1963-12-03

Hon. Harry W. Hays (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. On Thursday last, November 28, the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. McIntosh) addressed a question to me which he had directed to the Acting Prime Minister in my absence on Tuesday, November 26, regarding a statement I had made in Edmonton to the effect that I appointed people according to merit.
He then went on to say that if it is government policy that personnel are selected on merit, why was it, in view of this statement by myself, that Mr. George Walker, the former P.F.A.A. supervisor for Swift Current, was discharged from the government service, and went on to say that either my statement was false or I did not practice what I preached.
My reply to the hon. member indicated that my statement was not false and that I do practice what I preach. This man was discharged on the recommendation of the director because he did not perform his duties satisfactorily. I also pointed out that the director had been appointed by the previous administration on June 1, 1961, and he is a good man.
The hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek then stated that he understood I would find in the files a report made by the present director in regard to this man, to the effect that he was the most capable supervisor in that branch, and asked if I did find this report would I consider firing the director and reinstating the supervisor. In reply to this question I may say that I have had the files searched, and am advised that Mr. Walker was employed as a part time inspector under the P.F.A.A. for varying periods each year from September 4, 1957 to December 5, 1962, when he was appointed district supervisor for the Swift Current area on a full time basis. However, there is no report in the files to the effect that he was the most capable supervisor in the branch, as stated by the hon. member.
At the time the hon. gentleman asked the question I stated that apparently he did not
understand that the problem apparently arose out of the fact that Mr. Walker was taking orders from the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek instead of from the director, and this was one of the problems, and that he was not satisfactorily filling his job.
The basis for the dismissal of Mr. Walker was a report received from the director of the prairie farm assistance administration to the effect that for some time the matter of continuing the services of Mr. George Walker as supervisor for the Swift Current area had been a problem to him. The administration of the P.F.A.A. in the Swift Current area was most unsatisfactory and, all in all, a situation had developed where there was a lack of any co-ordination between the Swift Current office and head office in Regina. The supervisor was simply not carrying out the director's instructions. His utter lack of co-operation with the Regina office was one fault, and his disregard for the director and Mr. W. F. Davies, the superintendent, could not be overlooked.
Although he was quite conversant with the operations of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act from experience gained as office manager for his predecessor, he made no effort to check inspectors who were not properly carrying out their duties when taking cultivated acreage reports from farmers in the area. In a number of instances he failed to carry out the inspections of those townships which were contiguous to other townships which had been declared eligible for award by the board of review. This is one phase of the administration that is quite necessary, and it is insisted that each supervisor complete the inspection of such townships.
He was explicitly instructed not to endeavour to answer any correspondence with officials of rural municipalities or farmers in his area, but rather that all such correspondence be directed to the Regina office, where files are kept for reply. He disregarded instructions in this matter. He refused to cooperate in the investigations of alleged irregularities in some cultivated acreage reports which were filed in his area for awards. A situation developed in the area under his supervision which the director felt required a recheck of certain townships, but he received no co-operation whatsoever from Mr. Walker in making these rechecks. Had

Question of Privilege
Mr. Walker followed the director's instructions there is no doubt that the situation would not have developed.
On the basis of the director's report on the lack of co-operation and disregard of his instructions by Mr. Walker, 1 approved his recommendation that Mr. Walker's services be dispensed with.
Yesterday the hon. member raised a question of privilege with regard to my statement on Tuesday last that one of the problems arose out of the fact that Mr. Walker was taking orders from the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek instead of the director. I understand it is a rule of the house that if an hon. member rises in his place and denies a statement made by another member, that member must accept the denial. I am quite prepared to accept the hon. member's word and am prepared to withdraw my statement that Mr. Walker was taking orders from the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek, which I had been led to understand had been the case. I would point out, however, that that was not the basis on which Mr. Walker was dismissed as the district supervisor for the Swift Current area. He was dismissed for not giving satisfactory services and for not carrying out the instructions of his superior officer.


Mr. Jack McIntosh (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, is it not a rule of the house that if a report is mentioned by a minister it should be tabled? If so, I make the request that the director's report be tabled, because it is obvious that Mr. Walker is the innocent victim of a dispute between the director and myself. At no time was he told either by the minister, although the request was made, or by the director, to whom also a request was made, the reason for his dismissal. Being an innocent victim, I believe he should be given the chance to refute the statement made by the minister.


Mr. Speaker:: As to whether the report should be tabled, I will leave that to the discretion of the minister.


Some hon. Members:: Table it.


Harry William Hays: Mr. Speaker, this is a departmental report and I am sure the hon. member knows that this cannot be tabled.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Then, Mr. Speaker, I have no alternative but to move this motion:
That the question of privilege I raised respecting the statement by the Minister of Agriculture that:
"Apparently he does not understand that the problem arose out of the fact Mr. Walker was taking orders from the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek instead of the director. This 
was one of the problems, and was not satisfactorily fulfilling his job."-be referred to the standing committee on privileges and elections.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on another question of privilege.
On Wednesday, October 23 of this year, this house ordered the Postmaster General to table certain documents. Six weeks have gone by since that order was given to the Postmaster General and the documents have not been tabled yet.
I feel the minister should comply with the order given to him. So we ask him to explain why he has not done so.


Hon. Azellus Denis (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I got in touch this morning with the officials of my department and I believe the documents will be tabled presently, to the satisfaction of the hon. member for Lapointe.



AGRICULTURE


Harry William Hays: I wish to inform the house that the agricultural stabilization board has been authorized to support the price of eggs by a deficiency payment program for the twelve month period, October 1, 1963 to September 30, 1964, at a national average price of 34 cents per dozen to producers for grade A large size eggs. The support price of 34 cents is the same as last year and represents 92 per cent of the base price or ten year average. Last year the 34 cent support price was 90.7 per cent of the base price.
There has been no change in the procedure established for claims, and payments to any one producer during the support year will continue to be limited to 4,000 dozen grade A extra large size, grade A large size and grade A medium size eggs. Producers must be registered with the board and have marketed their eggs through registered grading stations, or have sold their eggs to retail outlets as producer-graders to be eligible for any deficiency payments which may be made.

On the orders of the day:


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquillam):: Mr. Speaker, I want to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Earlier this afternoon he announced the deficiency payments to egg producers under the Agricultural Prices Stabilization Act. Could he tell us what steps his department is taking to make sure these deficiency payments go to the egg producers, rather than to commission men and agents who handle the products of the egg producers?


Harry William Hays: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member would direct those people who are not receiving them, or he thinks are not receiving them, to write me, I would be glad to investigate their cases.


Mr. H. M. Horner (Jasper-Edson):: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the egg price support announced by the minister, we appreciate the Conservative farm policy he announced, but what happened to the Liberal promise of regional averaging and quarterly payments?



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance and draw his attention to the latest bulletin of the dominion bureau of statistics on the question of foreign investment in Canada, showing receipts of only $98 million from this source compared to foreign capital inflows of $391 million, $410 million and $386 million in previous quarters.
I should like to ask the minister whether he is satisfied with the reduction of foreign investment to this extent and, if not, what is going to be the attitude on the part of the government toward increasing the amount of this investment?


Hon. Waller L. Gordon (Minisler of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the right hon. Leader of the Opposition has drawn attention to the effects of the introduction of the United States interest equalization tax, or the announcement of it, and the fact that while it is still being considered by congress there will continue to be a very considerable reduction in the amount of capital flowing from the United States to Canada. I should like to be able to do something about it, but obviously the only effective way of doing
Inquiries of the Ministry anything would be to speed up the legislation through the United States congress, and unfortunately I am not able to influence that.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, now that the Americans are blamed for this and not the legislation brought in by this government, does the minister agree with what hon. Mr. Kierans, the Quebec revenue minister, said yesterday in speaking at the Windsor hotel:
-denial of access to American capital markets, promoted by the Canadian government, is making more costly the financing of growth in the private and public sector-"Ottawa's hostile attitude against foreign investment" has forced one United Kingdom company to abandon its plan to set up a subsidiary plant in the Drummondville area.
Does the minister agree with that criticism by one of his good friends?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Kierans is a colourful character, but I am afraid I cannot always agree with his statements.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance a supplementary question. In view of this lack of United States credits, is the Minister of Finance considering the creation of Canadian credits in order to replace those U.S. credits which are not flowing any more to Canada?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I think this is hardly the time to discuss monetary theory.


Hon. Theogene Ricard (St. Hyacinihe-Bagot):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Industry. Is this the practical effect of his policy of regional development that we are experiencing now?


Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance in connection with the question asked earlier by the Leader of the Opposition. Can the Minister of Finance tell us whether the diminution in United States investment, the flow of United States capital into Canada referred to by the Leader of the Opposition, exceeds the amount the minister hoped to achieve by his ill fated legislation earlier this year?


Mr. Churchill:: That is a loaded question.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I think I need counsel, Mr. Speaker, before I deal with a question of that kind.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Royal: have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, that I tried to get in earlier. What plans can
53G2	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry the minister announce which will lessen the "distinct cleavage" which Quebec revenue minister Eric Kierans says exists between the federal government's international policies at the political level and the economic policies now being pursued by the government?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I have not seen this statement, Mr. Speaker. I would like to study it before I try to deal with a general statement of that kind.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a further supplementary question. As the hon. gentleman has given the house the assurance that he has not seen this statement-it is on the front page of all the papers-I might read it and ask whether he agrees with it:
Mr. Kierans said the federal government's application of withholding taxes and depreciation allowances "is going to get us into trouble".
"For one thing it is going to invite retaliatory action by the United States government", he declared.
I ask the minister, does he agree with that statement from this colourful character whom he derogated a few months ago?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I read the Globe and Mail this morning, and that was one of the papers that did not, as far as I recall, carry that statement on its front page.


An hon. Member:: You don't read the right papers.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I thought the right hon. gentleman said "all the papers". In any event, I think that interpretation as reported is highly-


Mr. Mandziuk:: Correct.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: -exaggerated.



AGRICULTURE AND COLONIZATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Raymond C. Langlois (Megantic):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege regarding what is taking place at the committee on agriculture which held a sitting this morning. I would also ask the Secretary of State to make representations to you concerning the lack of interpreters and the delay in publishing the French report of proceedings.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. members for Roberval and for Kamouraska, who sit on this committee, are not too familiar with the English language and would like to have an interpreter attend the sittings, if possible, in order to provide simultaneous translation.

This is a question we have discussed before, Mr. Speaker, and I know it may be embarrassing at times when there are not enough interpreters to cover so many committees sitting at the same time. However, I ask the Secretary of State to get one for this afternoon if possible, since these two gentlemen will probably be attending that committee again. They sat there not understanding a single word. We were talking about sales of grain in eastern Canada and they did not understand what we were talking about. They will only find out in two weeks time when the report will probably be submitted. This is my question of privilege, and I wonder whether the Secretary of State has something to say.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I regret very much that this situation has arisen on several occasions during the present session. Part of the reason, of course, is that there are so very many committees sitting at the same time and there is only limited personnel. I am sure that Your Honour and the officers at the table, having heard the hon. gentleman's point, will do their utmost to see that the situation is improved just as far as it can be humanly done with the number of officials that are available. Personally I regret very much that we do not have more people to do this work of interpretation and translation. I have made repeated representations in many quarters to get the staff strengthened in order to do this work adequately. I repeat the invitation I have extended before, that if anyone knows any competent translator who would like a job, I wish he would give his name to the chairman of the civil service commission right away.


Mr. R. W. Pritiie (Burnaby-Richmond):: I should like to ask the Secretary of State if he is aware that some of these committees could have been meeting two months ago and thus avoid all this rush at the end of the session.


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, sir, I am not.


Raymond Langlois: I may not be considered competent, but if I may be of help to the government this afternoon I am quite willing to do so without pay, Mr. Speaker.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour regarding the older workers

training incentive program. I notice that according to the literature sent out by his department, this program is only available to workers who are hired between November 1, 1963 and January 31, 1964. The question I would like to ask the minister is, why is it limited to such a narrow period? Would the minister and his department give some consideration to widening the period during which this incentive program will be applicable?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour):: The purpose of the particular period was to attempt to encourage a substantial volume of hiring in a period that would have the maximum effect on high seasonal winter unemployment. However, I am glad to assure my hon. friend that consideration will be given, and I think it is now being given, to a possible extension of this period.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Real Caouette (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister?
I received at noon from Mr. Sorel, president general of the catholic farmers union, a telegram which reads as follows:
On behalf of all Quebec farmers, we state once again our full support of Bill C-5-stop-considering it as an essential protection of the already low livelihood of thousands of farmers-stop-asking for passage of the whole bill during this session.
Has the Prime Minister received such a telegram and if so, does he intend to submit Bill C-5 for the approval of the house before the conclusion of this session?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I do not recall receiving that telegram, but I will be glad to look into the matter as soon as I get to my office. The government's intentions with regard to further legislation this session will be made known in a day or two.



TRANS-CANADA AIR LINES REPORTED RUMOURS THAT SABOTAGE CAUSED RECENT CRASH

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. It arises out of rumours that are rampant regarding the cause of the terrible
Inquiries of the Ministry disaster to the T.C.A. aircraft last Friday. Is the minister in a position, on the basis of the investigation so far, to eliminate and rule out sabotage as the cause of that accident?


Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (Minister of Transport):: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but I was not able to hear the right hon. gentleman's question.


An hon. Member:: Put your earpiece on.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, either the minister's hearing is bad or my voice was not loud enough for him. I asked whether he was in a position now, on the basis of the investigation that has so far taken place in connection with the tragedy at Montreal last Friday, to eliminate sabotage as the cause thereof.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I have had no report from the investigating team so far; therefore I would not rule out any possible cause whatever. I do not want that remark to be taken as indicating that I have any reason to suspect one cause more than any other; I simply have not the information.


