is requesting from the federal parliament the authorization to build a bridge over part of the St. Lawrence river to reach one of the islands it owns.
Waters are not navigable at the very point where the company wants to cross, because they are shallow, and the bridge would be 500 feet only.
Mr. Speaker, I submit respectfully that it would not be fair to Canadian taxpayers' money as well as the money of the citizens of the province of Quebec and of the city of Montreal to build a bridge which will only serve in fact to ensure a development by a company which owns an island.
Until now, the people concerned have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to acquire the islands and to prepare the plans for the building of the bridge for which they ask authorization today.
I am of the opinion that it is only fair to authorize the directors of this company to start the construction of that bridge.
For the information of the hon. member for Villeneuve, I must say that, under section 11 of the Navigable Waters Protection Act, if a company wants to build a bridge, even if it is only over part of the St. Lawrence river, its directors must go to parliament and obtain the authorization to do so. That is precisely the procedure followed by the directors of the interested company.
In any case, the bill will be referred to a committee and all members who wish to secure information, will be able to do so by questioning the witnesses who will appear before the committee when the bill is studied.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I respectfully ask the hon. member for Villeneuve to withdraw his amendment so that the house may agree to the motion for second reading, which will give us the opportunity to study this measure more carefully in committee.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, the other day when we dealt with Bill S-41, respecting the building of a bridge between lie Ste. Therese, Ile-aux-Asperges and-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I have to inform the hon. member he has already taken part in this debate and that he is not allowed normally, to participate again. However, with unanimous consent of the house, he may withdraw the amendment he moved during the debate, but he is not allowed, according to the rules, to speak a second time.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, were the house unanimous, the hon. member for Villeneuve could be allowed to speak.


Mr. Depuly Speaker:: Does the house agree to the hon. member for Villeneuve taking part in this debate a second time?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. members for their kindness.
When the bill was submitted for the first time, we did not have the information needed.
As this concerns a very large residential, and perhaps commercial, development on He Ste. Therese and Ile-aux-Asperges, in Montreal-two islands which are not under development at the present time, precisely for lack of a bridge-we changed our stand.
Tuesday last, when we discussed this bill, I moved, seconded by the hon. member for Lapointe:
That Bill No. S-41 be not now read a second time, but that it be read this day six months.
Now, with the consent of the hon. member for Lapointe, who is not here at this moment but with whom I discussed the matter, I wish to withdraw my proposed amendment, so that the bill be carried as quickly as possible.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the house agree to the hon. member for Villeneuve withdrawing his proposed amendment?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Textl


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Has the hon. member unanimous consent of the house to withdraw the proposed amendment?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Amendment withdrawn.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.


James Norris Ormiston: the second reading of Bill No. C-32, to establish Canadian futures.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I have only one regret this afternoon, and that is that there will only be 30 minutes allocated to the discussion of this bill, the subject matter of which has come in for considerable discussion during the past few weeks. I must say that there was a time in the past when I would have hesitated to talk in any positive manner on the subject of sweepstakes and lotteries, the subject matter of this bill. However, since there has been considerable comment in the press of the country over the past few weeks on this subject, I have no hesitation in discussing it at some length.
National Lotteries
Only a few weeks ago I picked up a copy of the Globe and Mail for November 8 and I noticed a headline which read, "Lotteries Gain Favour". This referred to an observation by the premier of Ontario, Mr. Robarts. I should like to quote briefly from the article, as follows:
Premier John Robarts suggested yesterday that Canadian public opinion was ready for an easing of the lottery section of the Criminal Code governing bingos, auto raffles and draws.
Statements by the attorney general are also referred to in the article, but I do not want to discuss those now. I should like to mention what was said in the Gazette a week later. There was a headline to the effect that the government was prepared to back state lotteries. A further headline read, "Federal Law Change Would Give Right to Provinces". This is the point I want to bring out. I am not going to read at length from the editorial, but I should like to mention one paragraph which reads:
Any decision will be dependant on the interest which the provinces display in the idea.
It has been suggested in various quarters that the subject matter of this bill might be ultra vires of this parliament because it infringes upon the rights of the provinces. I feel I must make some observations to disprove this suggestion. As a matter of fact, two measures on our statute books at the present time, the Canada Council Act and the Queen Elizabeth II Canadian Research Fund Act must fall if Bill No. C-32 is ultra vires of this parliament.
Now, sir, we must look at the pith and substance of the bill in order to determine whether the objects fall within federal or provincial powers as distributed under the British North America Act. The object may, of course, fall within both the federal and provincial powers. The object of Bill No. C-32 is to be found in clause 15. In short, the bill sets up an operating trust for the benefit of the Canada Council. Reference to section 21 of the Canada Council Act, chapter 3 of the statutes for 1956-57, will show that the Canadian parliament set up the Canada Council as a charitable organization as described in section 62 (1) (e) of the Income Tax Act, another statute of this parliament. I ask you, where did the parliament of Canada get the authority to give three readings to the Canada Council Act, a statute which sets up a charitable trust?
Section 92(7) of the British North America Act provides that a province has exclusive jurisdiction to make laws for the "establishment, maintenance and management of charities in and for a province." The implication of this provision is that a province cannot establish, maintain and manage a charity which is

National Lotteries
not exclusively in and for a province. Therefore the establishment, maintenance and management of a charity in and for two or more provinces is within federal jurisdiction, under the first paragraph of section 91 which provides that Canada has power-
-to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of Canada, in relation to all matters not coming within the classes of subjects by this act assigned exclusively to the legislatures of the provinces;
And also by virtue of section 91(29), which gives to Canada power to make laws for-
-such classes of subjects as are expressly excepted in the enumeration of the classes of subjects by this act assigned exclusively to the legislatures of the provinces.
Now, charities which are established, maintained and managed in more than one province are expressly excluded from provincial jurisdiction by the addition of the words "in and for the province." The legal rule of interpretation is that the expression of the one is the exclusion of the other.
If the argument, that the charitable object of Bill C-32 is not within the power of this parliament, is persisted in, then the proponents of that argument deny the validity of the Canada Council Act and the legitimacy of the Canada Council. They deny, too, the validity of the Queen Elizabeth II Canadian Research Fund Act, chapter 33 of the statutes of 1959. By that act parliament has set up a charitable trust in the name of Her Majesty that is devoted to research into the diseases of children, and the causes, prevention and treatment of such diseases, and gifts to the board of trustees are deemed to be a gift to Her Majesty. Therefore in law they are a charitable gift for public purposes.
Having established a trust and designated a charitable object recognized under the preamble of the Mortmain and Charitable Uses Act, 43 Elizabeth chapter 4-which is going back a long way-and as within the legislative competence of Canada through the enactment by this parliament of the Canada Council Act and the Queen Elizabeth II Research Fund Act, we now come to the question of how that fund is to be maintained. The answer is, by a lottery. Again it must be emphasized that the end and object of the bill are a charity; the lottery is the means chosen to the maintenance of that end.
The bill could have provided that the charity would be maintained by gifts to the trustees, as is the case with the Canada Council and the Queen Elizabeth II Canadian Research Fund, but the whole intent and mechanics of this bill are admirably set out in an order in council of the Nova Scotia government dated June 12, 1752, which authorized a government or royal lottery. That order recites:
[Mr. Ormiston.l
Whereas a lighthouse at the entrance of the harbour of Halifax would be greatly beneficial to the trade, navigation and fishery of this colony and might be the means of preserving the lives and properties of many of His Majesty's subjects, and whereas although many persons might willingly contribute towards so good a work without any expectation of a reimbursement, yet probably many may more readily be concerned therein, when attended with any hopes of promoting their own interest at the same time.
Mr. Speaker, this recital clearly puts a public lottery in perspective. It shows it is nothing more than a practical method of financing a public good, and withal, a much more practical method than hoping that the public good will be adequately financed by gifts from the public. In contradistinction to the method of gift financing, the order in council subsequently refers to the lottery method as a "voluntary tax."
We now come to the legal power of this parliament to use the lottery or voluntary tax method of maintaining an all-Canadian charity. From earliest times it has been recognized that the king has a duty to expend money for the establishment, maintenance and management of public charities as incident to his responsibility for the care of infants-and I hope you will not be too amused-idiots, lunatics and charities-I hope not in that order. This prerogative extends also to the supervision of private charities. "Bacon's Abridgement of the Law", fifth edition, 1798, volume 5, at page 534 has the following:
In like manner in the case of charities, the King pro bono publico has an original right to superintend the care thereof; so that abstracted from the statute 43 Eliz. Ch. 4 (the Mortmain and Charitable Uses Act) and antecedent to it as well as since, it has been everyday's practice to file informations in chancery in the attorney general's name, for the establishment of charities and the like.
In a former bill which I presented to the house, Bill C-16, "an act to found and constitute the western Canada veterinary college", a public charity, I did not omit to provide in clause 9 that the college should be visited by Her Majesty or her ministerial agent to supervise the administration of that charitable trust.
To fulfil these charitable duties the crown has the right to raise revenue to establish charities, maintain them, and pay for their management. For this purpose the king may use his own private income, revenues from compulsory taxation of his subjects, or some sums of money given to him by way of gift, either outright or through the mechanics of a lottery. It was the lottery method that the king, through his council, used in the exercise of his prerogative to establish a lighthouse pro bono publico in the Nova Scotia example I gave earlier.

Through the years, parliament has by statute taken over many of the charitable duties of the crown, and the moneys to establish and maintain them are raised by compulsory taxes of one kind or another. Occasionally there are gifts to the state for public purposes, that is, charities in the legal sense. A Canadian example of this is the gift of Kingsmere park to the government of Canada as a public park in trust for the citizens of Canada, and you can see the Kingsmere Park Act, chapter 161 of the revised statutes. Or the government may initiate a public charity by starting a fund with moneys raised by compulsory taxes, and provide that thereafter the charity shall depend upon gifts for its maintenance. This is what parliament did in the Canada Council charity and the Queen Elizabeth II charity.
Section 92(7) of the British North America Act charges the provinces with the duty of establishing, maintaining and managing charities "within a province". With that duty is the reciprocal right to raise money to carry out that duty. The federal government is charged with a similar duty as to charities extending over one or more provinces. It enjoys a similar right to raise money for that duty. Nowhere does the B.N.A. Act prohibit either the province or the federal government, or the Queen in right of Canada, from raising money other than by compulsory taxes to establish, maintain and manage allCanadian charities. If the parliament, or the Queen in right of Canada, wishes to set up a Canadian charitable fund and solicit gifts for its maintenance, that has been done. If the parliament wishes to set up a Canadian charitable fund and maintain it by lotteries, as in Bill C-32, that can be done. The question whether the provinces are presently bound by the lottery provisions of the Criminal Code, so that they cannot now set up lotteries to finance charities in and for the province, is not for me to answer. However, having given the argument which is in reply to the suggestion that this thing might be out of the jurisdiction of the provinces, I would go on to discuss the bill itself.
As laid down in Bill C-32 and as stated in the explanatory notes, its purpose is twofold. First, it provides for a legal outlet, under strictly supervised conditions, for those Canadian citizens who wish to gamble on sweepstakes, lotteries, and like games of chance. Second, it assures that moneys spent by Canadian residents on such activities will be redirected, with a minimum of expense, to the advancement of education.
Now, dealing with the first point, probably one of the most flagrant disregards for Canadian law is evidenced by our unabashed, 28902-5-326
National Lotteries
bold and hypocritical attitude toward lotteries, sweepstakes and games of a similar nature. When we consider the numerous baking sale draws, turkey raffles and the chances we have taken to win a dream home or a Cadillac, it is hard to say if there is anyone who has not indulged in this type of practice at one time or another which, if investigated, would be illegal in the eyes of our existing antiquated law dealing with this matter. One may smile at the examples I have given, and complain of their overuse, but neither the truth they illustrate nor the ridiculousness of the situation which they stress can be denied.
Thus, the bill is so worded that those who wish to participate in the "casting of lots"- and I use this form advisedly since it is found in Joshua, chapter 18, verse 10-may do so. Also, they may participate in one of the oldest and most recognized entertainments since man has indulged in games of chance, and their right to participate will be protected by some method. The Canadian people can thereby enjoy a definite feeling of assisting in some facet of Canadian social justice. This bill is so devised that its legality and terms are concise and clear. Protection from graft and hucksters is guaranteed to participants in the games, and hypocrisy will be eliminated because Canadians will have in fact, freedom of choice; not that it has been denied in the past, but rather their choice can be made within the framework of the law.
What of the second purpose of the bill, that of distributing the income from these games for educational purposes? Well, it has been estimated that thousands of Canadians gamble away $500 million, with $70 million or more being dropped at the racetrack alone. As well, Canadians spend at least $20 million on lotteries and sweepstakes, breaking the law each year. It is interesting to note that in the past 23 years, Irish hospitals have received $100 million as a result of the sweepstakes. And here is a fact: Canadians have contributed a fine share of that. This year alone, it has been estimated that we will spend $15 million on the three Irish sweepstakes alone.
This is money which should stay in Canada. There is no getting away from the fact that as long as games of this nature are in existence-and I have seen no proof to make me believe they will ever be eliminated- the money spent on them should not be shared only by the winners and a group of entrepreneurs who might own the business but, rather, that it should be shared with all other Canadians.

National Lotteries
Why education? Let me draw attention first to the university teacher and researcher recruitment problem. Dr. E. F. Sheffield, research director at the Canadian universities foundation, recently provided us with some very startling facts. In the academic year 1960-61 there were some 9,000 teachers and research workers in Canadian universities. But by 1970-71 it is estimated that the required number will be 25,000.
Dr. Sheffield has emphasized a number of difficulties relating to this problem. Proper recruitment procedures is one of them. But there are other more difficult problems. There is that of attracting qualified Canadian university graduates; that of keeping them in Canada; that of attracting teachers and researchers from the United States, and that of keeping some of them out of industry.
Although the foundation is doing an excellent job in solving many of these difficulties, I am sure Dr. Sheffield would agree with me when I say that suitable working conditions in the universities and attractive salaries for recruitment and retention of staff are vital. I submit that this bill would go a long way toward providing a solution to these problems.
What of the student population explosion and the resulting cost of providing university facilities? Dr. R. B. W. Jackson, director of the department of educational research, Ontario college of education, recently presented a paper to a conference of the Canadian education association in Quebec city. Dr. Jackson stated that the student population explosion threatens to exceed previous predictions and will continue at a high level until 1980. The cost of providing facilities needed in the next ten years in the universities could reach $1.75 billion and operating costs alone will double every four or five years. The Canadian universities foundation has estimated that total capital requirements of Canadian universities and colleges up to 1965-66 will be about $800 million.
Then there is the Canada Council. At the moment, the council receives from an endowment fund approximately $50 million per year which it distributes in the form of fellowships, scholarships and bursaries for deserving students who wish to pursue studies in the arts, humanities and social sciences. A new category will be instituted later this year, that of fellowships in science, engineering and medicine. I will only say at this time that the Canada Council has been doing a splendid job. Additional funds will increase its good work accordingly. The education problem is staggering. This bill could go a long way toward eliminating some of these difficulties.

Let me close by saying this: In my opinion, passage of this bill would provide the machinery which would allow Canadians to carry on an activity within the framework of the law; it will conserve Canadian dollars in Canada and would put them to work against this startling and frightening educational problem which faces us; and, may I repeat, it will eliminate a farcical, bold, brash, disregard of Canadian law. If we are allowed to turn our heads away from Canadian law on a question such as this, where might it stop? This unwelcome hypocritical precedent must be eliminated. Lotteries and sweepstakes work. I think Canada would participate in a "sure bet" by the passage of this bill.


Mr. Steven Otto (York East):: The hon. member for Melville (Mr. Ormiston) will have noticed that I used two earplugs, just to get his message. When I was originally asked to talk out this bill-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You got that message, anyway.


Steven Otto: -to talk on this bill, I expected it to be a bill concerning the purchase of sugar futures or wheat futures, or some economic measure. I was amazed to find out that it was a bill to establish a giant bookie business. I am disappointed, with all due respect, that a gentleman sponsoring a bill in which he seems to have a serious interest would try to hide it by calling it "An Act to Establish Canadian Futures". I am surprised he should try to hide it under the aura of business. It is, after all, a sweepstake bill, a horse racing or bookie bill.
The hon. member suggests that one of the purposes of this measure is to keep in Canada money spent on Irish sweepstakes, and so on. Well, if members would investigate the police reports they would find that, because of our counterfeiting, which is pretty good, most of the money which is supposed to be going to Ireland is staying in Montreal anyway. What we are really talking about here is whether we are to legalize gambling. Far be it from me to say yes or no, but this is the question we must face: Are we going to take advantage of this situation; are we going to accept the fact that there are a certain number of people who want something for nothing-and this applies to most of us, at one time or another- and are we going to say that in this case we will make money out of it? It has been said that investment in the stock market in the purchase of shares and bonds, which this government and all of us are trying to promote, is to a certain extent gambling. On that basis it can be said that if we gamble

512S
on the stock market or on the future of wheat or sugar, surely there cannot be very much wrong with the purpose of this bill. However, I venture to say that in many cases where we gamble-and business gambles; we all gamble-there is at least an element of effort that is put in to make it a successful venture. Pure gambling, which this is-


An hon. Member:: "Pure" gambling?


Steven Otto: -does not have this aspect. If we say that we are going to take advantage of the fact that a certain number of people are going to gamble at all times, they are going to buy sweepstakes tickets, they are going to play bingo, there are many other more lucrative sources of revenue that we could probably consider. For instance, we could decide whether we are going to sell morphine, or legalize or license some of the oldest professions. There are many other vices in which people indulge. We know there are drug addicts, and we could just raise the price of drugs, for instance. Today the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss LaMarsh) reported to the house that we are trying to persuade young people not to smoke. Why do that? Why not just raise the price of cigarettes and get everybody to smoke? This is the real issue here.
Let us suppose that we decide gambling is not such a big vice, that we are all going to do it, so let us legalize it. We then change to some extent the morals involved in this question. This is what we are asked to do here. It will always be quasi moral, quasi legal, and this is the element that invites the unwelcome entrepreneur, whether we are talking about the whisky business or whatever it is. Some of my best friends are, or were, moonshiners. It was difficult for them to grasp the fact that the government or somebody else could make whisky and sell it but they could not. It no longer becomes a moral issue if we take this stand.
We are here dealing with future Canadians. I take it we would have a very respectable board or commission, composed of judges, professors, and so on regulating the bookie business. It is going to be very difficult to convince other people that they have no right to do this. They ask, if it is moral for the government to do it, why is it not moral for them to do it. This is the real issue. I do not know that I have made up my mind one way or the other. Whether the element of pure gambling is involved, it is still a moral question to this extent, that the number of people who will take advantage of sweepstakes will cause serious concern to this country, our economy and our way of living. But nevertheless this is the question the house must decide at this time; not that this will be an 28902-5-3264
National Lotteries
isolated instance all on its own and there will be no other similar questions to decide, because we will still be asked to decide whether we are going to legalize bingo games or lotteries of all kinds, controlled or uncontrolled.
Therefore if the hon. member, instead of presenting this bill had presented a bill to the house to amend the Criminal Code, perhaps this would have been a better way to achieve his object, because if we are going to legalize gambling we should do it with proper regulation, in the proper way, through the Criminal Code, and all we would have to say would be, "Gambling is not such a bad thing after all. We have lived with it for centuries and we are going to go ahead with it". For these reasons I would ask this house not to support this bill.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Ralph Cowan (York-Humber):: Mr. Speaker, this is the fourth occasion on which we have had an opportunity to express ourselves on the question of lotteries, and I am mighty glad that a private member from Saskatchewan has introduced such a bill. This means that of the six bills of this nature before the house at the present time, members from four different provinces have spoken in favour of legalizing that which is being carried on from one end of Canada to the other.
I do not think the last speaker ever worked for a newspaper or he would not have asked the question, "Would there be enough people buying sweepstakes tickets to justify setting up sweepstakes in this country?" If he had ever worked for a newspaper and received the hundreds of telephone calls that come in every day, all day long, inquiring as to what second was the third goal scored in the game between so-and-so the day before, he would know the answer to his question. We have made inquiries about this, and we in the newspaper business know that the second at which a goal is scored is the pay-off on the sweepstakes being conducted on hockey games right across the country year after year. About 12 years ago these lottery operators or entrepreneurs, as they are called, realized that if they tried to sell tickets in offices on the number of goals that would be scored in a game, they would find it very difficult, because once you got up to the "12" figure people did not like paying their money and in effect drawing a blank.
Now they can make money by selling thousands of tickets on a hockey game, specifying at which split second the winning goal will be scored. There are tens of thousands of people engaged in this hockey pool business in the country at the present