Mr. W. B. Nesbill (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker,
I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Were either or both of the DC-8F aircraft recently involved in accidents, at London airport and in the tragic occurrence at Montreal, equipped with Pratt and Whitney fan jet engines rather than Rolls Royce engines?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, that subject matter was dealt with in committee this morning, and I wonder if the hon. member would permit me to take his question as notice and give him a full answer later.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: I should like to ask the Minister of Industry if he can tell the house whether the Deuterium Corporation of Canada, which has been awarded the contract for the heavy water plant, is a wholly owned Canadian corporation.


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: Yes, I can. It is not wholly owned, as my announcement made clear yesterday, but a very substantial portion of the Deuterium Corporation of Canada will be Canadian owned.


Robert Norman Thompson: Perhaps the minister will tell us how much of it is expected to be Canadian owned, and whether he is aware
5364	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry of the reasons Mr. Spivak, president of this corporation, severed his connections with the atomic energy commission of the United States.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: The percentage of Canadian ownership is anticipated to be 51 per cent.


Mr. Horner (Acadia):: Anticipated, or is now?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Anticipated; the issue of stock to the Canadian shareholders has not yet been made.


Robert Norman Thompson: Could I have an answer to the second part of my question?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the reasons given for Mr. Spivak coming to Canada after having left the service of the atomic energy commission of the United States.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Will the minister tell us how much of the firm is now Canadian owned?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: This, like a number of other proposals, represents a proposal by a corporation which in itself will only come into full flower if it is awarded the contract. It is only then that the proposals will become operative. Now it is merely a shell of a corporation.


Mr. Knowles:: Shades of the trans-Canada pipe line.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: It will be brought into full existence when it is told that in fact it will have a job to do.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister now telling the house that this company has been awarded a very important contract although it is not a corporate entity at the present time? If so, how is it possible to determine whether this firm has both the technical and financial capacity to carry out the contract which is being given?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, the corporation does exist. The proposals made to Atomic Energy of Canada Limited were for an operation which would involve changing substantially the financial competence and plans of the corporation, changing substantially the equity ownership of the corporation, changing substantially the personnel of the corporation. This is a corporation which is going into a brand new operation, and requires substantial changes.
The contract has not been awarded. As I announced yesterday, it is merely that the government has approved the application of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited to enter into an underwriting agreement, Deuterium of Canada Limited having indicated that it 

had viable, sensible economic plans to do the things it said it could do. When the corporation does sign agreements providing that it will in fact do the things it says it will do, a contract will be signed with Atomic Energy of Canada Limited.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Do I take it, Mr. Speaker, that the minister is saying this company is really at the present time a United States company, and the proposal is that it will alter its structure so as to have some degree of Canadian ownership after the reorganization? Is that correct?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: It is a Canadian company, of which the principal shareholder is a citizen of the United States at the present time.


Robert Norman Thompson: Coming back to my original question, Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister whether he is aware of the reason for this United States citizen who is president of Deuterium of Canada Limited severing his connections with the United States atomic energy commission.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I think I answered that question in the affirmative.


Robert Norman Thompson: If the minister is aware, will he inform the house?


An hon. Member:: Read Hansard tomorrow.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I have been asked to disclose information regarding the motives of a private individual. I do not think it would be proper for me to make public this type of information.



CONSIDERATION OF FRENCH CANADIANS IN MAKING SENIOR APPOINTMENTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Marcel Lessard (Lake Si. John):: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the Minister of Industry?
Could the minister tell us why he has been unable to appoint a French speaking deputy minister or assistant deputy minister within his department since the three present directors are English speaking? Will any of the seven proposed directors be French speaking?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say to the hon. member that the only thing I can do is to recommend a candidate for the position of area development agency commissioner; the present incumbent is French speaking.
In every department, the appointment of deputy ministers comes under the jurisdiction of the Prime Minister and not the minister.


Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Jolielle-L'Assompiion-Monlcalm):: Mr. Speaker, may I put a supplementary question? Can the minister tell whether the three appointments made by the government can be called "co-operative bilingualism"?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I can tell the hon. member that I shall do everything possible to appoint French Canadians to the Department of Industry. However, I must recognize, unfortunately, that with the competition given us by the Quebec government, I find it quite difficult to find competent French speaking candidates.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is a kind of argument, and I would point out to the hon. member that this is question time.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Industry. I should like to know what steps he took or what inquiries he made to find bilingual or French high officials for his department before asserting that he could not find qualified candidates?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I think that question could not be answered orally on the orders of the day.


Mr. Lessard (Lake St. John):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the right hon. Prime Minister. Following the answer given by the Minister of Industry, could he tell us whether that statement means that he chooses himself the deputy ministers in the various departments of his administration?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, it is the responsibility of the Prime Minister to appoint deputy ministers. [Later:]
On the orders of the day:


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, with your permission I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Industry.
The minister complained a short while ago of a lack of French Canadian applicants in his department. Why could not Mr. Lavigne, who holds the fifth position in his department, be appointed deputy minister, so as to give fair treatment to French Canadians and to recognize their rights.
28902-5-342
Inquiries of the Ministry



ESTABLISHMENT OF INDUSTRIES IN DESIGNATED AREAS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry. Is he in a position to mention a single new industry established in one of the designated areas since the enactment of the legislation?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Yes, Mr. Speaker. For instance, in the town of La Malbaie, the construction of a new plant for Reynolds Aluminum is being started.


David Réal Caouette: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
Can the minister mention another new industry that would have been established in the Abitibi area?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I must thank the hon. member for his question, but for the time being I cannot think of any other example.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question.
Is not that new aluminum plant being established at Murray Bay precisely because this company has concluded a very important contract with the federal government, which will endeavour to absorb the company's production in years to come?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is not a question. That is an argument or a statement. [Translation]


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I feel that my question was quite in order and I raise a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is out of order. The hon. member for Port Arthur. [Translation]


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I respectfully submit that whenever a member raises a point of order, he has the right to do so. That is what the hon. member for Lapointe is asking just now.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Port Arthur.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege.
According to the rules, when a member rises on a question of privilege I believe that the Speaker must listen to that question of privilege.

Inquiries of the Ministry
My question of privilege is this. I wanted to rise on a point of order following a question which I had asked in order that I might explain why it was in order. You prevented me from doing so. It seems to me that I have the right to raise a point of order when the occasion arises. I ask for your ruling on the matter.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Port Arthur.


Mr. Fisher:: I can't compete with that.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Lapointe will understand that I am a human being, too, and sometimes it is difficult for me to make my voice heard; but I am sure he heard me when I said three times that his question was out of order. It was as simple as that; the question was out of order. The hon. member for Port Arthur.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, an hon. member of parliament is asking a question-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think the hon. member for Villeneuve must recognize that I am still the Speaker. I will be glad indeed to give the hon. member my reasons for not hearing him at this time. They are very simple. The hon. member for Port Arthur had precedence; he rose before the hon. member for Lapointe. All hon. members have equal rights in this chamber, including the hon. member for Port Arthur, and he rose first. The hon. member's question of privilege or point of order may come in later, but not at this time.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS REPORTED STATEMENT BY MEMBER FOR DRUMMOND-ARTHABASKA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister in a position to confirm the statement made by the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska last Sunday, in Drummondville, to the effect that the province of Quebec would get everything she asked for at the federal-provincial conference, and that the amount of $42 million already granted to her by the federal government was but a first instalment on what she would receive under the new distribution of fiscal rights?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker, I cannot confirm that statement, which I have not seen, if in fact the statement was made.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. Can he inform the house whether the negotiations between the Canadian government and the United States government have yet been completed with regard to the maintenance of the Haines highway?


Hon. Arihur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I think the arrangements are completed, but I would prefer to read the hon. member's question, as well as hear it, and I might make an announcement tomorrow.


Erik Nielsen: While the minister is announcing that, I wonder if he will inform the house whether negotiations have been completed as to the salient features of maintenance, particularly the equipment that is being used and the labour being utilized on the highway?


Arthur Laing: Yes, Mr. Speaker.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. O. Cooper (Roselown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Sometime ago I asked if there would be a meeting of all interested parties before any further railway abandonment would take place. Does the minister anticipate calling this meeting, or is the document I have in my hand a final disposition of this matter?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what document the hon. member has in his hand, but I would indicate to him that it has been made clear on several occasions that the abandonment of grain lines in western Canada will not be proceeded with for the time being, and I have also indicated that I propose bringing forward legislation to deal with this subject.


Clarence Owen Cooper: The document I have is headed "Rail line abandonments by C.N.R. and C.P.R. as of November 6, 1963."



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Min-

ister of Finance. What portion of the $600,000 for the anti-cigarette smoking campaign will the federal government provide?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I would be glad to look into the question, Mr. Speaker, and give an answer tomorrow.



DEFENCE PRODUCTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Beaule (Quebec East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Defence Production.
On November 13 I asked the minister a question about the unjust treatment which had befallen the employees of the Val Cartier arsenals, near Quebec city. More than 15 days have elapsed since then, and I wonder if the minister is now able to answer my question?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, first, I may tell the hon. member that I am aware of what is going on at the Val Cartier arsenals. The Val Cartier plant has been given less work lately, and consequently employment has dropped. However, we are doing our best to try and find jobs for those who have been laid off.


Jean Robert Beaulé: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I am not speaking of the employees who have been laid off, but of the treatment which is meted out to those people who are still employed.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: According to my information, Mr. Speaker, those who have stayed on are treated quite well.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Is the minister in a position to give a further report in relation to the plans of his department concerning the future use of Fort Churchill by various branches of the armed forces?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is anything I could usefully add at this time.


Robert Simpson: As a supplementary question, could the minister say when he may be able to make such a report?
28902-5-3421
Inquiries of the Ministry


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I would hope it would not be too long, Mr. Speaker.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker may I ask the Minister of National Defence whether the report appearing in the newspaper today with regard to the proposed closing of Fort Churchill for army purposes is accurate, plus the other reports with regard to general cutting down of the services?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I have not seen that report, Mr. Speaker.


Gordon Minto Churchill: You don't see any of these reports.



BRIDGES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Douglas Mason Fisher: I should like to ask the Minister of Transport a question. Does the government now have in hand an estimate of the cost of the protection of the navigable waters in the St. Lawrence which protection will follow from the erection of the proposed bridge at Three Rivers?


George James McIlraith: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I should like to ask a supplementary question. Is this estimate of cost any factor at all in the government's reconsideration of the order in council relating to this project and, if so, when does the minister think he can give us an explanation of the government's final position?


George James McIlraith: The cost is very heavy, Mr. Speaker. The responsibility for building the bridge is not that of the federal government, as I think the hon. member knows. The responsibility of the federal government is that of protecting the water in the St. Lawrence river, which is the navigable stream, the shipping route. The estimate of the cost is very substantial and is a consequence of the location of piers for the bridge.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I should like to ask whether the government was not seized of this information or did not try to get the information at the time the proposal was put before this parliament.


George James McIlraith: I do not know what information the former government had; that would be their responsibility. I am not able to say what information they had on this subject.

Inquiries of the Ministry [Translation]


Mr. Clement Vincent (Nicolei-Yamaska):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
Is the corporation of the Three Rivers bridge now authorized to start the construction of this bridge?


George James McIlraith: The order in council referred to by the hon. member for Port Arthur was one indicating the concurrence of the government to the construction of a bridge. There were some questions raised about the order in council.


Mr. Vinceni:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Justice a question.
Could he tell us whether his department studied the order in council, dated March 4 last, concerning the Three Rivers bridge, and if so, whether his department recognized the validity of that order in council?


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, we did study that order in council and, as the hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska certainly knows, an opinion once expressed becomes the property of him who requested it, in this case, the Minister of Transport, and it would be up to him to communicate it to the house when and wherever he deems fit to do so.


Clément Vincent: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question to ask the Minister of Transport with regard to this matter. Could he tell us whether or not the Department of Justice told him that the order in council was valid?


George James McIlraith: The Department of Justice did provide an opinion on this subject, Mr. Speaker.


Hon. Leon Balcer (Three Rivers):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister whether he could tell us what was the opinion of the Department of Justice.


George James McIlraith: No, Mr. Speaker.


Léon Balcer: Why not?


Douglas Mason Fisher: I should like to ask the minister a question arising out of this series. If the cost estimate to the government in connection with this project is high, will the government have the authority, aside from whether the order in council is valid, to make sure that the project is not proceeded with?


John Whitney Pickersgill: On a point of order, I would be glad to arrange for the estimates of the Minister of Transport

to come up the next day we have an opportunity so that this information can be supplied to hon. members. It seems to me that a detailed question of an argumentative, debating nature such as the one which has just been asked is not appropriate on the orders of the day.


Douglas Mason Fisher: The Secretary of State has raised a point of order. I should like to point out that we have on the order paper for consideration a bill which is very similar to the one setting up this Three Rivers bridge organization, and I feel there is some urgency in finding out what is the position of the government in this case as far as the Department of Transport is concerned, because it would certainly affect the consideration we would give to this other bill when it is before the house. It is for this reason I think there is a certain urgency about it, particularly if the cost which is to devolve upon the government rises as much as the minister has indicated.



WORLD FAIR


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I refer to a question which I have already directed to the Minister of Public Works and to which he could not give any answer because he did not have the proper information. Can the minister tell the house whether any change will have to be made to the site of the world exhibition following the problems involved?