HOUSE OF COMMONS AFTER RECESS

[Stage Direction]
The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
Redistribution Commission time-and I can give the house first hand information on that. It is part and parcel of the sweepstakes business. I sincerely believe that we should legalize what is now being done by people surreptitiously. Over $200 million are involved in this business and a great deal of it goes out of the country.
The last time I spoke about lotteries I had Irish sweepstakes tickets on the Cambridgeshire, but of course the Cambridgeshire has now been run, and a great deal of publicity was given to the Canadian winners. I have here three tickets on the Grand National. I bought these on Saturday afternoon while walking along Annette street in Toronto. My personal supplier happened to see me as I was going from the St. James Roman Catholic church bazaar to the Runneymede Presbyterian church bazaar, and he was good enough to honk his horn to let me know he had tickets. This shows how "difficult" it is to buy these tickets in our dominion.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. I must advise the house that the hour for private members' business has expired, and the house will now revert to the business which was interrupted at five o'clock.



REDISTRIBUTION


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of the following resolution-Mr. Pickersgill-Mr. Batten 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.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, at the time of adjournment I was referring to the fact that we believe in one commission rather than ten; and we emphasize the necessity of there being two judges on such a commission. I had mentioned earlier the attitude taken by the Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King in that connection. Before I refer to what he said I might mention that as far back as 1903 the Conservative party took its stand in this regard and, as of the redistribution following the legislation of 1900, as a party we accepted the principle of a reference to a judicial tribunal with rules for the guidance of that tribunal. In that connection I refer to Hansard for 1903. It was also proposed that county boundaries should not be laid down as a principle except subject to certain conditions. It was proposed to refer the whole question to a judicial tribunal to be composed of chief justices of the supreme courts of the several provinces. The resolution in question read as follows, as reported at column 12376 of Hansard for September 25, 1903:
First, that a commission to consist of the chief justices of the highest courts of judicature in each of the provinces of Canada shall be appointed for the purpose of fixing the boundaries of each constituency entitled to elect a member or members of the House of Commons-
Then after some further general remarks the resolution continued:
-that such commission in so doing shall consider the distribution of population according to the then latest distribution of population according to the then latest census of Canada and the public interest and convenience, and shall particularly have regard so far as practicable to the boundaries of the counties, municipalities and cities.
MacGregor Dawson in his book says this:
Thus Mr. Mackenzie King in 1933 suggested a commission of six judges from different provinces (three to be nominated by the government, three by the opposition).
Furthermore, I recall very well Mr. King's speech in the House of Commons on July 15, 1947 when, as he often did, he quoted what he had said on other occasions. On this occasion he said, as reported on page 5648 of Hansard for that year:
My own view, and I have come to it after observing pretty carefully what has been taking place and what has been said in debate in this house as well as in the corridors, is that redistribution should be taken out of the hands of the House of Commons, where the parties are immediately interested, and should be put in the hands of a commission of judges. I would have that commission composed of judges selected in equal numbers by both sides of the house. The redistribution, if it is carried out in a fair way, has not to do with party advantage at all. It ought to have solely to do with seeking to effect a fair and impartial division of the constituencies.

And then he goes on to deal with the question in a general way.
On June 28, 1952-I am not going to follow Mr. King in this regard-I said on that occasion that I would set out in some detail the plans followed in this regard in other countries. I am sure with the reinforcement of Mr. King's views in this connection, and with the expressed desire of the Secretary of State to listen to the voice of reason, this is one matter which he will be willing to reconsider. Because if the plan be to appoint ten commissions across Canada, there will be as many different angles to the decisions arrived at. Regardless of whether there is one member representing the country as a whole, the same person being on each commission, there will be uncertainty and great difference of opinion.
Looking back to what has been done in other countries, South Africa has three superior court judges to consider the redistribution question. New Zealand has two commissions composed of five members on each, Australia, to which reference has been made, has one for each state consisting of the surveyor general, the chief electoral officer, with the chairman nominated by the governor general, who I think is really the governor in council. The United Kingdom has a chairman, the registrar general, the director general of the ordinance survey, and two other members.
I am not going to go into detail this evening because there will be every opportunity for that later, but I do want to point out some salient views which we hold in this regard. The first is that, to ensure that this would be an independent national commission, there should be one commission with a majority of judges on it. It is not for me to say what is in the bill, and I make no reference to it. But I point out that when in 1962 we introduced our measure there was no one more definite than the present Secretary of State in the view that under no circumstances should such a plan be accepted unless the names of those appointed were included in the bill. We took the stand that this had never been done previously. I am sure there has been no reconversion on the part of the Secretary of State, and in any appointments there should be I am confident that, in accordance with the spirit he has exhibited today in such abundant measure, he will see the wisdom of placing before us the names he has in mind.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If the right hon. gentleman would permit me, I should like to make one intervention. I know he does not want to misrepresent the position I took. I did take the position that I thought the names should be in the bill, or that the appointments
Redistribution Commission should be made by parliament. I still think that this should be done in some fashion. One thing I do want to make clear: I do not think it should be done by the governor in council.


John George Diefenbaker: I am clear about that; but whether it is done by the governor in council or otherwise, I am glad we have the certainty we now have that the hon. gentleman believes those names should be available to parliament in advance.
It is not for me to reveal what is in the bill but if, perchance, there were any provision whereby in the absence of agreement between the government and the opposition the governor in council would make the determination, I am sure the governor in council would be making quite a few of the appointments. That is something the hon. gentleman feels should be prepared against, so I am sure the government will be in a position, before the bills are in front of us, to indicate who in its opinion, should constitute this commission. There has been, as I said a moment ago, a large measure of agreement surrounding the person of the chief electoral officer, and I hope a similar measure of agreement can continue with respect to the other appointments to be made.
And now we come to one of the most difficult and complex problems facing us, a problem which has exercised the thinking of successive administrations in the past. From the very beginning of our country and throughout the years the principle has always been accepted that a rural seat should not be required to have the same population as an urban constituency. The reason for this is apparent to all who have represented rural constituencies. I was particularly struck by what the Secretary of State said today. Seasoned first in Manitoba, and then ripened in Newfoundland, he has an appreciation of the country as a whole which few possess. Travel widens, and experience of that kind always expands the scope of wisdom, and I am sure, Mr. Chairman, you would agree that this scope on the part of the hon. gentleman has been greatly increased since he took over Newfoundland. However, there has been a great deal of discussion on this subject. The same problem exists in the United States. As the house knows, there was a judgment of the supreme court of the United States in 1962 on the subject of constituencies-districts, as they are called in that country. In that judgment it was pointed out that throughout the years rural districts in the United States have had lower populations than have urban districts. It has been an acceptable situation, and the judgment places, as it were, the handwriting on the wall for the practice in this