Hon. J. P. Deschaielets (Minister of Public Works):: Definitely not, Mr. Speaker.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question if you allow me. Could the Minister of Public Works tell us whether his statement is inconsistent with those made by the mayor of Montreal, according to whom many difficulties have arisen which could result in the selection of a new site?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Speaker, I wish to be quite clear on this subject. The hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm is asking me whether the site would be changed. The answer is positively no, the site will not be changed.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: If there are major or minor changes in the development of the islands?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Speaker, if major changes are made, plans will be submitted to us and we shall then advise the hon. member.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders ol the day:
Raymond Langlois: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour regarding lumbermen who work across the border. I am referring to the impossibility of their being able to obtain unemployment insurance once they have quit their work. There have been many negotiations over the past few years, and can the government tell us where they are at now and if there are any conclusions on the horizon?


Mr. Speaker:: That is a question for the order paper.


Raymond Langlois: I will rephrase my question to the Minister of Labour. Can the hon. gentleman assure the house that he will look into these negotiations to see whether any progress has been made in the situation affecting these lumbermen?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, though I know the situation without looking into it further.



PENITENTIARIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, about ten days ago I asked the Minister of Justice a question regarding three recommendations which had been made by a jury in Vancouver, one of the recommendations being for an independent investigation of the conditions in the penitentiary at New Westminster. I wonder whether the minister has since received a report from the judge and, if so, what action is he contemplating in this regard?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, as far as I know there has been no report from the judge as yet.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Simpson: I wish to address a question to the Minister of Transport. Is the minister in a position to make any statement to the house on the reported collision of two large vessels in Montreal harbour either early this morning or late last night?
Interim Supply


George James McIlraith: I do not know that there is a great deal to report. Early this morning, at about 12.30 a.m., two vessels, the Manchester Merchant of United Kingdom registry and the Lionel of Norwegian registry were in collision in Montreal harbour.
It appears that the Manchester Merchant which had taken on cargo at Montreal, was proceeding downstream to leave the harbour. Two vessels, the Donnacona, a laker, and the Lionel, had left the seaway and had turned below Canadian Vickers shipyard in order to proceed into the upper harbour. The Donnacona was in the lead and the Lionel followed approximately 500 feet behind. Both vessels were moving slowly.
The Manchester Merchant had safely passed the Donnacona and then appeared to veer off to the south striking the Lionel midships.
An explosion and fire occurred in both vessels. The fire on the Manchester Merchant was brought under control and the vessel is now at anchor opposite elevator No. 4 in Montreal harbour. She is expected to go to drydock.
The Lionel lost control and had to be pushed by tugs to the downstream tip of He Ronde. The fire aboard the Lionel had not been brought under control when I checked this forenoon. There was no loss of life and only one seaman was injured. Both vessels involved had pilots aboard, and I am looking into the matter further.

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



INTERIM SUPPLY

[Stage Direction]
Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $377,400,841.02, being the aggregate of-
(a)	one-twelfth of the total of the amounts of the items set forth in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1964, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament, except agriculture item 100, atomic energy item 5, external affairs items 78 and 107, fisheries item 45, mines and technical surveys items 45 and 80, northern affairs and national resources items 5 and 10, public works items 20 and 190, transport item 35 and loans, investments and advances item L20 for which no amount is being released, $318,822,963.00;
(b)	an additional two-twelfths of external affairs item 105 and finance item 45, $4,700,000.00;
(c)	an additional one-twelfth of mines and technical surveys item 140, national film board item 1, northern affairs and national resources item 80, post office items 5, 10 and 15, public works items 150 and 165, transport items 40 and 220, loans, investments and advances item L70, $21,342,422.50;
(d)	one-twelfth of the total of the amounts of the items set forth in the supplementary estimates (A), for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1964, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament, except external affairs items 96a and 117a, finance item 5a, northern affairs and
[Stage Direction]
Interim Supply
national resources item 110a, and loans, investments and advances items L13a and L63a for which no amount is being released $24,023,455.00;
(e)	an additional one-twelfth of finance item 45a, $83,333.34;
(f)	one-twelfth of the amount of the item set forth in the supplementary estimates (B) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1964, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament, $583,333.34;
(g)	one-twelfth of the amount of item set forth in the supplementary estimates (C) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1964, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament, $1,666,666.67;
(h)	one-twelfth of the amounts of the items set forth in the supplementary estimates (D) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1964, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament, except external affairs item 117d for which no amount is being released, $6,178,667.17;
be granted to Her Majesty on account of the fiscal year ending March 31, 1964.
Robert Norman Thompson: In making my comments today I shall try to be brief. The occasion is vitally important but I do not share any enthusiasm for unduly prolonging this debate.
The recent federal-provincial conference is now history. While it did not turn out as well as some may have hoped, it certainly did turn out a great deal better than many feared it might. I would commend the Prime Minister for his detailed report and explanation yesterday. I think it has helped all of us, as well as the nation, to understand the government's view of what was accomplished at the conference and the results which may be expected from it.
Perhaps no federal-provincial conference had received so much negative publicity in advance. The entire tone of the news media during the weeks preceding the conference indicated that Canada was headed into a major crisis which might well mean the splitting of our nation in two. Such was not the case, and I am sure Canadian citizens from Vancouver island to Newfoundland are relieved that it was not so. I believe every provincial premier, in spite of certain areas of difference which existed among them, should be commended for this demonstration that not one of them would have any part in demands which would pull Canada apart at the seams.
Let us hope we are entering upon a new era of consultative confederation. It is my hope and prayer that the conference in Quebec city in 1964 will prove as vitally important to continuing confederation in 1967 and beyond as the original Quebec conferences in 1864 were vital to the establishment of confederation and its continuation up to the present time. Perhaps the conference last week will represent a turning point in the history of federal-provincial affairs.
Another commendable feature was the decision to hold a number of ministerial conferences in the months ahead. We hear that

the ministers of agriculture are to get together. The finance ministers will also get together to discuss matters relating to the next federal budget. The ministers of health are to get together to consider the problems arising from a hospital insurance scheme. This is an important subject on which there must be further consultation. We hear that the representatives of the different governments are to get together to consider ways in which more administrative responsibility relating to Indians and Eskimos can be passed on to the provinces. This is the type of continuing consultation which Canada needs. I believe this is progress, the kind of progress Canadian people expect from their elected governments.
I was interested in a point which Premier Lesage made in relation to this matter, when he said:
The present policy of making decisions behind hermetically sealed doors in different sectors of government is no longer at all possible.
That statement is very true. I was particularly gratified to hear that the Prime Minister indicated there would be some form of secretariat for co-ordination and liaison established. I would again urge the government, as I have done many times in the past, that the time has come when a full fledged department of government should be established for this purpose. In our federal government in Canada we need a department of federal-provincial affairs. I am pleased to know that the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam also supports this suggestion. We know that several provincial governments have already set up their counterpart ministries, indicating again that perhaps the provincial governments are ahead of the federal government in bringing in many of the logical reforms that are necessary.
I would say to the Prime Minister and to his government that diplomacy is good. There was a real place for it in the recent conference, but diplomacy in itself is not enough. We urgently need some leadership in Canada with relation to confederation, the holding together and the building up of our nation to the kind of country that we like to think Canada is. I should like to refer to a very interesting comment in this regard made by Premier Robarts of Ontario, as reported in the Montreal Star of December 2:
"A generation ago," said Mr. Robarts, "it was still quite reasonable to expect that many activities of the federal and provincial governments in the economic field could be carried on separately without much fear of duplication or contradiction. ... The impact of governmental activity is now so great that unco-ordinated action by several levels of government can have serious effects on our economic development."

I would add, on the whole picture in Canada as it relates to confederation and to the nation, Canada.
However, this does not mean that every problem has been settled. Far from it. Nor are the decisions reached at the conference the total and final answers. Far from it. The new fiscal arrangement providing $87 million extra for the provinces is not really the basic item of importance. At best it is a temporary, makeshift agreement. We must have a more durable agreement, one that can continue at least for the foreseeable future.
I am concerned about the taxpayer. The struggle has been for the taxpayer's dollar. I am sure the taxpayer will realize more than ever before, that it is not as important to whom he pays his tax dollar or who it is that is going to spend it. He is concerned about how many more tax dollars he is going to be forced to produce in order to meet the demands of increasing governmental costs. The one thing that John Doe taxpayer can be sure of as a result of the conference is that his taxes are going to increase, and that the deficits are going to increase as well because the $87 million more than last year that is to be turned back to the provinces is going to have to be raised somewhat. The only source is out of the taxpayer's pocket or else out of further borrowings by the government. The only other alternative is that the government will drastically reduce its own expenditure and this does not seem possible, particularly in view of what has happened this year when we expect to have an even higher deficit although the Minister of Finance very carefully explained in his budget presentation that he hoped to decrease these deficits which he recognized could not continue.
We can say that a lot of good was accomplished by the conference, but when all the good about it has been said a dreadful, hollow feeling still remains, if we will be honest with ourselves. A little more haggling, a little more patching up, an agreement to discuss some other points later; is this the best that can be done at this critical time when we should be rethinking the whole situation and laying down a pattern for the entire basis of confederation? If this is it, then I do not believe this government can be regarded as anything more than a caretaker government, an administration that cleans up some of the leftovers from the previous occupants of the seats of power, an administration that tidies here and there and sweeps and dusts, but an administration that is not making progress in solving the basic problems of our confederation because it does not seem to know the direction in which it must go.
Interim Supply
The premier of Alberta, Mr. Manning, in his opening statement asked the conference to lay out a basic groundwork of sound principles that could be a guide in working out the whole basis of federal-provincial relationships in the future. This seems to me the logical first step in providing the answers for the future, but the conference took no action on this suggestion. What has emerged, particularly when it comes to the apportionment of tax equalization payments, can be attributed to no really sound principles at all. It was a solution that was expedient, and probably necessarily so for the time being; but what about the future? In my opinion Johnny Canuck's pocketbook is up for grabs. We have yet to see those sound and constructive financial policies which are the clear responsibility of the federal government and which will fill that pocketbook sufficiently for Johnny Canuck to be able to pay what is required of him. Again, it is not how we are going to spend a dollar that he has available today but how are we going to expand the entire economy so there will be more dollars available to the taxpayer and more for governments as well.
It is in the light of this entire picture that it is important that steps be taken whereby the financial operations of the federal government can meet the problems that the different levels of government face, and so that the private sector of the economy can give assurance to the nation that we are really going forward and expanding. The Minister of Finance will surely agree with me that if we could relieve the federal government of its burden of debt and its burden of interest payments we could then place the creation of an adequate money supply, which the economy of the country needs, on an orderly basis through the Bank of Canada, which after all was created for that very purpose. That was why it was brought into being, as the prime minister of that day explained, and if this were done there would at least be some hope for a financial future for the federal government, the provincial governments and the country as a whole that would not involve complete collapse under intolerable levels of taxation and interest costs and ever increasing deficits. As it stands at the present time, there is no alternative prepared or projected for this problem.
I maintain that unless we can do this we will continue to have conferences which will attempt to patch up and make something work which is really not working at all. Provincial and municipal governments are forbidden by law to invade this federal field. Therefore the entire responsibility falls back on the federal government. The other levels have their own responsibilities but they do

Interim Supply
not have the funds to carry them out. This past conference has not changed the over-all situation in this regard one single bit. This wrangling over money, with all the bitterness and discord that it generates between the provinces and the federal government, is bound to provoke more, and it will go on until there is an entirely new approach to our nation's fiscal requirements at the level of the federal government.
I might ask the question, what are some of the basic ground rules governing the powers and responsibilities of the federal and provincial governments with which we must be concerned? I believe it is idle thinking to think that we can have a single and united country if we do not have at least a minimum of co-ordination in fields such as welfare, employment and living standards throughout the whole nation. Whether or not the letter of the constitution states it in those words, I believe it must be recognized everywhere that the federal government does have a moral responsibility to the people of the entire country for the maintenance of standards in these fields. Rich provinces turn their backs on the poorer provinces and deny them help in attaining at least the minimum standards which we believe necessary in Canada in this twentieth century. On the other hand, the principle of provincial autonomy and individuality is one that we must prize and respect at all times.
I believe the answer for the future must lie in a new pattern of division of powers between federal and provincial governments. Our present division of powers in Canada today is a vertical one. It allocates some fields of activity here and some there. More and more I believe, especially where matters of a social nature are involved, we must work toward a division of responsibility which runs not on a vertical basis but on a horizontal basis. The federal government must be responsible for seeing that there are certain basic standards maintained in the fields of health, social services, pensions-yes, perhaps even the field of education. It must do that, but it must not do more than that.
If what is considered an adequate basic standard for Canada as a whole is not considered suitable in richer provinces, which also have higher living costs, then it must be up to such provinces to supplement the basic standards at their own expense. In turn, federal plans must be flexible enough to allow them to have supplementary provincial programs built on top. Only in this manner, I believe, will it be possible for us to achieve a unity in national basic standards, with enough diversity to make provincial governments capable of satisfying the more particular wishes of their people. Eventually

the division of powers has to be reviewed in the light of the changing conditions which are before us, and this division has to be applied on horizontal lines rather than a strictly vertical one because it is only in this way that we can maintain these basic minimum standards.
If the picture is reviewed in this light, this can be done without interfering with the responsibilities of the provinces. This will demand close and continuous liaison between governments at the federal and provincial levels, which I believe would be best achieved if we had in the federal government a separate department of federal-provincial affairs.
I appreciate very much the fact that this conference has produced plans which will permit further and continuing consultation. I think it has been good that there has been provision for these ministerial conferences. It is excellent that the time and even the place has been set for the holding of the next federal-provincial conference. I do hope the government will start now to get down to these basic problems with which they should be dealing, both in the ministerial conferences and the other conferences. Then perhaps these conferences can accomplish some of the fundamental decisions which must be made in connection with the planning and the groundwork for the development of confederation and for the continuance of confederation in order that Canada may stay a nation.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, I would like to take the opportunity afforded by our discussing interim supply to relate my remarks, for a few minutes, to the federal-provincial conference.
At the outset of that important conference, two major organizations of the province of Quebec, namely the boards of trade of the province of Quebec and the federation of the St. John the Baptist societies, expressed their views and condemned, as it were, the present tax agreements. Both organizations stated that those agreements could only lead to a monolithic state, and they requested the federal government to give back to the provinces their right to levy taxes and also to return to the spirit of confederation.
The pact made in 1867 between the two great nations of the country must be fully respected and the federal government should leave to the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces such fields as education, social security and others which, in the spirit of confederation, normally come under the provinces.
In my opinion, the federal-provincial conference has been a failure. No one is satisfied; not a single province is happy with the results and I am not surprised.
Mr. Chairman, I should like to refer to part of the budget speech made by the Minister of