Redistribution Commission regard. It has been a long, difficult and trying experience to determine what is fair and what is reasonable. A similar difficulty has been encountered in our provinces, as well. Without designating any one of them in particular, I can think of one province in which two cities have almost half of the population but only one quarter of the seats in the provincial legislature. It is difficult to arrive at a fair basis of representation.
Certainly, I would be the last to argue that there is the fairness there should be when one constituency may have a population of a quarter of a million and another a population of less than twenty thousand. I am not thinking now of the two northern constituencies which, as the hon. gentleman has said, have guaranteed representation, just as the provinces by the sea have guaranteed representation in the parliament of Canada. It is a difficult problem. There are some who suggest that under the present system Canadians are governed by a rural tyranny. I think it was McGeachy who, referring to those in the country, said: "The tyranny of the yokel will be hard to break". That was in an article which appeared in the Financial Post. It is not a very good basis upon which to proceed, but it is indicative of a state of mind.
We must endeavour to bring about, with reasonable regard for the urbanization that is taking place, a basis of representation which will not be unfair to those large rural areas which are so difficult to represent in parliament. It is not for me to place before the committee any of the temperate views expressed in the bill that is to be introduced, but I am going to place before the house what the view was of the members of the Conservative party when it formed the government of Canada. I know there was criticism that we should have proceeded earlier than we did with this matter. Until today that criticism was tenable, but after listening to the Secretary of State point out the length of period of time that will be necessary in order to bring about the change, full corroboration has now been given by him of the course which we followed.
I recognize fully the difficulties that are inherent in any decision that will be made. We worked on this matter at length. The Secretary of State has spoken of the interviews he has had with numbers of knowledgeable people on this question. We did the same. What formula could we arrive at that would be fair to all? I am going to place our views on record, and they represent our views today as they did when we introduced our bill in 1962.
We believe, as I said, that there should be one commission consisting of five members, one of whom shall be the person for the time

being holding the office of chief electoral officer of Canada and the remainder to be named in the proclamation. So we have that measure of agreement this evening between the government and the opposition, in that we agree that Mr. Castonguay is the type of person to occupy a position on this commission. Then we went on to deal with the ground rules, as it were. We said that the commission would have to make a report within a year and that in preparing its report the commission should be governed by certain rules. We said that the division of each province into electoral districts, and the description of the boundaries, should correspond as nearly as may be to the electoral quota of that province, that is to say, the quotient obtained by dividing the population of that province as ascertained by the census by the number of members of the House of Commons to be assigned to that province as calculated by the commission under section 11. There is no argument about that.
Then we mentioned the difficulty in connection with electoral districts represented by two members in the House of Commons. That is a problem, for example, in the city of Halifax. Throughout the years it has been a matter of tacit tradition and accepted policy in Halifax that one member shall belong to the Protestant faith and one member to the Roman Catholic faith. We have to make allowances for that.
What about representation by population? The old cry of "rep. by pop." almost caused people to resort to rebellion. It is a principle that must be accepted, subject to exceptions that are based on many considerations too numerous to outline at the moment. We also provided in our bill that attention should be given to special geographic considerations, including the sparsity or density of population of various regions of a province, the accessibility of such regions or the size or shape thereof, which appeared to the commission to render such a departure necessary or desirable. We think that is a consideration that should be placed in the statute as one of the ground rules.
We said that consideration should also be given by the commission to a departure from the principle of representation by population in the case of any special community or diversity of interests of the inhabitants which would render a departure necessary or desirable. That is pretty general in its terms but, as the minister said today, we must endeavour to allow for a reasonable degree of flexibility, so that the commission may exercise their responsibility in fairness and in justice.

We also provided for a departure wherever it appeared to the commission to be necessary or desirable, without causing excessive disparities of size between electoral districts, in order to take advantage of existing boundaries of counties, districts or other municipalities. One can think of old, traditional ridings in Quebec and Ontario which have been distinguished throughout the years for the representation they have had in the House of Commons. I have no plea to make for Prince Albert; and with a complete absence of bias and prejudice, of course, I point out that Prince Albert is the only constituency in Canada that has ever had three prime ministers. Sir Wilfrid Laurier, as Mr. Laurier, was elected in 1896. In those days when anyone accepted a position in the gift of the crown he immediately lost his constituency and following his elevation to the prime ministership he chose Quebec East.
Prince Albert also had Mr. Mackenzie King for many years. There is a constituency far removed from the centre of the nation which has contributed three of the fourteen prime ministers of this nation. Quebec East had Sir Wilfrid Laurier and the Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent. There are quite a number of other similar cases across Canada. Manitoba has been honoured twice by having prime ministers. Leaders of the opposition, too, have found kinship in a province far removed from their accustomed abode. All this indicates that every constituency, whether rural or urban, can make a contribution to the House of Commons.
We have the rule of "rep. by pop.", but whatever political scientists may say in this regard there must be a recognition of the fact, which I am sure is within the experience of all members representing rural ridings, that traditionally some degree of tolerance should be granted. My suggestion is that the commisison might depart from the electoral quota for the province in question, for any constituency, to the extent of not more than one third or less than one third. This means that if the quotient is 70,000 any constituency would be allowed to have no more than about 94,000 and no less than approximately 46,000. I place that before the committee as a fair and reasonable basis.
Now, I know that whatever we do will cause harm to some of our members. However, the attitude of good will in the house that was evinced in such an abundant measure this afternoon by the Secretary of State causes me to make the suggestion that this might be a reasonable basis. Someone will say, "That will have the effect of wiping out my constituency"-or someone else's constituency. But no matter what we do in order
Redistribution Commission to bring about a compromise, to bring about fairness and justice, there will be some who will suffer. Some might suggest 20 per cent.
I do not think that will cover the situation at all. I think that a 20 per cent tolerance would have very serious consequences. I do not think it is enough. I point out what the situation will be in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, where ridings that have been represented through the years, which members have served with distinction, will find themselves obliterated if we follow the principle of representation by population literally.
It has been accepted in the United States that there must be a recognition of the fact that rural ridings will necessarily not have the same population as urban ridings, for many reasons that could be advanced and will be mentioned by other members. I suggest, therefore, that a one third tolerance will meet the situation. While it will not meet the position of many individual members in the house, it has in it the elements of fairness and justice. This is what we are trying to bring about.
The Secretary of State said that he hoped what we would do would be followed by other parliaments. I do not express the hope,
I express the certainty; because when we remove this cancer of political manipulation and operation on constituencies, without an anaesthetic, for political purposes we will have removed one of the most serious blights on the parliamentary system. Furthermore, I believe when this commission is of the opinion a direct application of the rules in any particular case is not practicable or would be likely to produce inequitable results, they may recommend a departure from the general rule.
There are many other matters with which I could deal, but other members will deal with them. I am trying to meet the problem without the rancour of experience, without going back once more to fan the embers of past controversies, but trying to deal with this subject in a fair and objective manner. The minister has stated that the house is going to have an opportunity to make a determination, that the government is prepared not to stand or fall on whatever bill may be produced but rather to ask for the counsel of the house. It is for this reason I have chosen to place these views before the committee. I hope that there will be a considerable amount of discussion of this proposal. This is not one of those things that can be rushed through. We are charting new courses. We are entering into an experiment. We are turning our backs on the past. All too often redistribution was an occasion for action to remove political adversaries. We are
5130	HOUSE OF
Redistribution Commission trying to end this, and for that reason I have set forth some of the general considerations we feel are necessary.
We feel that the appointment of ten commissions is not the answer to the problem. We feel that there should be a national commission. We feel that the representation on that commission, with the exception of he who holds the position of chief electoral officer or the position envisaged by the resolution, and possibly the surveyor general, should consist of judges who will be removed from politics and whose views will be accepted as a judicial decision based on the rules made by parliament. We feel that, in so far as the rural constituencies are concerned, there should be a tolerance of approximately one third.
Now, all of this will not place in the hands of the commission the power of a final decision. The decision must rest finally with parliament. We have to guard against setting up a commission that will be determining the rights of parliamentarians and, therefore, there must be final acceptance by parliament of whatever the recommendations of the commission may be. It is not for me to say what is in the bill that has been drafted. But generally speaking, I feel that we must assure that parliament shall finally determine the matter. I am not going to make any observations on what may be in the bill in that connection.
I believe I have covered what I set out to cover. If the same attitude is taken as was so evident today in the opening remarks of the Secretary of State, I am sure that we will evolve a plan that will be a credit to parliament, to our responsibility to assure the maintenance of the democratic process and, above all, that each of us will be acting in accordance with the dictates of justice rather than the compelling mandate of political consideration.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, what I am going to do is rather unusual, but in view of all the circumstances I would like to say to the right hon. gentleman, and also to the whole committee, that the desert here on the treasury benches is occasioned by the fact that a meeting is being held in connection with the federal-provincial conference, and it is not intended as a discourtesy to the right hon. gentleman or any other member of the committee. I am only sorry my colleagues were not here to hear the speech of the right hon. gentleman.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I didn't notice anything strange.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, both the Secretary of State and the Leader of the Opposition have had occasion in the course of their remarks to refer to the greatness of


our parliamentary institution. This is a sentiment to which we all subscribe. I believe all of us accept it as our responsibility to try and maintain that greatness, and indeed to do what we can to make this institution even greater for our having been here.
As one who has had the opportunity of participating in the parliamentary redistributions of the 'forties and the 'fifties, I sense already the possibility that this debate on redistribution may well be unique; it may well be unlike any other that we have had in our Canadian history. As I have indicated, I took part in two of these redistributions, those in each of the last two decades, and they were rather stormy, quite fiery and very contentious. I have also had occasion to read some of the earlier debates on redistribution, and I must say that by comparison the storms we had in the 'forties and 'fifties were games of tiddlywinks. As a matter of fact, it has not been in redistribution debates that parliament has proven its greatness. In the past these debates were occasions when hon. members exhibited proprietary interests in their own constituencies, in which one party tried to hurt the other, in which various injustices were done, and all told these debates have not been the brightest chapters of Canadian parliamentary history.
With that background I am delighted, as I am sure are all hon. members, that we are having the opportunity in this session of parliament to bring into being legislation that will remove the drawing of constituency boundaries from a parliamentary committee and put it in the hands of an independent commission. I had earlier planned on giving some details as to where parties stood on this matter in the past, but I confess that in view of the charms of Orpheus, otherwise known as the Secretary of State, and the endeavour of the Leader of the Opposition to match that charm, it is a bit difficult to remind Liberals and Conservatives of the details of their past on this question.


John George Diefenbaker: If you start on this we will start on the Saskatchewan redistribution.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The Leader of the Opposition referred to the fact that Mr. Kang in 1933 favoured redistribution by an independent commission. I have also read those words of his. He did not like the redistribution that was being effected by the government in power at that time, so in 1933 he favoured an independent commission; but in 1943, when Mr. Coldwell asked if consideration was being given to redistribution by an independent commission, there was no answer, and likewise, the redistribution of that decade, which did not come until 1947, was put

through by a parliamentary committee on which the Liberals had a majority. Again in 1952 the same Liberals were in power and redistribution was done by a parliamentary committee rather than by an independent commission.


David Réal Caouette: The same Liberals are there now.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My hon. triend from Ville-neuve 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. I mention these things of the past just to indicate how pleased I am that we have reached this point of unanimity.
I was going to say that the Leader of the Opposition was quite correct in pointing out that the Conservative party, many years ago, started talking about redistribution by an independent commission, but somehow or another that talk was when it was in opposition. When it was in power, for example in the 'thirties, it did it the other way. Even in 1947, when I had the privilege of moving an amendment on second reading of a redistribution bill, that it be not now read a second time but that it be resolved that in the opinion of the house redistribution should be effected by an independent commission, only some 19 members of the Conservative party-mind you, they were the better ones -voted for that amendment. All the rest of them voted the other way.
So, there has been a slow process of education among the various parties. However, we have now reached the point where we all agree that no longer should redistribution be carried out by a parliamentary committee, no longer should we go through this kind of bitter experience in which hon. members try to protect their proprietary interests, as was the case in the nine or ten redistributions this country has had up to the present time.
Also, as the Leader of the Opposition has pointed out, his party when it was last in power did commit itself to the principle of redistribution by an independent commission. He has made it clear in what he said this evening that he may differ in some detail from the proposals to be made by the government, but at least the Conservative party, let it be said without qualification, committed itself while it was in power. I think this was the first time a government in power committed itself to redistribution by an independent commission. We now have the Liberals back in power, and for the first time 28902-5-327
Redistribution Commission in their experience as a party in power they have committed themselves to this same principle.
Mr. Chairman, this is good. We have now come to the point where we realize the seats we represent are not our personal possessions. We have come to the point where we realize that parliament belongs to the people of Canada and that we must find some way, other than doing it ourselves, to determine the boundaries of the constituencies that are represented in this house. I say again, this is good, and we may well have the opportunity in this debate to wipe out the memory of the nine or ten redistribution debates in the history of our country which make reading that does not add to the greatness of parliament.
I liked the suggestion of the Secretary of State that we might now put on our statute books a piece of legislation that would not make it necessary to make basic changes every ten years. The Leader of the Opposition echoed that, and turned that hope into confidence. I join with both of them in hope and confidence this will be the case, but it will be so only if we produce good legislation in this field at this time. I was glad to hear the Secretary of State make it clear that this is not a piece of legislation the details of which the government will make a matter of confidence, but rather that we start with the proposition that all of us agree on the principle of an independent commission, and by discussion here in parliament, the best kind of discussion, we will put our various views forward. Then by listening to the views put forward by others, we may come up with the kind of legislation that will not require basic changes every ten years.
I look forward to that being done, Mr. Chairman, because in the two previous decades in which I have been here, basic changes did have to be made. In the redistribution in the 1940's we took two bites at it. In the first place, although the government of the day, in the speech from the throne in 1943, said there would be redistribution in that session, it decided this was too contentious an issue to put before parliament during the war, so an amendment to the British North America Act was sought in order to postpone that redistribution, to postpone the contentious kind of debate it would have produced. It postponed most of the debate; but even the debate on the British North America Act amendment itself was a very contentious one and things were said which I think afterwards members perhaps thought were not to their credit and wished they were not recorded for all time.
Then when we did get at the matter in 1947 we had to make a basic change; we had to increase the size of the house from 245

Redistribution Commission seats to 262 for the 1949 election, so that the reductions in some of the provinces of the members they would have would not be too serious. Then when we got into the 1950's and came at the matter again, we had the problem of Saskatchewan losing too many seats because of the kind of adjustments in population that had taken place, so we had the formula that was written into the British North America Act at that time, which I think was proposed if not openly, certainly by understanding by the then minister of agriculture, Mr. Gardiner. At any rate, it was a pretty fundamental kind of change that we had to make, out of which we came up with 265 seats and these several variations in the general rule of representation among the provinces according to population.
If we are going to avoid having to make these basic changes every ten years, this job should be well done. I believe we all agree with the Leader of the Opposition that this is not something to rush. Let us look at the legislation carefully; let us study it carefully; let us come at it in the spirit that has been demonstrated thus far today by those who have spoken; and let us try to do as effective a job as we can, not for ourselves but for the Canadian people to whom parliament really belongs.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I would like to say a few words about some of the details. We have not seen them all yet; we have only those to which the Secretary of State has alluded in discussing the resolution, and those to which the Leader of the Opposition has alluded by comparing what might be with what his government proposed when the Conservatives were in office a year or two ago. We do have this question of whether there should be one commission or ten. Here I think we can discuss the matter in good faith. It is not a partisan issue, But I think it is good that we do have these two proposals before us. As a matter of fact we really have three proposals: the proposal for one commission; the proposal for four commissions, which the government is apparently not going to place before us; and the proposal for ten commissions, which is before us. I would like to suggest that we take a rather sympathetic look at the proposal for ten commissions. I appreciate the suggestion of the Leader of the Opposition that we have one for purposes of unity; but I think if each of us would consider the position in his own province he would realize that the chances of all the things that need to be considered receiving full consideration are best if there are people from that province doing the job for that particular province.
The Secretary of State indicated this afternoon that the government's plan would call

for ten commissions of four members each, one of whom would be the representation commissioner and the other three from the province concerned. I made reference to the independent commission that we have in the province of Manitoba for the purpose of provincial redistribution. I think the pattern we have in Manitoba is a good one and I dare to hope it is a pattern that might be followed. In our case the commission consists of the chief justice, the president of the University of Manitoba, and the chief electoral officer. If the government's plan goes through, the total commission for Manitoba would be those three and the representation commissioner. I think the representation commissioner sitting on all ten commissions would provide unity and consistency. On the other hand, having a commission for Manitoba consisting, as I hope might be the case, of Mr. Castonguay and the three persons I have already named from Manitoba, would produce a body which would not only be above any partisan consideration or reflection at all, it would not only be a board of efficiency-in Manitoba's case, one that has proven its capacity to do the job-but we would have three out of the four of that group being Manitoba people who would know the history, the geography and the people of Manitoba and would be able to take into consideration the points that need to be considered in order to draw the boundaries in the best interests, not of the members of parliament for Manitoba but in the best interests of the people of Manitoba themselves.
So I say, Mr. Chairman, let us look at these various proposals. I think the idea of ten commissions, one for each province, is a good one. I have already, by implication, joined in the tributes paid to Mr. Castonguay by the Secretary of State and the Leader of the Opposition. We think there was nothing inappropriate in the Secretary of State admitting that this is a name that has been considered, because this chief electoral officer, the son of a former chief electoral officer, both of whom have performed good service for this country, would certainly be an ideal person for this position. I agree that we should be given the names of those who will make up the commissions, or that we should know the device by which these names will be chosen. I was glad to hear the Secretary of State say that he does not think they should be chosen by order in council.
I would like to say a few words about another detail that the Leader of the Opposition discussed in his remarks. It is hardly a detail; it is pretty basic to the whole question. I refer to the matter of what tolerance there should be from a quota. The Leader of the Opposition told us that in the bill presented

by the previous government the proposal was that there be a tolerance of one third above or below the quota. When you work that out by mathematics, it means that the largest seat, in terms of population, could be twice the size of the smallest seat, in terms of population. When you realize that the former government's bill had-it was read to the committee this evening-escape hatches to go even further, you can see that a considerable disparity would be possible if there were that much tolerance.
The Leader of the Opposition threw out the figure of 20 per cent. Personally I think some such figure as that would be better. If you do your arithmetic again, you will realize that if you do allow a tolerance of only 20 per cent, the largest seat, in terms of population, can be only one and a half times the size of the population of the smallest seat. In all cases I am speaking about seats or constituencies inside a province. That leads to this whole question of the disparity or difference between rural and urban seats. I know the traditions about this and I readily recognize that this is something we do have to consider. Hon. members of course are aware of the fact that I represent one of those tightly knit urban constituencies. Though the population of Winnipeg North Centre is larger than the average across the country, the number of square miles of the constituency is very few. I say that just in case anyone thinks I am speaking from the standpoint of an urban member as against the two previous speakers, both of whom have spoken as rural members. That at least is on the record.
I think there are two aspects to this question, and we should try to keep them straight. On one hand there is the question of the weight that a Canadian elector's vote carries in parliament; on the other hand there is the question of a member being able to give service to his constituency. If you look only at the first of these considerations, namely the weight that a Canadian elector's vote carries in parliament, we should have representation by population. The numbers of people in all ridings should be equal. If they are not equal, then those who feel that there are twice as many of them in a constituency as in some other constituencies consider that they are not being adequately represented. But the other consideration is also a very real one. How can a member give service to his constituency if, in order to have the average number of electors in it or the average number of people, it has to be, in terms of square miles, literally an empire?
I suggest that we try and resolve this problem in two ways. On the one hand, let us admit some disparity by letting a figure such
28902-5-327J
Redistribution Commission as has been suggested be the rule, namely a 20 per cent tolerance up and down which would permit some constituencies to be one and a half times as large as others in terms of population. That is one way of admitting a certain amount of disparity. Another thing we can do-and now I speak as an urban member who cannot make any claim of this kind-is to recognize that members who serve large rural areas have problems of travel and communication that those of us in tightly packed urban areas do not have. I suppose in the light of what happened recently, any talk about extra expense money would not be popular, but should it not be in that area that we try to solve the problem of the member serving the rural area, rather than following a course which would result in urban people feeling that their votes are not as strong as those who live in the rural areas?
I have made my case as an urban member for something closer to representation by population, but I say quite frankly that a figure such as a 20 per cent tolerance up and down would, it seems to me, go a good way toward resolving the problem. However, I would propose that consideration be given also to extra travelling and communication expenses for those members in the large rural areas. I think, for example, to go to an extreme case, of the hon. member for Yukon and the hon. member for Northwest Territories. The distance they have to travel is much greater than the size of some provinces.
That may be just a detail, Mr. Chairman, as the Leader of the Opposition said, but it is a pretty important detail. We now have two suggestions coming from the lips of the Leader of the Opposition, either a 33J per cent tolerance, or a 20 per cent tolerance. Perhaps we can indulge in some collective bargaining here in the House of Commons and arrive at a figure between those two, but I am glad the pattern has been set for bringing these things out into the open and discussing them. I am also glad that the pattern has been set for objective, dispassionate and fair discussion of these matters so that we can seek to solve them and do what the Secretary of State hopes, namely to provide the kind of legislation which will not have to be changed every ten years as we go along. That is the story across the years so far. Basic changes in the legislation have been made every time to try to redress grievances and wrongs, or to try to avoid doing wrong to others. This time let us take our time and get the kind of proposals which will provide the greatest amount of fairness.
There was one other detail-we call these matters details, I suppose, to play them in low key, but they are pretty important-to