Finance (Mr. Gordon) on June 13 last and to an excerpt of the famous book written by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Lamon-tagne). I regret that the latter is not here this afternoon, because I should have liked to put certain questions to him and to ask him to give us his impressions of the results of the federal-provincial conference.
Here is what the Minister of Finance stated in the house:
The federal government has a special responsibility in the matter of ensuring adequate production and employment throughout our country. Fiscal policy is an important means of achieving this objective. Most people will agree, I am sure, that if the federal government were to give up a major part of its present revenue sources, even in exchange for compensating expenditure adjustments, its ability to exert an influence through fiscal policy over the level of economic activity in Canada would be weakened.
As for the President of the Privy Council, in his book entitled "Canadian Federalism", he said:
The doctrine that defines federalism as a form of political unification where sovereignty is shared by several governments having their own and exclusive sphere of jurisdiction is therefore not acceptable.
I wish to emphasize.
"therefore not acceptable".
That is from page 246 of the book written by the President of the Privy Council.
It is therefore the participation of all governments in the main responsibilities of the state which must become the general rule. (p. 248)
And on page 264, the President of the Privy Council concluded:
Consequently, central government subsidies to the provinces seem unavoidable at this time and strongly in line with traditional politics in Canada. The tax agreements system designed to solve the provinces' financial problems is one solution based upon federal grants.
Mr. Chairman, we, on this side of the house, agree that the federal government undeniably has responsibilities, but the fact remains that the provinces also have responsibilities.
Members on the government side often speak of priority needs and that is why I regret that the President of the Privy Council is not here.
I would be most happy if the Secretary of State (Mr. Pickersgill) were to give us the list of the federal priority needs. If such a list were given to the house by the present government, it would make for more orderly discussion at the next federal-provincial conference. Knowing the central government's needs, the provinces would know what direction to give to their discussions and that would surely contribute to the success of future federal-provincial conferences.
28902-5-343
Interim Supply


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I think I should answer the hon. gentleman's question right now. I think the needs are exactly the same as they were a year ago when he was a fervent supporter of the government of the right hon. gentleman.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: I will answer this question, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, when we were in power, the provinces had recovered a great part of their taxation rights. Unfortunately, the opposition parties did not leave us enough time to go on with our work. Nevertheless, I may assure the house that we decentralized taxation powers, and we never heard as bitter a criticism from the provinces, as was recently voiced by some premiers.
Mr. Chairman, it must be admitted, as I said before, that the provinces have essential needs. Now, apart from being essential, those of Quebec probably have some priority, because the province has a different culture and language, and, therefore, different needs.
To my mind, though it is important for the other provinces to have their own taxation powers it is still more so in the case of Quebec, because the province dislikes being told by a central government, which is to a great extent Anglo-Saxon, what its cultural, educational and other needs should be.
I think that this is an unsound procedure, and if we really wish to reach agreement at the national level, the province of Quebec should look after the fields under its jurisdiction. Therefore, Quebec is sensitive when the federal government tries to impinge upon the educational field, because the federal concept of the problem, or rather the federal mentality, is certainly not in accord with the Quebec mentality.
Of course, I know that other provinces look favourably upon agreements concerning joint plans. I can understand that attitude, because people in those provinces are mostly English speaking, and, therefore, in agreement with the attitude of a largely English speaking federal government. But what the province of Quebec wants, for instance, are its own sources of revenue, because it objects to a mostly Anglo-Saxon federal government's looking after its culture and educational needs.
As I said before, Mr. Chairman, it is unfortunate that during the last federal-provincial conference, the central government should only have given some scraps to the provinces. Indeed, I would say that the conference has been a failure.

Interim Supply
The premiers are dissatisfied. Even Mr. Lesage publicly expressed his discontent as a few months ago, he had asked for an amount of $150 million. Therefore, I said that the provinces just obtained a few scraps.
What is going to happen now, Mr. Chairman? School taxes will be constantly rising in all provinces, and more particularly in the province of Quebec.
Indeed, we recently read in the papers that the Quebec farmers had threatened to refuse to pay the government taxes which were increasing at a terrific rate.
Mr. Chairman, I admit that the federal government has powers of its own, but the provinces also need more money in order to meet their requirements.
I feel that Mr. Lesage was inconsistent when he publicly denied having used the word ultimatum. This fact was proved actually on a television program, as evidenced by the following report published in La Presse of Friday, November 29, 1963:
Lesage actually termed his requests as an "ultimatum". During the program "Aujourd'hui" on channel 2 yesterday, was shown part of a press conference held last April in Quebec city which proves beyond doubt that Premier Jean Lesage actually termed as an "ultimatum" his fiscal requests for greater taxation fields.
Mr. Chairman, I think that when Mr. Lesage used the word "ultimatum" during an electoral campaign, he did so without knowing which government would be elected. But now he wants to back out. He cannot use the same word, because his friends are here in Ottawa.
If Mr. Lesage really wants to keep the promise made to the people of the province of Quebec, I feel that he should take some positive action to provide for the needs of his province and proceed as he said he would, namely to establish double taxation.
Even the Quebec premier is dissatisfied with the treatment received from Ottawa. In fact, I am surprised by his stupid attitude when he asks the Quebec people to vote for the present government at the next election when he knows that this same government refuses to accede to his requests and to surrender to his ultimatum, because he did use that word.
And what happened to the related questions? We asked some questions about the transfer of New Quebec Eskimo affairs to the province of Quebec, about joint programs and lotteries. It would seem that nothing, absolutely nothing has been solved. All these problems have been postponed for further studies. I feel that the federal government is not entitled to rejoice, when confronted with the fiasco of our last federal-provincial conference. All the premiers are dissatisfied with the prevailing situation.
As I said a moment ago, it is a pity that the President of the Privy Council is not here at

the moment; he could have told us about his plans for the future, and commented upon the reactions of the various premiers after the conference.
Mr. Chairman, before concluding, may I be allowed to say that I sincerely hope that our next federal-provincial conference will meet with more success, and will answer more fully the wishes of the provincial premiers; I am inclined to doubt it, after the last fiasco. To my mind, the premier of the province of Quebec has not carried out his promises to the people of Quebec, and has gone back on his own positions.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Your party is quite used to fiascos, and it can chalk up quite a few of them.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, if the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Deschatelets) wishes to take the floor, I will be glad to let him do so. I would be happy to hear this minister from Quebec tell if he feels that the decisions taken by the federal-provincial conference are really satisfactory.
He could tell me what he thinks of Mr. Lesage, his ultimatum and his retreat?
When Mr. Lesage says the federal government should think in terms of human resources rather than in terms of guns and cannons, I would like to know whether the Minister of Public Works shares his views. I am giving him right now an opportunity to let us know.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Chairman, I just have to say one word which will summarize my whole thought. The time for speeches ended in April last, the present government is one of action.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, when the minister says the time for speeches ended-


The Chairman:: Order. I think the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm yielded the floor to the Minister of Public Works.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: It was simply to give the minister a chance to make a short speech during this session.


Lucien Lamoureux: The hon. member for
Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm yielded the floor to the minister, who joined in the debate. I do not believe the hon. member can say: "I gave the minister an opportunity for making a short speech, and as it was very brief, I shall resume."


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: I wonder if the house would unanimously allow me to conclude my remarks.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I hope we will let the hon. gentleman finish.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Public Works talks about speeches and action; I wonder how it happens that the President of the Privy Council spends his time travelling across the country making speeches every day. It seems to me that the minister's language is rather illogical.


Mr. Choquette:: He does not make speeches, he advocates action.


Mr. Deachman:: Mr. Chairman, I listened to the remarks of the right hon. Prime Minister, and others in this debate, on the subject of equalization with a great deal of interest because I am very mindful, coming from one of the provinces on the extremity of confederation, of the necessity for equalization in cementing confederation. I am also mindful however that equalization and our capacity as a nation to make payments on equalization are based upon taxation.
I am also mindful that taxes in return must be taken from the people and the corporations which earn the money to pay them, and in turn taxes cannot come at optimum levels unless first there are profits, and profits come from efficient and competitive industry wherever it is found in Canada. It was for this reason I was a little astonished yesterday when I learned that a company, which would be located in an area which I really doubt has the capacity to produce its product economically, has been awarded a contract to supply deuterium to the Canadian government. Hence, when we discuss the question of equalization, this poses the question as to whether or not taxes will ever flow to the Canadian government from that plant, for the purpose of participation in equalization.
To understand this, perhaps I had better go back a little bit and explain what the position of Canadian industry and the Canadian people is, relative to a plant such as a new deuterium plant to be established in Canada. We got into nuclear science during the course of the war, and subsequently, and grew up to be possibly the only country in the world with a nuclear capacity large enough to build a nuclear bomb, if we wanted to. We decided however that what we would do with our nuclear capacity, and with our scientists with nuclear knowledge, was to engage in peacetime pursuits.
We followed a course in this field somewhat different from that followed by the United States and other nations working along the path of developing the science of nuclear 28902-5-343J
Interim Supply
physics. In particular we chose to build a reactor in this country which burned unrefined uranium. This was a very valuable thing in its way, because to refine uranium, first of all you must have a whole new industry, a uranium refining industry, and this is quite an expensive industry.
The United States on the other hand took the other course and built reactors which burned refined uranium, and also built themselves uranium refining plants. We moved along the course of developing our raw uranium, or unrefined uranium reactors, for some considerable time, and it was not a particularly profitable venture in physics. We were considered to be the Cinderellas in this business, and to have made a mistake in the direction we took.
There was another factor in these reactors which was rather strange too, and in which we were pioneers, and this was in using heavy water as a modifier to check the radiation of a reactor down to usable levels; and as deuterium is really a form of heavy water it could also be used as a cooling agent. So, it served two purposes,-as a modifier for our unrefined uranium reactors, and as a cooling agent to cool the heat of the reactors.
The United States had experimented along this line, but it was not the main line which they followed. They had made some deuterium, and I may say that deuterium is made relatively simply in a chemical plant, somewhat similar to a cracking plant that you find at an oil refinery. It is made by applying vast quantities of heat to water, in conjunction with sulphuric acid, and out comes deuterium.
As I say, the United States had made some at considerable cost, pretty much upon an experimental and not upon a commercial basis. As time went on, and as people in this country began to realize that the cost of building reactors was coming down, we were getting to a point at which reactors could be built at costs comparable to electricity generated thermally in areas where there was no available hydroelectric power, and it was realized that we could actually get into the business of building power reactors on a commercial scale.
Also, in having some skill in this field it looked as if Canada was on the verge of coming into a new industry, an industry in which we Canadians had built a particular skill and had some scientific knowledge not available in the rest of the world. We were a leg up; we were on the march towards doing something in which other nations, even with high skills and technology, would have a difficult time competing with us. We had a particular advantage in that we had been

Interim Supply
the students, and we had the know-how relative to the operating of reactors of unrefined uranium.
To build these reactors, to make them cheap enough, and to make the electricity which flowed from them cheap electricity, competitive with thermal electricity, what we needed was cheap deuterium, because deuterium is a large factor in the cost of building a reactor of this kind. If we did not have cheap deuterium, then the cost of the reactor would be expensive, and the electricity which flowed from it would, as a consequence, be expensive power and not competitive with thermal power.
First of all, if we succeeded in building a plant which produced cheap deuterium we then had an opportunity as Canadians to sell deuterium abroad-and not only that, but to sell reactors and the whole technology of reactors, in the same way that today some Canadian engineering firms are enormously competent in the design, building and installing of paper making machinery in countries all over the world.
This presupposed that to have an industry like this, a national industry, an export industry, we would seek wherever we could in Canada to find the cheapest possible source of power to extract the deuterium we needed. Where would you go for such power? Well, you could go to gas wells. There are gas wells on the prairies, for example, which are so dirty that they have wet gases which have to be cleaned from the wells before the gas can be used for domestic purposes. This makes it almost an uneconomic proposition from the business point of view; but it is burnable gas, and when used in an industrial project of this kind is about the cheapest kind of power you could find.
Then there are several ways of getting very cheap electricity. For example, there are the open coal pits, or strip mines, where the cheapest kind of coal can be obtained and burned for the purpose of extracting deuterium from the water. But what puzzled me, and I am not an authority in these things, was that I found that the contract had been let to a company which would put down its plant on one of the most expensive sources of fuel in Canada. I can only think that, having done so, the cost of producing deuterium in this country is not likely to be an economical cost, or a cost which will make it desirable for Canadians to enter the export market in this new scientific field on a large scale. Therefore, to follow up the advantage and the knowledge we have in the nuclear field of raw uranium reactors, we have put into Canada an enormous amount of money. A great many millions of dollars has been

put into the building up of this nuclear technique and in acquiring the skills we have. I can imagine that we are about at the stage where benefits will flow from this investment. Therefore I hope I am mistaken when I see a deuterium plant put down on an enormously costly source of fuel, rather than on the cheapest source of fuel to be found in the country. I hope that is not in the long run to be the way we extract deuterium, although certainly on the surface it appears that it is.
I earnestly feel that there are profits to be made in Canada in the very near future in the nuclear field from the know-how we have accumulated. Having given this brief explanation of our costing methods and our capacity to compete in business, I hope the committee will be mindful of the advantages that we as a nation have in this field, rather than considering it merely an unprofitable venture and constructing plants, letting contracts and engaging in further work in nuclear physics in ways which are uneconomic. We have gone through that stage and have now acquired the know-how. Our task in the future must be to make this thing pay. I hope the government will move in that direction, and make it a paying proposition instead of a burden upon the Canadian people.