Redistribution Commission which the Secretary of State referred, and that concerned the case of Manitoba and Saskatchewan. He indicated that population changes in the last few years have been such that Manitoba now has a greater population by a few thousand than the province of Saskatchewan. At the moment there are 14 members from Manitoba and 17 from Saskatchewan. I am not going to set one of these provinces against the other by any means, but I do suggest that we must make sure that fairness is done between these two provinces. We also have to make sure that fairness is done to both of them in relation to the situation in the rest of Canada. I pride myself on being able to understand legislation and particularly mathematical formulae, but I find it hard to compute what would be the result of the present formula under the British North America Act which, when amended last time, gave Saskatchewan two more seats than otherwise it would have had. What effect that will have if we make no other changes to the B.N.A. Act this time I do not know; but if we make no other changes in the total representation and follow the rules set out in the B.N.A. Act we will still have 265 members. If that results, on the one hand, in Saskatchewan's having more members than Manitoba despite Manitoba's greater population, and on the other hand in both Saskatchewan and Manitoba losing members, despite their increased population, while British Columbia, Alberta, Ontario and Quebec increase their members, it is going to look as though an injustice has been done. I know it can be argued mathematically that they would be getting their proportionate numbers, but the loss of seats just would not do. We have the senatorial floor to protect us, but the senatorial floor is composed only of six members-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the hon. gentleman permit a question?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Gladly.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Is he suggesting that Manitoba and Saskatchewan should have more senators?


Stanley Howard Knowles: No. My hon. friend knows that I would reduce the number of senators from Manitoba and Saskatchewan, and from the other eight provinces as well, to zero. What I am leading up to-and I suppose it has to be a member from Manitoba or Saskatchewan who raises this question first -is that we have seriously to consider what the effect of the present rules in the B.N.A. Act will be in terms of the number of members those rules provide for provinces like Manitoba and Saskatchewan.


Returning to where I was before the friendly interruption of the hon. gentleman, if the result is that both of those pretty important provinces in this nation lose seats, and also that the one with the greater population has the lesser number of members, then that really is not producing justice or what would seem to be justice. Therefore, I think that during the course of these discussions we are going to have to trot out into the open the question whether there should be an increase in the number of members in this house in order to keep up the numbers in provinces like Manitoba and Saskatchewan, and perhaps some of the other provinces too. I know there was a story in the newspapers a few days ago which said this should be done, and when the Secretary of State was asked on orders of the day whether there was any foundation to this story he said there was no official foundation. And as far as the legislation before us is concerned, I realize that that is the situation.
I am not at this moment making a partisan case or a Manitoba case out of it, but I suggest that we consider whether or not the number of seats in this house should be increased. In this connection, before anyone thinks that that is an astounding thing to do may I give a few figures to the committee. When parliament was first brought into being in 1867

the parliament of Canada, as it has been known since 1867-we were set up with 181 seats. I have tried to ascertain what the population of Canada was in 1867; it is probably ascertainable but I have not got the figure for that year. However, I have the figure from the census of 1871, when the population of Canada was 3,689,000. Let us take that figure as the population at the beginning of our modern history.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I was going to say 3.5 million.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Roughly 3.5 to 3.6 million, with 181 seats. That means that each member of the House of Commons when parliament first met in 1867 represented approximately
20,000	of population. Our population has gone from less than four million to more than 18 million. It has multiplied more than four times.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is 19 million.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Someone says it is 19 million; I have missed the news in the last day or so. I am getting figures from all over the place. At any rate, it has increased about five times; yet we have increased the number of seats in the house only from 181 to 265.
May I do another bit of arithmetic. When we carried out the last redistribution in 1952 it was done on the basis of the 1951 census.
513S

The population of Canada, according to that census, was 14 million people. If we divide 14 million by the 265 seats provided then, it works out to a representation of about 58,000 Canadians per member. In other words, between 1867 and 1953, the year of the first election after the last redistribution, the number of people represented by each member increased from 20,000 to something like 58,000. In terms of greater ease of travel and improvement in communications it is not out of the way for us to represent more people than did the first members of parliament, but I think it would not be inappropriate to consider that possibly we are reaching a plateau and should begin to level off. If we were to leave the number of members unchanged and elect again to parliament a total of 265 it would mean that each member would represent more than 70,000 people. On the other hand, if the rumour which appeared in the press a few days ago, or perhaps I should say in the Globe and Mail-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Canadian Press had the story as well.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Well, once it is in the Globe and Mail the Canadian Press will pick it up, and vice versa. If we were to raise the representation in this house to 283 with a populations of 18 million or 19 million we would still be as individual members, be representing
65,000	or 67,000 people. That is considerably more than we were representing according to the redistribution of 1952, and a great many more than members were representing in the last century. I do not suggest we should stay with the figures of the last century, but I do suggest that the 58,000 to 60,000 level reached after the redistribution of 1952 is a reasonable one and that there is nothing out of the way in suggesting that the number of members in this house be increased by 18 or 20 so that, in the process, the rules which now exist under the British North America Act would not result in provinces whose population has grown being represented by fewer members in parliament. I believe this suggestion should be given consideration.
I know that when this story appeared in the papers some members began to wonder if the number suggested could be accommodated in this chamber. Actually, there are 276 seats in the chamber at the present time-desks and seats. It would not mean many more, and even though I do sit alongside the Conservatives, here at my right, I would not mind if my desk were moved over a couple of inches so that we could get another row in at this end and thus provide ample accommodation. Mind you, after the next election we might not be sitting here; we might be sitting over there on the government side.
Redistribution Commission


An hon. Member:: A coalition.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Oh, no. Anyway that is a problem which could be solved easily by whoever is here after the next election.
We always enjoy discussions about redistribution and what the next election may produce. However, the main thing is for us to look at all the factors involved. Let us look at the various proposals which have been made with regard to an independent commission-whether there should be one or ten. Let us consider what the margin of tolerance should be. Let us consider the question of whether the report of an independent commission should be final or whether provision should be made for review. Let us consider, also, the question of how many members there should be in order to be fair to the country as a whole.
There is one thing on which we seem to be agreed. We have agreed that no longer should the drawing of constituency boundaries be done by a parliamentary committee but that it should be carried out by an independent commission. To have reached agreement in that regard, is good. Now let us have the kind of debate we have had thus far; let us sort out the various proposals and come up with a plan which will not have to be changed. Then let us get on with the job.
I see you are on the edge of your chair, Mr. Chairman. I do not intend to detain the committee much longer. Even though we must give this matter the thorough study it deserves I hope we can deal with it with reasonable expedition. I would say that the Secretary of State set a reasonable goal when he suggested that this measure should be got through before Christmas so that the commission could be set up and a start made. We never know when an election could happen in this country. We have learned that from experience. Let us ensure as far as we can that the next election will be based on a redistribution according to the 1961 census. The 1945 parliamentary elections were held on a redistribution based on the 1931 census which was completely outdated. In 1963 we had an election on a redistribution based on the 1951 census and that, too, was outdated. Let us not have another election in the 'sixties based on the 1951 census. Let us have it on the basis of the 1961 census. I think that by proper expedition we can achieve that object.
I am glad the Secretary of State has made it clear that when we have the bills before us the details can be changed without there being any question of want of confidence in the government. Let us discuss this matter in a spirit of collective bargaining and come up with decisions which will stand the test of time. Let us turn the debate on redistribution

Redistribution Commission from the sorry chapters there have been in the past to an occasion which will add greatness to our parliamentary institution.


Mr. Patterson:: Mr. Chairman, we welcome the opportunity presented to us at this time to discuss some of the matters which are of such vital interest and concern to us, as they relate to our electoral system.
As in many other fields of national concern it seems we have been very slow to effect the changes which are needed so as to eliminate some of the inadequacies apparent in our electoral system in Canada. From time to time certain changes have been made, but it would appear they have been made, not on the basis of principle but on the basis of expediency and political considerations. It would seem to me the time has come-and this view has been expressed by previous speakers-when we should take a good look at the whole situation and endeavour to make those changes which will be to the advantage not only of parliamentarians but of Canadians as a whole.
For these reasons, we welcome the introduction of these particular measures. We believe they will have a beneficial effect upon our parliamentary system. On a number of occasions various aspects of this question have been debated in the house, but unfortunately they were discussed at times when there was little possibility of the house reaching any decisions with regard to them. Now that these matters have been presented to us for consideration we trust that the fullest consideration will be given to every consideration put forward. We hope that those suggestions which are worth while will be incorporated in the measures and that those which are not important will be sifted out and cast aside.
We are, of course, aware of the fact that this problem has been occupying the attention not only of those who sit in this house but of many other agencies across the country. For instance, our attention was directed some time ago to certain recommendations of the federation of mayors and municipalities. Even though we might not be able to support all those recommendations, the federation has brought to our attention one of the basic problems which has been referred to tonight, the achievement of fair representation according to population. I think we all agree these are problems that must not only be recognized but met. I believe the Secretary of State characterized this matter as one of the most important issues that could occupy our attention at this time, and with that I agree.
The problem has perhaps been caused by the wholesale shifting in population from area to area which has seen a tremendous concentration of population in certain sections and at the same time has resulted, of course,


in a diminishing of population in other sections, notably the rural areas. The matter of geographical areas has also been referred to tonight. In my view this is a very important consideration, because of the fact that a member of parliament can only cover adequately a certain area and fulfil his responsibility to a certain number of people.
Another important factor is the availability of the member to his constituents. Not only must he be able to get around and see them at certain times or so many times in the course of a year, but those who have problems must be able to get to their member and we recognize that he must be accessible to them at such times. We think also of the industrial and social considerations that enter into the whole problem and the serious imbalance that now exists in representation. All these problems have been covered in the discussion today. I believe they are very serious considerations and we must give them our attention.
On October 12, 1962 the hon. member for Port Arthur brought in a private member's bill regarding redistribution. He pointed out a number of these problems, made certain deductions and arrived at certain conclusions. On that occasion as well as others we have had the opportunity to face up to some of the problems that confront us.
I suppose a completely satisfactory and equitable solution will not be possible in every instance, but we must make a sincere and concerted effort to resolve as many problems as we possibly can so that, as has been pointed out tonight, it will not be necessary within a very short time to make any fundamental or basic changes in the legislation. The measures that are before us are designed to solve some of the problems in order to make our electoral system conform more to present day requirements.
Words of commendation have been uttered with regard to the chief electoral officer for the work he has done during past years. We in this group would like to concur in those words of appreciation and commendation, because we believe he has fulfilled in a wonderful way the responsibilities that have devolved upon him in that office. The suggestions we have before us tonight are perhaps based to a considerable degree upon recommendations and suggestions he has made following his extensive study of the various problems. The fact that he has had the opportunity of discussing these problems in other countries, and looking at their problems and the way in which they have endeavoured to solve them, has no doubt had a real influence upon his own thinking in this regard. I am sure we are indebted to the chief electoral officer for what he has done in respect of these matters.

If I may deal with some of the issues that have been raised tonight, the fact that we are being asked to appoint a representation commissioner and subsequently a commission indicates a recognition that certain things should be above partisan politics, and surely this is one area in which this must be true. As has been indicated, no doubt in the past some decisions have been based upon political considerations rather than upon a sincere endeavour to resolve the problems and work out the boundary lines between constituencies on an equitable basis. But we believe that by appointing an independent commission we will go far toward removing that rather obnoxious element from redistribution.
The question of the necessity of a full time representation commissioner has been raised. Perhaps it has not been raised in the debate thus far, but it certainly has in various private discussions that have been held. We have been wondering whether it is absolutely necessary that such a commissioner be appointed. We have already paid tribute to the work that has been done by the chief electoral officer and it might be in order to suggest that we should consider whether the duties of the representation commissioner could not be combined with those of the chief electoral officer, and his staff possibly expanded. It appears that there could be a duplication of activities between the chief electoral officer and the representation commissioner and perhaps this could be avoided by adding to the staff of the chief electoral officer and allowing him to discharge the responsibilities of the two offices. I am not making a definite recommendation but simply suggesting this as something that could be given consideration.
Another question raised tonight concerns the advisability of having ten commissions rather than having one, or four, as previously suggested. I must admit that formerly I have viewed the idea of possibly four commissions as being practical and desirable, but in the way that the suggestion of ten commissions has been put before us I can definitely see that there are advantages. For one thing, it will save time and I believe this is a very important consideration. We heard this afternoon that the appointment of one commission would result in the postponement until possibly 1968 of any election that could be held based upon the new redistribution. Even if four commissions were appointed I suppose it would take a considerable length of time. However, ten commissions should be able to proceed with their task with dispatch and complete their work in a much shorter period of time.
Redistribution Commission I believe the Secretary of State pointed out that having ten commissions would not involve any substantial additional expenditure because in all probability the commissioners would be paid on a per diem basis, but as they would be called on to serve for a shorter period of time it would simply mean that the cost would be spread over a greater number of people. The fact that the commissioners will in all probability be chosen from their respective provinces is also an important consideration. If one commission were appointed with members from all parts of the country from coast to coast, the commissioners would have to spend much more time acquainting themselves with the provincial and local area situations; but by having one commission for each province the commissioners will be more aware of the problems in their own provinces. Therefore, speaking personally and also, I think, for our group, I can say that we look with favour upon the proposal to have ten commissions, rather than one or four as previously suggested.
We appreciate the fact that parliamentary responsibility is being maintained, even although the independent commission is doing the work of redrawing the boundary lines. On the other occasion to which I referred, when the hon. member for Port Arthur was speaking on this matter, he pressed the idea of a completely independent board. I feel that there should be some responsibility to parliament in this respect so far as these commissions are concerned. It would seem to me to be a repudiation of responsibility were we to turn this work over completely to an independent commission, without any review of it here in this house. We trust that when any measure is brought before us adequate provision will be made for a thorough analysis and study of the recommendations, and every opportunity given to voice opinions in this particular respect.
Now, Mr. Chairman, the various matters have been covered very thoroughly today. The speakers have gone into a great deal of history, given historical reviews and quoted from speakers of bygone days. I do not propose to do that, because there has been sufficient placed on the record in regard to these matters.
However, I should like to refer to the suggestion made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre to the effect that it would not be such a bad idea if we were to increase the membership of this house rather than reduce the representation of some provinces. By the way, in passing, I should like to say that I hope when the Secretary of State referred to the fact that British Columbia was under-represented at the present time he meant it as far as numbers were concerned,
5138	HOUSE OF
Redistribution Commission and not as far as quality was concerned. As to the increase in membership of this house, I do not know whether or not that would be desirable. We have 265 members here, and there are 102 members in the other place. We have ten provincial legislatures with varying numbers. We have our municipal governments; and it would almost seem to me that Canada is pretty well governed so far as numbers and so far as agencies are concerned. I do not know, therefore, if the suggestion should be taken too seriously. Certainly, consideration should be given to it, but I think possibly we should look at it from the other point of view and discover whether or not it would be in the best interest of the nation to increase the membership in this parliament.
With these observations, Mr. Chairman, I will leave this matter. No doubt other members of this group will be participating in the debate. They certainly will when we come to debate the various items in the bill that will be presented after this resolution.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I find that the resolution before us implies various things, and I shall deal with them as they come to my mind.
There has been talk of increasing the number of members in the house. Well, when I see all those empty desks-more particularly on the Liberal side of the house, where several members are missing-I think that an increase in number would not mean more members in this house.
Mr. Chairman, my remarks seem to worry my Liberal friends. Well, I would tell them that, instead of increasing the number of ridings, there should be an increase in the number of those sitting here.


An hon. Member:: Where is the hon. member for Villeneuve?


Gilles Grégoire: Look on your side. Nothing hurts like the truth. Look on your side, and you will see that several are missing.
Mr. Chairman, I see that a few Liberal members are coming back. But, out of a total of 130, there are scarcely 25 Liberals in the house at this time.


An hon. Member:: Where is the hon. member for Villeneuve?


Gilles Grégoire: The hon. member for Villeneuve is always here.


David Réal Caouette: He is behind the curtain, here.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, there is now a total of 130 Liberal members, but many only rise once a year. Several do absolutely nothing. Now, if the number of naughts is increased, what difference will it make?


An hon. Member:: There will be more "Caouettistes".


Gilles Grégoire: You are absolutely right. When the next general election comes around, there will be more Caouettistes in this house.
Mr. Chairman, how can we think of increasing the number of members when so many of them are completely useless.
We should start by having elected to this house people who are interested in public business and who will look after the interests of their constituents.


An hon. Member:: Where are all your members?


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I see that the young backbenchers of the Liberal party have yet not renounced their little game of interrupting. I know that nothing hurts like the truth, but never mind. It is a good thing from time to time to spread truth around, and we do not feel shy about it.
Mr. Chairman, I would absolutely oppose any increase in the number of members if they were all like the hon. member for Mercier (Mr. Boulanger) who never takes the floor but spends his time interrupting.
On the other hand, if an increase in the number of members did not impede the business of the house, but would prevent us from wasting our time as we are doing now, I would be in favour of such an increase.
In fact, at present, with 265 members, we are not even able to pass the necessary legislation within the allotted time. That is one of the reasons why I am against an increase in the size of the house.
It is true, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) pointed out, that in 1867, each member represented 20,000 people, while in 1951, there was one member for 58,000 Canadians. Under the present bill, one member would represent 70,000 people.
Mr. Chairman, let us not forget that nowadays means of transportation and communication are much quicker than they were in days gone by.
In fact, it is much easier nowadays than in 1867, 1925 or even 1930 for the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre to go in his riding and meet his voters during a week end.
Mr. Chairman, I am of the opinion that if a member is elected for a certain number of voters, the number of problems to be settled will increase, because it has been noted that most of the problems to be solved by hon. members for their voters come from vexatious interference from government officials. It is not that government officials are wicked. No. But as I said before, because of the great number of complicated acts that they must apply, they are quite difficult to deal with.