Mr. Fairwealher:: Mr. Chairman, as I listened to the last speaker I could not help but wonder whether he had given the Minister of Industry the benefit of his advice. There are, of course, many reasons other than cost which I presume were in the government's mind when they selected Cape Breton island as the location for this new plant, not the least of which would be the reason that it is an area of high unemployment. Presumably such location would also follow the government's much heralded plan for regional development.
However, I am not going to get into this field, in which I am not competent to speak. I have one or two things on my mind and I am going to take about ten minutes to get them off my mind. In his statement to the federal-provincial conference last week, the Hon. Duff Roblin discussed what he called a crisis of priorities. This is an apt phrase, and I want to develop it in so far as federal aid to university education is concerned. This is an area of our contemporary life which is rapidly reaching crisis proportions and one to which I do hope the new government will give its early attention. The much heralded Liberal party scholarship plan will be useless if the universities cannot accommodate those in receipt of these scholarships.
Last May the Canadian universities foundation presented a brief to the Prime Minister. To date the government has made no announcement of its intentions. The brief is a

clear statement of the problem of enabling Canadian universities and colleges effectively to meet their great responsibilities to the Canadian people. The brief outlines three specific needs. These are, first, grants for Nova Scotia and New Brunswick universities made necessary by the number of universities. Second is the expanding need for new construction of research facilities in medical schools and university-affiliated teaching hospitals. By the way, many of us heard the forcefully outlined statement about this last Thursday by Dr. John McCreary, dean of the faculty of medicine at the University of British Columbia. The third specific problem was the provision of funds for the construction of university libraries and the purchase of books and library research aids. Of course, these problems do not touch the over-all serious crisis concerning aid to universities as such.
In its brief to the Prime Minister the foundation makes the bold and arresting statement that it is-
-alarmed by the fact that Canadian institutions of higher learning are steadily falling further behind in providing facilities for rapidly rising student enrolment and in satisfying the growing demand for professional and post graduate education. Available facilities become each year more inadequate.
I have had the privilege of a close association with the president of the University of New Brunswick. I know of the work he is doing and I know of the crisis of priorities as it refers to that university's plans. I know that prompt action is essential. Last month Dr. Davidson Dunton, president of Carleton University in a report published last month which received some editorial comment, gave this problem careful and thorough attention so far as his particular university was concerned.
The Canadian universities foundation brief is studded with words like "crisis", "urgency", "increased enrolments", "need for action", "promptness", and many others. These are not idle words loosely spread through the brief; they are all documented by statistics and examples of their aptness.
I urge from the remote opposition backbenchers immediate action on the part of the government. We do not need large committees planning for our one hundredth birthday. Our centennial program could be started tomorrow. It could take the form of a plan for massive attention to the known needs of our universities. It would be a recognition by the government that it understands the need for priority in this area of our responsibilities. We seem to be able to commit millions for world fairs, but are hesitant about a genuine and concentrated effort to aid the universities of Canada. I commend the brief of the
Interim Supply
Canadian universities foundation to the government and, if I may say so, to parliament. In support of this brief, if any support is needed, let me remind the committee that just two years ago the national conference of Canadian universities and colleges met in Ottawa. The proceedings were published and the resolutions are there for us to heed. I also commend this document to the government and to parliament.
Surely, we must acknowledge a "crisis of priorities" in Canada. I suggest that one of our centennial projects could take on philosophical, yet surely basic, overtones and that we give our universities and schools the necessary facilities so that they shall not, as Mr. Walter Lippmann suggested over 20 years ago, "continue sending out into the world men who no longer understand the creative principle of the society in which they must live."
I have a second and more modest centennial project. I deplore the fact that we seem to need deadlines and anniversaries to focus our attention on needs which know no such artificial timetables. Could we not make funds available so that by 1967 Canada would have ten times more young people serving in other parts of the world under the auspices of the Canadian universities service overseas?
I had a modest proposal before this parliament but, by a paradox which I have not forgotten, it was talked out by the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra, who defeated the distinguished former secretary of state for external affairs. This was irony of the highest order. I saw many of these dedicated Canadian men and women when I was in Malaysia recently. This program needs money from government. It has not enough, now, to look after the volunteers who are ready to serve. I suppose that if the energy and funds used over the years to get an acceptable design for a Canadian flag had been used to pay travelling expenses for Canadian technicians and teachers to go across the earth, the current need would have been met many times over. In my simple philosophy this is another question, if not a crisis, of priorities.
I have one or two other observations to make about my journey. First of all, the people serving Canada in embassies and high commission offices abroad were most thoughtful and attentive. I thank them publicly for this. But I hope the committee studying the Canada Elections Act will suggest a formula whereby these Canadian citizens can vote in future elections. This should be easy to get established. Most other countries give their foreign service staffs the privilege of voting. Canada should do this, too, and I hope the committee will attend to the matter soon.

Interim Supply
In the United States a private foundation has been set up-the Woodward foundation, I think it is called-which buys paintings and sculpture and other works of art. These are then sent on loan to foreign posts on a revolving basis as representative of United States culture. Canada might well introduce a program on similar lines. Perhaps one or more of our great corporations would be prepared to undertake this enlightened public service. Our artists would be helped and our embassies enhanced.
A last minor complaint about amenities for Canadian public servants abroad: In this age of the immediate, why is it not yet possible for Canada to provide up to date Canadian news to our staffs anywhere in the world? Perhaps some would doubt whether there is much Canadian news deserving of such attention and priority. However, I strongly suggest that C.B.C. news bulletins arriving in some embassies five or six days after the event make the items contained somewhat less than compelling.
I trust my suggestions will receive the early attention and broad non-partisan support to which they are entitled.


Mr. Perron:: Mr. Chairman, I feel I must make certain corrections before the conclusion of this debate. I do not intend to talk at length about all the remarks which have already been made concerning that famous federal-provincial conference. So my remarks will be about the comments that were made after the conference.
The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefen-baker) claimed yesterday afternoon that the federal government was unduly influenced by the claims of the premier of Quebec. If by that he means that once more the province of Quebec received a special treatment as a result of the conference, he is wrong.
Referring to some newspaper articles, we realize that the results which seemed to be a step toward a new form of federalism have not attained the objective which had been set; far from it, it seems that the misunderstanding between the provinces is getting worse all the time.
The comments made on the radio on television and in the newspapers concerning the results of this federal-provincial conference are forever stressing the fact that the province of Quebec may have been favoured more than the others because it will receive nearly $42 million out of the $87 provided under the equalization agreement.
Here is a comment published in Le Devoir of December 3, 1963 and written by Mr. Marcel Thivierge, which says:

Of all the provinces receiving equalization payments from Ottawa, Quebec is still getting the least per capita.
At first, when you find that, following the federal-provincial conference, Quebec is to get $42 million out of the $87 million that the federal government is handing over to the provinces for the next fiscal year, you wonder whether there has not been some favouritism shown there.
This allows Mr. Diefenbaker to state that the Pearson government has just yielded to pressures from Quebec.
However, if you take a closer look at the figures, you will find that Quebec is far from getting special treatment.
Indeed, you will find that Quebec is getting the lowest amount per capita as far as equalization goes. If to those payments you add the special grants to the maritime provinces, the amounts per capita are as follows:
Quebec, $18.11; Newfoundland, $38.34; Prince Edward Island, $35.82; Nova Scotia, $32.91; New Brunswick, $35.52; Manitoba, $18.27; and Saskatchewan, $26.52.
If you add up what the provinces will receive through an increased share of taxation revenue (the 18-9-75 formula)-
-compared to the 25-25-100 formula-
-equalization payments and special grants to the maritimes, you will find that Quebec receives $50.02 per capita compared to $61.01 for Ontario. The other provinces receive per capita grants as follows:	Newfoundland, $95.34; Prince Edward
Island, $90.25; Nova Scotia, $72.69; New Brunswick, $75.31; Manitoba, $58.63; Saskatchewan, $53.00; Alberta, $44.67; and British Columbia, $54.68.
At $50.02, Quebec gets much less than the average which is $60.14.
This is where, in my opinion, it becomes necessary to set the record straight, and I wish that those who claim that Quebec got preferential treatment would keep quiet because there are official and non-official figures.
Mr. Chairman, at the outset of that famous conference, the Canadian people still hoped that confederation would move forward, but it merely gave a new direction to our federal system and provided a new formula to prevent the shameful spectacle of governments quarrelling over taxation powers. As a result, the Quebec premier who went to the conference as a lion came back as a lamb. I was not the only one to have that impression. In an editorial published in L'Action Catholique, last Saturday, parliamentary correspondent J. M. Poliquin stated that some people were dissatisfied with the results of the federal-provincial conference. Amongst other things, he wrote this:
It is with mixed feelings of satisfaction and dissatisfaction that Mr. Lesage came out yesterday of the federal-provincial conference room in Ottawa He was pleased about the way Mr. Pearson had led the proceedings of the eleven upper level governments of our country. He paid him an unqualified tribute, saying during yesterday afternoon's press conference. Mr. Pearson fully exercised his natural talents for diplomacy, he is an extraordinary man, he knows how to voice an opinion contrary to another, while showing respect for our

ideas; he seeks to achieve a balance between the provincial needs and the resources of the federal treasury.
Therefore, he is quite satisfied with the great diplomacy showed by the right hon. Prime Minister of Canada.
Last Sunday, during a radio program in my riding, I asked taxpayers whether they were satisfied to see that the $150 million claimed by the Quebec premier in his ultimatum of April 5 last had come down to $42 million during the federal-provincial conference. I asked then whether they considered reasonable the allegations of the minister of education, Mr. Gerin-Lajoie, claiming that within three years, $500 million at least will have to be devoted to education in the province of Quebec.
My question was as follows: From now on, shall we build schools in the province of Quebec with Quebec unemployed, with materials supplied by the country or the province of Quebec, and pay for them with diplomacy?
I also direct this question to taxpayers today.
In my opinion to claim that the federal-provincial conference was a failure is saying a lot.
I know that some circles are under the influence of economic experts who claim that it is a utopia to talk of monetary matters. It seems more logical to them to waste time dabbling in fiscal matters. Personally, I feel it is much more difficult to solve problems by taking only fiscal matters into consideration, than by rejecting the system that created this economic disagreement and this lack of understanding in economic and political fields in this country, I mean taxation.
Mr. Chairman, whether we like it or not, the province of Quebec must protect its rights in the field of education. That field has been recognized by the Canadian constitution, as one pertaining to the province of Quebec.
If some rights have been yielded, on account of the 1939-1945 world war, on the pretence that priority had to be given the federal government in matters of national defence and commitments entered into at the time we were taking part in that world conflict, 20 years after the end of that conflict it is high time not only that we review the taxation question but that we find a way to remove the seeds of discord resulting from the Canadian taxation problem.
The Prime Minister was saying yesterday that he had imposed nothing, that in the course of his opening speech, he had not even dared make a suggestion, as he wished to let the provincial governments be entirely free to express their opinion.
Interim Supply
Representations have been made, most of the provinces have submitted written briefs, but one cannot help but realize the deep contradiction in the views of the provinces on the problem of taxation in Canada. For there is an unquestionable fact: certain provinces cannot, within the framework of the present financial system, obtain the funds they need to contribute normally to the development of Canada as a whole, by developing both their own natural resources and the already existing industrial facilities; they cannot produce fully.
For those provinces, the present tax system, under the equalization formula, may seem adequate to develop their natural resources. However, the procedure is outlandish: promises are being made. The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) mentioned yesterday that the Liberal party had promised that in the equalization system the revenues of the richest provinces would be taken into consideration.
Now, a conference has just been held during which this was not taken into account and the promises made in the last three or four years have been constantly disregarded.
Even though this could be accepted, I feel it would be doing on a large scale what is actually being done on a small scale. Is it not under the pretext of helping the poor nowadays that the well-to-do are being taxed? Under the pretext of helping the have-nots, the haves are being dispossessed.
Thus, under the pretext of helping certain provinces which are unable alone to reach their full economic and cultural development that they have a right to expect, other sources of income must be sought.
The hon. member I quoted earlier rightly said: A new formula might finally have to be found. I do hope so, moreover, but we did not hear of many suggestions during that famous federal-provincial conference. However, some premiers having a sufficient knowledge of our monetary system and its deficiencies were supposed to attend. We were, therefore, justified in expecting suggestions rather than a battle about taxes around the famous federal-provincial conference table.
I have here the Canada Year Book, 1962, in which the function of the Bank of Canada is concisely stated, I admit it, as follows:
Legislation of 1934 provided for the establishment of a central bank in Canada, the function of which is to regulate credit and currency, to control and protect the external value of the Canadian dollar and to stabilize the level of production-
Perhaps it could be added that it would be a very good thing also to stabilize the intrinsic value of the Canadian dollar.