Most of the problems that members of this house have to deal with, on behalf of their constituents, result from government and bureaucratic red tape concerning the administration of very complicated legislation such as, for instance, the Unemployment Insurance Act and, more especially, the Income Tax Act.
Indeed, Mr. Chairman, numerous problems are raised by income tax officials who take it upon themselves to cut down, without making any investigation and in an arbitrary and discriminatory fashion, charitable donations receipts to be used for income tax deductions. Consequently, if we are to represent 70,000 voters instead of 20,000, that, for us, will mean more cases to deal with. And I say again that such a situation is due to the fact that government officials have to apply vexatious laws.
If, instead of increasing the number of members, we were given more help to settle those matters, I think the problem would be solved. As a matter of fact, I would suggest that the number of senators be reduced instead.


Stanley Howard Knowles: To none.


Gilles Grégoire: I notice that the hon. member for Mercier is leaving the house; he realizes that his next job is disappearing.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to deal with another problem tonight: that of the independent commission that will look after this redistribution.
In fact, we are in favour of the setting up of an independent commission that would look after the redistribution and we support that plan. However, that commission should be really independent. But who would appoint the commissioners? Would it be only the Secretary of State (Mr. Pickersgill) who would appoint some friends of the government?
Before agreeing to the principle of an independent commission, we must decide that it will be really independent and that its members will be chosen by the five political parties in the house. Then we will be sure that commission will be truly independent.
We are told: The returning officers in the various ridings must be independent. But they are appointed by the party in power about every ten years or even more often. Sure, they are independent, but there is nothing to prevent them from leaning on one side more than on the other, and they will tend to lean towards the party that appointed them rather than towards the others.
The chief returning officer of an electoral district, even if he is supposed to be independent, is still appointed by the party in office and often, since the law gives him
Redistribution Commission some leeway, he will use it to favour the party that appointed him rather than the others.
I feel it is essential that the commissioners be appointed by the five political parties represented in this house.
I should now like to deal with the most important problem to which this resolution will give rise, and that is: how many ridings will there be? What provinces are going to lose some and what provinces are going to gain some?
A study has been made, and I have here a few figures showing that Canada has a population of 18,238,247. If you leave out the ten ridings in New Brunswick, which must remain unchanged, the four ridings in Prince Edward Island, the one in Yukon and the other in the Northwest Territories, which make 16, there is left a total of 249 ridings. The population of those 16 counties being 740,191, there are 17,498,056 inhabitants left in the other ridings, or an average of 70,842 people for each of the 249 remaining ridings.
According to the predictions I have here, the number of ridings should be reduced from 265 to 264; the province of Quebec would have 74 seats instead of 75, other provinces would lose seats, the number of seats in Ontario would increase from 85 to 88, other provinces would gain seats: British Columbia would gain 1, Alberta 2, and Saskatchewan would lose 4.


An hon. Member:: Three.


Gilles Grégoire: The number of seats in Saskatchewan would decrease from 17 to 13, according to the figures I have here.
It seems that a socialist administration is not too beneficial for Saskatchewan since this is the province with the highest decrease in population. By the way, this is not a recommendation for a socialist government.


Stanley Howard Knowles: They have gone as missionaries to other parts of the country.


Gilles Grégoire: With the system under which they live in that province they would like to go and live where they can have freedom and security.


David Réal Caouette: In the province of Quebec.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, in the province of Quebec, one of the main arguments put forward by the separatists is the following: "As things are going now, they say, before the year two thousand, instead of having 75 representatives in Ottawa out of 265, this province will only have half of this number and this means that French Canadians will

Redistribution Commission be represented in this house not by 34 or 35 per cent of the members, but only by 18, 15 or even 12 per cent.
It must be recognized, however, that the percentage of French Canadians will not decrease in the province of Quebec, but we will lose some representatives in the House of Commons. This is one of the most important arguments set forth by the protagonists of separatism.
Mr. Chairman, I have a suggestion to make to the Secretary of State which, I think, he should take into consideration. It is admitted that for New Brunswick, the number of members should not be less than ten; for Prince Edward Island, it should not be less than four.
I submit then, keeping the number of 265 members for Canada, that the province of Quebec should never have less than 75 members.
This would eliminate one of the main arguments of the protagonists of the separatist doctrine in the province of Quebec. It would also guarantee to French Canadians who view this problem with alarm that they will always have adequate representation in the House of Commons, even if their ratio decreases compared to Canada as a whole.
Following immigration, our group represents a lesser percentage of the over-all population because immigrants are more easily assimilated by English speaking Canada than by French speaking Canada.
We have nothing against that. It is not the fault of English Canadians if immigrants join their ranks rather than ours. It is our fault and we must take the blame when we deserve it.
However, I feel that we must ensure that French Canadians are adequately represented in the House of Commons. I would, therefore, suggest that the province of Quebec should never have less than 75 members out of a total of 265 or similar representation if there are more or less than 265 members in the house.
I know that Quebec will also elect English speaking members as is the case at present for the Minister of Industry and Defence Production-


An hon. Member:: Peacetime production.


Gilles Grégoire: -whose competence honours his province. Forgive me, I meant the minister of peacetime defence production whose competence is the pride of Quebec. We are glad that the English speaking citizens of Quebec have elected such a representative. We feel that English Canadians who live in our province must also be represented in the house. As I say, we are glad to see that

the English element of the province of Quebec has sent to the house such a qualified representative.
But we feel that-


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: I should like to put a question to the hon. member for Lapointe. Has he got a favour to ask of the Minister of Industry.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, Pascal said that he who is evil sees evil everywhere.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Quite appropriate for the hon. member for Lapointe.


Gilles Grégoire: The hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm thinks only in terms of patronage which, as I know, is far from being the case for the other member I am speaking of.
Mr. Chairman, it is true that some English speaking members from the province of Quebec will come to Ottawa. We do not object to that. But in the province of Quebec, the percentage of French Canadians has not come down. It holds up regularly. I think that if we accept as an absolute policy that the percentage of members coming from the province of Quebec to Ottawa will always remain unchanged, we will put an end to one of the greatest fears of the French Canadians in the province of Quebec and even throughout the country.
I think that at this time, when there is so much talk about biculturalism and bilingualism-as far as I am concerned, I see biculturalism as a system allowing two cultures to develop-if we really wish to have biculturalism, we should take an opportunity such as this to put into the statutes of Canada a provision to the effect that the French Canadians will always be adequately represented in the House of Commons at Ottawa.
If 35 or 40 years from now we should make up only 10 per cent of the population and have by then only 10 per cent of the members in the House of Commons we would then have to confess that we failed to provide today for future generations. I believe that we should see to it now that the French Canadians will forever be present in sufficient numbers in this house.
We make this suggestion to the Secretary of State in the hope that he will consider it earnestly in the drafting of the bill.
If I may, I would like to mention a fact which shows that this suggestion has already been carried out in the province of Quebec, where we maintain that the English Canadian minorities receive very fair treatment. I do not remember in what year the Quebec legislature determined the number of counties, but they determined that number so as to safeguard the English Canadian

minorities' rights, and more particularly so in the eastern townships, where they gave those counties the assurance that they would continue to exist even if there were disproportion as far as the number of their electors is concerned. That is the reason why we have those small counties like Brome-Missis-quoi, Compton, Shefford and Stanstead in the provincial field. The existence of those counties was respected by the provincial government. Why? When the Quebec legislature ordered a redistribution, it wanted to guarantee an adequate representation of English minorities in the province, by leaving them some counties which, today, are represented only by a minimum of voters.
In my opinion, Mr. Chairman, the same thing can be done at the federal level, since we in the province of Quebec have been able to guarantee to English Canadians an adequate representation at the provincial legislative assembly. I am of the opinion that the federal government ought to adopt the same policy towards the French Canadian minority in the province of Quebec and guarantee the existence of a certain number of ridings in order to enable French Canadians to claim their rights in the house at any time in the future.
That would set a tremendous example for future generations, as far as the right of the French Canadian nation to have an adequate representation in parliament is concerned.
Moreover, it is already done for some provinces. For instance, Prince Edward Island, with a population of 104,629 has four guaranteed ridings, which gives an average of
26,000	people per riding, when the other ridings in Canada have an average of 70,842 people, according to the last census. We uphold this principle and what applies to Prince Edward Island should also apply to the province of Quebec.
Business of the House
Mr. Chairman, may I call it ten o'clock? [Text]


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. member consider concluding his speech so that the bill could be reached, because there would still be an opportunity to speak on the bill.


Gilles Grégoire: I would say to the Secretary of State that if I am the last person to speak on the resolution, I will agree; but if I am not the last to speak on the resolution, I object.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, there are a few hon. members on this side of the chamber who wish to speak.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I assume that the order of business is the same for tomorrow as it was today?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, Mr. Speaker. We will go on with this resolution and if we should conclude it, as I hope we will, before six o'clock, we could perhaps use the rest of the time on the Canadian overseas telecommunications measure which is nearly through the house, and any of the other items with which the Minister of Transport is concerned. There is the minister's resolution on the order paper in connection with the Aeronautics Act.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Do the items announced for Thursday and Friday still stand?


John Whitney Pickersgill: For Thursday, quite definitely. I may wish to speak to hon. gentlemen tomorrow about Friday.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, November 27, 1963