Interim Supply
It says also:
to control and to protect-trade, prices and employment so far as may be possible within the scope of monetary action.
The bank has the exclusive right to issue notes which are to be used in Canada.
The bank is operated by a board of directors consisting of a governor, a deputy governor and 12 directors. The deputy minister of finance sits on the board of directors...
The Bank of Canada, therefore, comes under the federal parliament through the Minister of Finance, and it is governed by a piece of legislation passed under the terms of the constitution.
The role played by the bank is defined in the Canada Year Book. The bank deals also with the monetary question, not only with regard to the stability but the international and national value of the currency.
When it comes to determine the amount of goods that the Canadian citizen can buy with a dollar which may be available to him, there is a whole accounting force which affects and establishes the price which the purchaser of any goods will have to pay.
The federal government should also take into consideration the need of new credit and I think that matter should be the subject of a discussion at a federal-provincial conference where monetary problems and tax questions are dealt with at great length.
Since it was suggested that the provinces should meet again in March to study the taxation problem once more, I think it would be appropriate for the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon), who is responsible for the administration of the Bank of Canada, to be at that conference. In fact, I see that the role of the Minister of Finance is also explained in the Canada Year Book. Here is what can be found on page 95:
This department was created by act of parliament in 1869 and now operates under the Financial Administration Act. The department is responsible for the financial administration of Canada including the raising of money required for the various government activities by way of taxation or borrowing. The comptroller of the treasury, an officer of the department, is responsible for all government disbursements. The work of the department is organized in six principal divisions: administration, economic and international affairs, federal-provinical relations, ...
Mr. Chairman, since it is stipulated that the Minister of Finance is concerned with federal-provincial relations, I wonder whether it would not be appropriate, at a meeting of the provincial premiers and the Prime Minister of Canada, that the federal Minister of Finance and the ministers of revenue of the ten provinces be also present. There, a study could be made of an equalization system based not on the richest province-because after all, this only means taxing the haves under the pretext of giving to the have-nots

-but a system to give the provinces the funds they need for the development of their natural resources.
It would also be possible to use existing criteria as a basis. It would be logical, it seems to me, to redistribute money among the provinces according to their natural resources, since they are responsible for them.
The available manpower should also be taken into account. As a matter of fact, statistics readily show which provinces do not make full use of available manpower so as to increase the national gross product. Last September, the province of Quebec held the unenviable record of having 40 per cent of the total number of unemployed in Canada. And yet, natural resources are not lacking, but they remain undeveloped.
In the last few years, the province of Quebec has been going through a period of full development. It needs new access roads to natural resources.
In view of the work which should be done for the world fair as well as the labour requirements of the steel complex which has been widely discussed these past few months in Quebec, would it not be possible to use a very large part of this manpower potential available for the development of natural resources in Quebec? What prevents such projects from being carried out except the limited financial means made available to the departments concerned in the province of Quebec?
I think that we could also extend the framework of the Bank of Canada and establish district offices in every province with officials responsible to the governor. By so doing and following meetings between the federal Minister of Finance and the provincial ministers of revenue and after having considered the possibility of providing credit to the provinces in exchange for provincial bonds, the credit could be made more easily available to the provinces, in order to help them develop their natural resources.
Mr. Chairman, the province of Quebec borrowed $300 million on the American market, on behalf of hydro Quebec, in order to help build the Manicouagan dam. Now, through a branch of the Bank of Canada, hydro Quebec might have issued bonds to this amount and obtained the necessary credit to carry out the project. And, instead of undertaking to pay an interest of 6f per cent, it would only have had to pay the carrying charges on this credit with the Bank of Canada.
Moreover, considering the devaluation of the Canadian dollar, which is now 8 per cent less than the American dollar, this means, for the first year, an interest rate of 13 per cent which hydro Quebec has undertaken to pay.

Is it not time for the federal Minister of Finance and the provincial revenue ministers to consider and stress the priority needs of the various provinces at the next federal-provincial conference? At that time, the real priorities, if any, will be revealed.
Mr. Chairman, considering that, at this time, the federal government allots almost 27 per cent of the national budget to the Department of National Defence, I wonder whether the educational field, in Quebec as well as in other provinces, does not have the same importance, and should not be further developed, in order to equalize the living standard of all Canadians?
I realize that some provinces must resort to other than the fiscal means now provided by the constitution, but I think that in this case, the federal government should hand over to them the rights and powers to which they are entitled.
Mr. Chairman, there is some talk about a new federalism. According to what I heard, the Prime Minister stated that in no way does he wish to be the one to liquidate confederation. Well, I wonder if those who are in favour of the present system, that is to say the government members and the members of the Conservative party, when they had the same responsibilities, are not actually liquidating confederation?
Mr. Chairman, may I call it five o'clock?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I understand, sir, that the hon. gentleman is the last speaker. I wonder if he could conclude in a sentence or two and then we could get the bill through.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Agreed.


Gérard Perron: Thank you Mr. Chairman, I shall soon finish my remarks.
When reading some comments published in the press, it might be inferred that the province of Quebec has, once again, made unfair claims on Ottawa for sums of money which the province urgently needs.
Now this is not the true position. A few moments ago, I quoted some figures which I want to put on the record. As far as those figures are concerned, we did not get any more than what we were entitled to. On the contrary, our average is lower than the $10 per head throughout the country.
Our claims are therefore, not unfair. We claim the same rights as the other provinces, where they may sometimes be stressed to a lesser degree than in the province of Quebec which has insisted on those rights for several years.
It was, however, always done in a spirit of thorough understanding with regard to
Ways and Means
our fellow citizens of the other provinces. We want a united Canada, yes; a Canada where agreement prevails-yes, of course. But a Canada where there is agreement in the taxation field, and where nothing is wrongly implied or inferred.
Three weeks ago, the premier of one province implied, when assistance to vocational training was being discussed, that the province of Quebec had no reason to recriminate, because it had received its full share. And yet, the official figures were submitted here. It may be noted that in the three years during which the legislation was applied, the province of Quebec received less than the share it was entitled to because, at that time, it was not ready to take advantage of that legislation.
Now, this is also true with regard to the future of this country. We want a united Canada, of course; we want a Canada where mutual understanding will be the order of the day. The best means of reaching that goal, is to look in a more realistic perspective, at all those things which now divide us, and which, perhaps, make us acrimonious, at all those things that, in the opinion of our fellow citizens, make us look like dissatisfied people, or people who are impossible to satisfy.
We do not ask for the moon and stars. We simply want the province of Quebec, like the other provinces of Canada, to benefit fully and completely from the fabulous wealth which the Canadian people as a whole inherited, by making it easier for each of the provinces, within the framework of confederation, to develop soundly the natural resources of this country.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Resolution reported and concurred in.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of ways and means, Mr. Lamoureaux in the chair.

['Perhaps we should hold it for the next sitting in case any hon. member who was not here this evening might wish to say something on third reading.']
John Whitney Pickersgill: Resolved, that towards making good the supply granted to Her Majesty on account of certain expenses of the public service for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1964, the sum of $377,400,841.02 be granted out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada, as set forth in the resolution concurred in this day in the committee of supply.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Pickersgill (for Mr. Gordon) thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-116,
[Stage Direction]
Ways and Means
for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 1964.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
['Resolved, that towards making good the supply granted to Her Majesty on account of certain expenses of the public service for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1964, the sum of $377,400,841.02 be granted out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada, as set forth in the resolution concurred in this day in the committee of supply.']
Lucien Lamoureux: When shall the said bill be read a second time? By leave, now?


Some hon. Members:: By leave, now.


John Whitney Pickersgill: the second reading of the bill.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Lamoureaux in the chair.
On clause 1-Short title.
['the second reading of the bill.']
Mr. Howard:: Mr. Chairman, before proceeding further I would like to make one observation in respect of this bill. We have a copy of the bill before us, and on the front page it says "Bill C" blank, as of course is the case with all bills in this category. Then it says:
An act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending the 31st March. 1964.
Then in bold, black letters it reads: "As passed by the House of Commons, November 1963". I think we should have some explanation and perhaps an eradication of "November 1963", so we are not doing things retroactively.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I am sure the hon. gentleman does not mean to be taken too seriously. It is well known that the bill was printed in advance, and there was perhaps an undue expectation that it might be passed on Friday. It did not seem wise to have it reprinted. Of course, it has not passed the house. In the final form it will show, I hope, that it passed the house on December 3. This document is only a draft. I will give such undertaking as I can that the hon. gentleman's observation will not be disregarded.
Perhaps I should say that the proportions requested in this bill are intended to provide for all necessary requirements of the public service up to December 31, 1963. In no instance is the total amount of an item being released by this bill. The form of this bill is the usual one for interim supply bills. The passing of this bill will not prejudice the rights and privileges of members to criticize any item in the estimates when it comes up for consideration, and the usual undertaking is hereby given that such rights and privileges will be respected and will not be curtailed or restricted in any way as a result of the passing of this measure.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clauses 2 to 4 agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Schedules agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
["Mr. Chairman, I am sure the hon. gentleman does not mean to be taken too seriously. It is well known that the bill was printed in advance, and there was perhaps an undue expectation that it might be passed on Friday. It did not seem wise to have it reprinted. Of course, it has not passed the house. In the final form it will show, I hope, that it passed the house on December 3. This document is only a draft. I will give such undertaking as I can that the hon. gentleman's observation will not be disregarded.\nPerhaps I should say that the proportions requested in this bill are intended to provide for all necessary requirements of the public service up to December 31, 1963. In no instance is the total amount of an item being released by this bill. The form of this bill is the usual one for interim supply bills. The passing of this bill will not prejudice the rights and privileges of members to criticize any item in the estimates when it comes up for consideration, and the usual undertaking is hereby given that such rights and privileges will be respected and will not be curtailed or restricted in any way as a result of the passing of this measure.\nClause 1 agreed to.\nClauses 2 to 4 agreed to."]
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the bill be read a third time? Now, by leave?


Stanley Howard Knowles: By leave.


John Whitney Pickersgill: the third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted to thank all hon. members for the co-operation we have had in these last few minutes. I will make another declaration, that I have not suggested that any part of this debate was in any way obstructive.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It being five o'clock the house will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely private bills, public bills.



[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. S-7, to incorporate the Pharmacy Examining Board of Canada-Mr. Mitchell-Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.
On clause 1-Incorporation.
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, we are today requested to pass legislation which was first carried by the Senate and which is entitled:
Bill S-7, An Act to incorporate the Pharmacy Examining Board of Canada.
The purpose of this bill, Mr. Chairman, is to form a pharmacy examining board which will issue certificates of qualification throughout Canada.
It has always been understood that education in each province was the responsibility of the provincial authorities. But, when you want to set up, under federal legislation, a board which will, among other things, issue certificates of qualification, then I claim that there is interference from the federal government in a field expressly reserved to the provinces, namely education at any level.
In the province of Quebec, at the present time, there are faculties of pharmacy affiliated with universities. They hold examinations and award diplomas. They decide on the strength of the number of years of study and of the examination results whether the pharmacists may receive a diploma and be admitted to the practice of their profession.

In addition to the universities, there is the college of pharmacists of Quebec which will also issue the certificates required to allow applicants to practise pharmacy. That comes under the education system in the province of Quebec and in each province. Today, you want among other things, to set up this committee which will issue certificates of qualification. This pharmacy examining board of Canada-those are the very words used in the bill.
Pharmacy examining board of Canada.
That board wants to hold examinations in the province of Quebec. I claim that to hold examinations, it must first give courses and then make it compulsory for those who have attended the courses to take examinations; now, this is exactly what our universities are doing at present. It is not at all what the pharmacy examining board of Canada intends to do. Its sole intention is to have people pass examinations. We know, on the other hand, that in the province of Quebec there are rules and regulations which differ from the rules prevailing in other provinces. For instance, in Quebec, people who want to own a drugstore must be druggists. Besides it is not possible in Quebec to just organize a chain of drugstores, as is done for instance with grocery stores, and hire professional druggists to run that chain. In order to own a drugstore, one must be a druggist, according to rules which differ from the rules enforced in other provinces. We find the Quebec rules satisfactory.
There is talk of setting across-the-board examinations which would be the same in all the provinces, however great the differences between these provinces. As written in one of the clauses of the bill-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. I understand that the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Francis) wishes to ask a question from the member for Lapointe.


Mr. Francis:: Is it not possible in the province of Quebec for a medical doctor to be the owner and operator of a pharmacy?


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, it is a fact that doctors in medicine can own drugstores and even laboratories. This state of affairs stems from understandable circumstances. In some parishes, rather far from the centres, there is nothing which might attract a druggist; besides in some parishes, not enough drugs are sold to justify the presence of both a doctor and a druggist. That is why in the
Private Bills
smaller parishes the physician often combines both fields of endeavour, and will at once exercise his own profession and own a drugstore.
That goes to prove that in the province of Quebec, even if the law is broad enough to allow co-existence, there is a specific understanding of the problems which prevail in various communities and in various districts. This is proof of the understanding shown in the writing of Quebec legislation, and not only in this field but in many others. When cases come up where the situation does not seem to have been well understood in the preparation of certain legislation, our people, be they doctors or pharmacists, broadminded as they are, have accepted those few exceptions.
I have examined this bill a little. There is a section which says among other things -I am going over certain sections of the bill a bit at random-


An hon. Member:: What number?


Gilles Grégoire: It is the one which provides that a certificate of qualification may be issued to someone who has been practising for ten years. At that time, he would be given a certificate of qualification, when we know that, in other provinces, one does not have to be a pharmacist to practise pharmacy. That means that even if someone has not studied that science at all, he is still allowed after ten years, to operate a pharmacy without being a pharmacist. He is given a certificate of qualification as a pharmacist, even though he may never have studied pharmacy.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Could the hon. member name such a province where it is possible for a person who never studied pharmacy to be a pharmacist?


Gilles Grégoire: May I ask the hon. member to repeat the question?


Cyril Lloyd Francis: I understood the hon. member to say it is possible in other provinces to own and operate a pharmacy without having studied pharmacy. I would like to know which provinces the hon. member is referring to.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, it is evident, if all kinds of distinctions are to be made, that with the kind of drugstores we see today, where all medicine sold are patented pills or syrups, it is possible for an individual to sell such medicine behind a counter; but the fact remains that in other provinces, an individual could be the owner of a drugstore without being a pharmacist. An individual could have a drugstore registered in

Private Bills
nis name without being a pharmacist, provided he has operated such business for ten years. I do not say he would be granted the title of pharmacist, under this act, but he would be granted a certificate of qualification. I agree he could not hold a university diploma, but he would nevertheless have a certificate of qualification which would allow him to operate a drugstore.


Mr. Mitchell:: With the sanction of that province's graduating body.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I am actually looking for an article of this bill. I have not looked at it. I had no opportunity to read this bill since about a month ago, for every time it was supposed to come before us, it was allowed to stand. The article says:
Any qualified pharmacist licensed or registered- [Text]


Mr. Miichell:: Take a look at 15.


Gilles Grégoire: It says:
Any qualified pharmacist licensed or registered in any province-
It means, if I understand correctly the words and the phraseology, that one or the other-since after the word "licensed" there is the word "or":
Any qualified pharmacist licensed or recognized in any province prior to the coming into force of this act shall, after ten years from the date when he became so licensed-


David Rodger Mitchell: May I direct your attention to the word "qualified"? Now go on from there.


Gilles Grégoire: Can you let me have a copy of the bill in English, please? I have the French one, and if I explain the French one it says-


David Rodger Mitchell: Mr. Chairman, may I interrupt for a moment to explain that in the English version of the bill, which is quite easily understood, the clause commences:
Any qualified pharmacist licensed or registered in any province-
First of all a pharmacist must be qualified and then licensed or registered.


Gilles Grégoire: I appreciate what my hon. friend says, but I think there is a difference between the French version of the bill and the English version, because in the French version there is a comma after "Any qualified pharmacist". So it makes it completely different in meaning. For that reason, I think it would be opportune to move that this bill be

referred back to the committee or referred back to the responsible authorities so that they can determine which version is the correct one, the English or the French version, and make the necessary correction accordingly. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Charlevoix:
That this bill be referred back to the committee to make the appropriate correction, and to determine which one is the approved bill, the French or the English.
It is impossible for us to discuss the bill now because there is a difference of meaning between the French version and the English version. There is a difference in interpretation between the French bill and the English bill, so I think it should be referred back to committee so that the committee could question the people presenting the bill and would know whether the French or the English version is the good one.


Lucien Lamoureux: I should like to remind the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) that he cannot move that amendment at this time. He could do it on third reading but not in committee of the whole.
Perhaps I might suggest that the hon. member move an amendment to the clause which was discussed, that is section 15 of this bill. Then, the hon. member could introduce a private motion to change the wording of the section.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, on the point
of order, I feel-


David Rodger Mitchell: Mr. Chairman, perhaps if we could make the amendment here and now to the French version and remove the comma, so that both the English and French versions are the same, it would satisfy the hon. member. I would so move that amendment.


Lucien Lamoureux: May I suggest that we at least wait until we reach clause 15. We are still on clause 1. We can, of course, have a general discussion of the bill on clause 1, but we cannot amend clauses which are not yet before the committee for consideration.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, that affects not only one clause but the whole bill. The whole principle is changed. That is why we cannot let the clause pass while we know that we will have to wait until third reading to introduce an amendment. We insist on presenting our motion calling for the bill to be referred to the committee so that the latter may determine which is the official version, the French or the English.


Mr. Dupuis:: We can discuss it now since we are in committee.


Gilles Grégoire: I should like to point out to the hon. member for St. Jean-Iberville-Na-pierville (Mr. Dupuis) that it is quite easy to change a formula like that but it might be a good thing to know the intent of those who requested the adoption of the bill.


Yvon Dupuis: The mover is here, he could represent the petitioners.


Gilles Grégoire: Is the hon. member himself convinced that this French version is erroneous, that there is a mistake in the bill now before us?
If there is a mistake in the passage I have shown, there can be many more in the bill. That is the reason why I think it would be advisable still to refer this bill to the private bills committee to be re-examined so that, when it is before us, it will contain no errors and above all, there will be no difference between the English version and the French version.


Mr. Macdonald:: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, this bill has been before the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills not once but twice, at two separate sittings. First of all, it was called for consideration last July. At that time the sponsor of the bill agreed to adjourn consideration until the parties who appeared to oppose it could make representations with regard to it. Then it also appeared before the same committee some three or four weeks ago, perhaps longer, at which time the hon. member for Lapointe acknowledged that he was examining the bill for the first time.
I would suggest that the proper forum in which to consider it and amend the wording if it is proved defective in the French version- because I submit that it is not defective in the English version-is in committee of the whole. It makes no sense to say that the bill should receive no further consideration now but be referred back to the committee on miscellaneous private bills. This committee is the proper forum for making such technical amendments to wording as may be necessary for the purpose of giving both French and English versions of the bill the same effect. Therefore, for that reason I submit that the motion which has been moved should not be entertained.


Yvon Dupuis: Mr. Chairman, I point out that when the bill was introduced in its original form, it was in English. It is in the French translation that you find a comma, but the original presentation was made in English.
Private Bills
That is therefore a translation error, and if a comma must be taken off, I think we will have unanimous consent to do so. I do not see why this bill should be delayed any longer.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I think that the hon. member for St. Jean-Iberville-Na-pierville raised an extremely important point.
When petitioners introduce a bill in the House of Commons, while it is a known fact that this house is made up of English and French members and that the country is bilingual, that bill should be introduced in both languages and necessary precautions should be taken for that purpose.
If we had all the Senate and the House of Commons bills as well as the reports in both languages, we would not know what to do with that pile of documents. That is why they are given to us in only one language. But having this bill in French, I took the trouble to check the French version. If it is a French translation rather than a French drafting, it is not enough.
That is why, Mr. Chairman, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette):
That the said Bill S-7, which differs in French from the English version and which is not very clear, be referred to the committee for a period of six months.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. The hon. member for Lapointe moved:
That the said Bill S-7. which differs in French from the English version and which is not very clear, be referred to the committee for a period of six months.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I do not think we should just listen to calls for the question to be put. I think it would be setting a risky precedent if this question were put. The bill is not before us. What is before us is clause 1. If the hon. member does not like the bill he can move that the committee rise.


Lucien Lamoureux: Perhaps I should make a ruling. It is a simple one, and along the lines suggested by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. I pointed out previously to the hon. member for Lapointe that every amendment had to relate to the clause under consideration. What we have under consideration now is clause 1. The proposed amendment does not refer to clause 1. It is, therefore, irrelevant and cannot be considered at this time. Perhaps I should add a citation from May, sixteenth edition page 554:
An amendment is out of order if it is irrelevant to the subject matter or beyond the scope of the bill, or if it is irrelevant to the subject matter or beyond the scope of the clause under consideration.
5386	HOUSE OF
Private Bills


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, we heard your ruling, but we believe that on clause 1 of a bill, we can have a general discussion. Without casting blame on your ruling, I think that the amendment moved by the hon. member for Lapointe refers to clause 1 as well as to the whole bill.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I appeal your ruling.


Mr. Moreau:: I think the hon. member could accomplish the purpose he has in mind by simply making a motion that the chairman now leave the chair. We should not have to go through the whole business of appealing a ruling of the chairman.


David Réal Caouette: On that point of order, when we moved that the bill should be returned to a committee for further study it was because we did not agree with the bill itself. That is why we are presenting this motion. I still wish to appeal the ruling.


Maurice John Moreau: I might add that the motion to leave the chair would have the effect of killing the bill. It would go to the bottom of the list and would not appear again.


David Réal Caouette: I think that is where it belongs-at the bottom of the list.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If the hon. member wants the bill sent to a committee he should, surely, be prepared to move in the proper manner. It does not help to appeal the chairman's ruling on a matter such as this. If he wishes to move that the committee report the bill and then, when the bill is reported, that it be referred to a committee, that would be the proper procedure.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Surely, when his motion is out of order-


David Réal Caouette: If a member of the cabinet or of the government is prepared to move such a motion, we would withdraw our appeal from your decision, Mr. Chairman.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: It is open to any member of this committee to move that the chairman rise and report progress.


David Réal Caouette: I would not mind if the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam would move such a motion as he has been suggesting. We would support it 100 per cent.


Charles Benjamin Howard: Surely, the hon. member for Villeneuve is capable of doing his own work, whatever it might be.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In view of the fact that all this discussion has taken place at a time when no discussion could take place, I assume that the proposal to appeal your
[The Chairman.]

ruling has been rescinded by the action of the committee. Perhaps the members have waived their right to appeal. Surely, the hon. member for Villeneuve and the hon. member for Lapointe realize we are not objecting to the substance of what they are arguing. But we are asking that parliament stay on an even keel. We are now on clause 1 of this bill. The hon. member is right when he says there is a tradition, an understanding, that we can discuss all of the bill at this time. He and his friend are free to discuss the bill, but the only motion they can make is a motion with respect to clause 1 itself-that it be amended or that consideration thereof be deferred. To move that something be done with respect to the bill is to make a motion with respect to something which is not before us. It seems to me this is so clear that the committee ought not to be asked to go through the motions of calling Mr. Speaker and appealing the ruling.


David Réal Caouette: This goes beyond a point of procedure. We are now discussing a bill and there is a mistake in that bill. How can we agree to discuss a bill when it contains an important mistake? This is why we would like to send this bill to the private bills committee. I believe it is important that the bill should come before us without a mistake, so that we might be able to discuss a bill which did not contain any errors. That is why we would like it referred to the committee.


Mr. Byrne:: I do not think we should keep on wrangling all the afternoon. I think the Chair should either decide that the ruling cannot be appealed, or we should carry on in the normal way.


Lucien Lamoureux: The chairman cannot say that his ruling cannot be appealed. It is my understanding that the appeal is still before the committee. I appreciate that there has been discussion, perhaps at a time when there should not have been, while the Chair was preparing to submit the appeal to the house. That is what we intend to do now, unless, of course, it is the wish of the proposer of the amendment to withdraw it.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Chairman, must I understand that before raising this particular point and following his exchange with a member whose name I cannot think of for the moment, the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) will wait until we have reached the clause in question, which would allow us to proceed until that time.

Division


David Réal Caouette: That is the principle of the
bin.


Yvon Dupuis: The hon. member for Ville-neuve does not want to proceed in the usual way.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, I hear the hon. member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napier-ville (Mr. Dupuis) say that we do not want to proceed in the usual way.


Yvon Dupuis: That is right.


David Réal Caouette: What we do not accept is the fact that we are studying the bill clause by clause while we should be considering it as a whole.
We moved an amendment which the Chair ruled out of order and we appeal against that ruling. If the hon. member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville used his head, he should understand that.


Yvon Dupuis: The hon. member for Ville-neuve refuses to proceed in the normal way.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, if the hon. member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville wants to speak, I suggest that he address himself to the Chair.

Mr. Deputy Speaker resumed the chair, and the chairman of the committee made the following report:
In committee of the whole when clause 1 of Bill S-7 was being considered, the hon. member for Lapointe moved an amendment as follows:

Mr. Gregoire, seconded by Mr. Caouette, moved that the said Bill S-7, which differs in French from the English version and which is not very clear, be referred to the committee for a period of six months.

The Chair ruled the proposed amendment out of order on the grounds that it was irrelevant to clause 1 of the said bill. Whereupon, the hon. member for Villeneuve appealed to the house from the decision of the Chair.


Lucien Lamoureux: It being six o'clock, shall I rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Progress reported.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, November 27, consideration in committee of the following resolution-Mr. Pickersgill- Mr. Lamoureux in the chair:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure respecting the office of representation commissioner and to define the duties of the commissioner under the said measure, in addition to those assigned to him under the Canada Elections Act and under a measure to provide for the establishment of electoral boundaries commissions to report upon the readjustment of the representation of the provinces in the House of Commons and to provide for the readjustment of such representation in accordance therewith; to provide for the salary and expenses of the commissioner; to provide for the appointment of a substitute commissioner and for the payment of his salary and expenses; to authorize the commissioner to appoint such officers and employees as are necessary for the conduct of his office and to engage on a temporary basis persons having technical or specialized knowledge of matters relating to the work of the commissioner; to increase the salary of the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada and to effect certain other changes in the Canada Elections Act consequential upon the said measure; and to provide for the payment out of the consolidated revenue fund under the authority of the said measure of all amounts required for the payment of salary and other expenses under the said measure and under the measure to provide for the establishment of electoral boundaries commissions, including expenses of administration thereunder.
Mr. Winkler:: Mr. Chairman, as I proceed this evening with the consideration of the resolution in regard to redistribution I should like to tell the committee that initially the matter now before us was not one with regard to which I intended raising any objection. However, when sitting on the other side of the house for a few minutes on the last day of discussion I spoke to several hon. members, particularly the hon. member for York-Scarborough and, I believe, the Secretary of State. I expressed my view that possibly the matter could be disposed of rather quickly, provided we had the cooperation of the members of the Liberal party. Then, of course, the hon. member for York-Scarborough intervened in the debate and used my constituency of Grey-Bruce for comparative purposes. Although he told me before he spoke that his reference to my constituency would probably be in complimentary terms, I have failed to find this agreeable sentiment in that particular portion of his speech. This is probably one of the reasons I have risen to intervene in the debate this evening.
Let me say immediately, Mr. Chairman, that in other respects, as the terms of the resolution are fairly general, one does not find many of the specifics contained therein to be objectionable, with the exception of the suggestion made by the Secretary of State as to the way we should proceed. As I went back into the previous debates on redistribution, particularly those in 1932-33 and up to 193637, I came across some words that I thought were rather applicable at this time, particularly having listened to the Secretary of State in most affable terms appeal to the members of the opposition in such a way that would lead one to expect there would be absolutely nothing objectionable in the bill when placed before the house. Indeed, this may be so: I hope it will be so. But I think these words spoken by Mr. Brunelle, the then Liberal member from Champlain, as reported in Hansard of January 21, 1937, indicate some of our reasons for being concerned about this measure, even after listening to the affable words of the Secretary of State when he appealed for co-operation, and so on. We think these words apply equally today, in the year 1963:
Everyone will admit that in framing a representation act the party in power, whichever it may be, will be naturally inclined to abstain from favouring the opposite party and to adopt the course most favourable to its cause. But to be normally interested and anxious to help a party Is one thing, and to be so unreasonably ambitious as to adopt a system utterly subversive to the spirit of representative institutions is quite another.
Therefore I do not think too many of us on this side of the chamber anticipate that

the function or mechanics of the proposed legislation will be very favourable to anyone on our side of the house. There are some indications that possibly we sire more fearful than is justified, and in this connection I quote the words of the Secretary of State. They were not his own words, as he indicated, but he uttered them in this house in such a manner that we must take it he agrees in every sense with every word he put on the record. He went on to say, as recorded at page 5114 of Hansard for November 26:
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.
This of course is one of the problems we are confronted with in considering such a legislative measure. How will this situation be resolved-maintaining the senatorial floor in one part of the country where the population is rather small, in accordance with our constitution, and then dealing with the situation as it exists in some of the larger provinces? The problem that does arise is that we must bear in mind the number of people in these sectors of the country in comparison with the number in other sectors where some of us think changes might be made.
I am not afraid of the political surgeon's scalpel being drawn in my direction, but I am concerned if this is done in a very broad manner. Therefore I come to the point that was raised by the hon. member for York-Scarborough. He indicated that there are approximately 36,000 people in my constituency, whereas the 1961 census indicated there were 267,000 people in his riding, and of course he made the point that this was too many people for one member to represent.
Then he was somewhat complimentary in his subsequent sentences, but not overly so, because in the final analysis he said the committee would not hear much objection from me, probably, because I was energetic enough to be able to represent more people. Maybe that is so in the manner he indicated in his speech, but I wonder why the hon. member for York-Scarborough did not use the constituency of one of his colleagues as an example. Indeed I myself could point to several constituencies represented by colleagues of mine, constituencies that are similar in size to my own.
The hon. member for York-Scarborough referred to my constituency in approximate terms of being in the ratio of seven to one with his own, but I must at once point to the constituency of Iles-de-la-Madeleine which, when compared with my own, is in a ratio of one to four. Therefore I feel that the people
Redistribution Commission I have the honour to represent justify a member in greater measure than the number of people in Iles-de-la-Madeleine. I do not object to the hon. member for Iles-de-la-Madeleine having a seat in this house, but I would point out that in representing the people of Grey-Bruce in the House of Commons I do so in such a manner as to stay in constant communication with them.
My home is in that constituency and I visit there frequently. I understand there are quite a number of members who do not care to represent their ridings in this way and that, of course, is their prerogative. For instance, the hon. member for Iles-de-la-Madeleine is, I believe, resident both in the domiciliary sense and the business sense in the city of Montreal and does his representation by a sort of remote control. More power to him, if he has the ability to do it this way.
I do not know how the Secretary of State carries on in his riding. I doubt very much if he goes there too frequently, but he may have some other election machinery there to look after his affairs. But I put this forth, so that when the time comes and political considerations are being examined, that this should be taken into account just as much as any of the words used by the hon. member for York-Scarborough; because they are of equal importance.
I can remember a previous redistribution that affected my constituency, which at that time was represented by a Miss Agnes Mac-phail, the first lady member of the House of Commons, and a very worthy one at that. She was not a Grit, but it was the Grit chalk, the Grit black pencil changing the constituency lines that eliminated her from this house in the very next election, and she disappeared from the federal political scene.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder would the hon. gentleman permit me to ask him a question? Miss Macphail, I recall, was defeated in 1940, and if I remember correctly the redistribution previous to that was in 1933, when Mr. Bennett was prime minister. Is he suggesting that the Liberals were responsible for that redistribution?


Eric Alfred Winkler: I think the Secretary of State has a certain propensity for doing things this way, but if he examines the record he will find-


Mr. Teillel:: The truth.


Eric Alfred Winkler: The truth? Well, I think the truth on that side of the house is judged in halves and quarters, not in full measure, because I think if the Secretary of State investigates very carefully, and in conjunction with the weatherman in that 1940 election, he will find it was a pretty cute political manoeuvre to eliminate Miss Macphail.

Redistribution Commission


John Whitney Pickersgill: No doubt the weatherman
was a Liberal.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Certainly I think the weatherman sometimes is too liberal.
Let me point out a couple of other factors in regard to the speech made by the hon. member for York-Scarborough, and I hope, Mr. Chairman, you will not judge me irrelevant when I say this. We would indeed like some of the advantages that have been enjoyed by the hon. member for York-Scarborough, and we in Grey-Bruce would welcome some of the expansion that has taken place in the area he represents, in all the constituencies around us; but we are inhibited by certain other factors.
For instance, there is the designation of depressed areas which receive financial assistance for the attraction of industry. Are we ever considered for that in our part of the country? We are not, but the constituencies of Algoma East, Windsor, and even Stormont are, and I have almost forgotten to mention Brantford. It seems to me there is no possibility of our getting financial assistance to attract industry, and therefore the hon. member for York-Scarborough cannot have it both ways. He cannot have this tremendous development and the advantage of supporting the government without putting up with some disabilities.
In any event, if he has great fears of not coming back to the house maybe the government will cut off part of his constituency and put it in with mine. I do not know, but I will give the Secretary of State good marks for the manner in which he presented this measure. If the words he uttered one week ago in regard to it are followed very closely, and if that degree of affability is carried through in the terms of the bill, and in the mechanics of the redistribution, then I do not think we have too much to fear. On the other hand, to be fair about it we must ask ourselves tonight, if there is any intention on the part of the government to move into the area of an election, whether it is expedient to accept this legislation. If it is not expedient, then I think we should carry this measure over to the next session of parliament for further consideration. Certainly the time and study which will be given to the matter by hon. members, as well as the benefit of discussions which will take place in constituencies, will be worth while in guiding the implementation of the mechanics of this legislation. In that event we would be prepared to be more cooperative.
I disagree, for example, with the method by which it is proposed to set up the commissions. I believe one commission should be sufficient for the whole country. With ten


commissions there will be ten differing views, so how can there be unanimity in the way the measure is to be brought forward? That is another important point. I also disagree with the thinking of the Secretary of State in regard to the quotient to be used and the tolerance on either side; in this regard I also disagree with the hon. member for York-Scarborough. I maintain that one way in which the representation of rural areas can be perpetuated, unless it is proved otherwise, is by a tolerance of 30 per cent on either side of the base figure established. If these two matters alone are brought into line, the effects of which will be apparent to most of rural Canada, I think we would be prepared to go along with the Secretary of State in an affable spirit of co-operation if he were to reintroduce this measure in the next session of this parliament.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, I have but a few words to say on the resolution now before us and which reads as follows:
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:-
Mr. Chairman, if one considers the representation as it is now, one is struck by the example provided by New Brunswick. It is generally recognized that this province will always be represented by ten members. Furthermore, at the present time, there is a difference of ten members between the number from Ontario and that from Quebec.
Now, the first duty of the commissioner or substitute commissioners who may be appointed will be to define the boundaries of the constituencies and set the exact representation of each province. They will also be authorized to establish commissions at the constituency level, in the various provinces, so that these commissions will decide upon the boundaries of the constituencies, that is whether a constituency is to be enlarged or reduced in size according to the population of the different areas involved.
Mr. Chairman, in my opinion, the resolution introduced by the Secretary of State (Mr. Pickersgill) is a mess that is rather difficult to straighten out and, at the same time, it provides for the establishment of an organization which could readily be used to grant political favours or to act upon government

[DOT]decisions or suggestions, whatever government happens to be in office at the time.
It is actually suggested that they would be independent commissions. We have already seen independent commissions in Canada which reeked of politics. I think that this resolution would likely be partial to political friends, not only on the national or provincial level, but also within the riding. I do not think that the commission should be authorized to act without parliament being held directly responsible, and this means not only the government, but the Canadian parliament.
We are not against redistribution, far from it. As a matter of fact, we know that certain ridings on Montreal island have a very high number of voters, whereas others, like that of Laurier, for instance, the constituency of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chevrier), has only a small number of them. In fact, there are two or three other ridings on Montreal island which are thinly populated and which are nevertheless represented in the House of Commons. And if a redistribution was made on Montreal island, nobody would object.
But I will never forget the electoral redistribution made in 1947, I believe, when members were invited by the committee on privileges and elections to voice their opinion. I was then the member for Pontiac in this house. The southern limits of the Pontiac constituency extended up to the northern limit of the Hull constituency which made an area of about 300 miles long by 150 miles wide.
At that time, as I have already said, the members were asked to make suggestions. Thereafter, the Pontiac constituency was divided in two parts, one forming the southern part of the Pontiac-Temiscamingue constituency and the other, the new riding of Villeneuve.
Mr. Chairman, I think that before proceeding with redistribution, we should consider the representations of the present members for ridings which will in some way be affected, whether their limits are to be extended or reduced, or whether their population is to be increased or decreased. Anyway, we would not like redistribution to be used as a political football by any party. What we want, in this parliament, is an adequate representation for the Canadian people.
Whether we establish constituencies of 70,000 people, with a margin of 20 per cent above or below that figure, may be an important point. As a matter of fact, it is perhaps an acceptable figure, under the circumstances. But, I repeat that redistribution should not be used as a political football, where political party patronage might play a role, whatever it may be.
Redistribution Commission
Now, we are not here to please our friends or displease our enemies. We are here to legislate in the best interest of the people. I think that all hon. members, beginning with the Secretary of State (Mr. Pickersgill) who is submitting this resolution, are anxious for a good representation and want Canada to be composed of ridings as equal as possible to one another, as far as their territories and populations are concerned.
There is no doubt that the Canadian people will thus be better represented here, even if the number of voters were sometimes to be increased-and I always take the city of Montreal as an example-as it may be the riding of the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Chevrier). There might be some advantage for him-as he could have a larger majority- or be more easily defeated. As we do not know which, we shall be content with assumptions.
We want an adequate representation.
I think that this resolution which wants to establish boundary commissions in the various ridings, as well as on the provincial and federal level, will mean a tremendous expense, because new officials and new employees will be needed; if we want to spend such an amount of money, let us make sure that it is not thrown away, but that it is used in the interest of our people and of Canada as a whole.


Mr. MacLean (Queens):: I should like, first of all, to congratulate the Secretary of State on the manner in which he introduced this important piece of legislation last week. He seemed to have high hopes, after introducing it in such a fine and open way, that the resolution might carry on the day on which it was first considered.
It was with some regret I had to point out to him that there were still a number of speakers who wanted to take part in the debate. I regret the look of chagrin which crossed his face when he realized the measure was not going to pass on that occasion. However, the hon. gentleman should not be entirely surprised that we in the opposition did not accept his attitude at face value. He can hardly blame us for that. We have observed him for a long time in the House of Commons and we have come to the conclusion that he is either a present day disciple of Machiavelli, or else he is constitutionally incapable of refraining from the temptation to strike a low blow at either his colleagues or his opponents, if they place enough faith in him to allow him the opportunity.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.

Redistribution Commission


John Angus MacLean: It is not shameful at all. It is learned from bitter experience. In this connection I do not want the Secretary of State to be depressed or downhearted. If his approach is genuine-and I have no reason to think it is not on this occasion-we welcome it. At the same time, even if the hon. gentleman's repentance for past attitudes is sincere, there is bound to be a period of penance, or something of that sort, before we can accept all his suggestions at their face value.
Apart from that, this is an extremely important debate and one in which many members want to take part. There are two principles under consideration. The most important one is the method of redistribution. The legislation proposes that we embark on an effort which is new, as far as Canada is concerned, though it has been in use in a number of other commonwealth countries for a number of years. In other words, it is proposed that the boundaries of constituencies should be delineated by an independent commission, or by independent commissions, rather than by a committee of the house as in the past. Final approval would, of course, have to be given by the house. I think this is an important step forward. I think it is a step on which all parties agree, at least in general terms. But if we decide on this new method I hope those who are responsible for carrying out the redistribution will not be entirely carried away by the very good objective, in general terms, of representation according to population, right down to the last decimal point. Even at best, redistribution will have a profound effect or, at least, it will have .a far reaching one. I am not sure that the effect will be profound; the composition of future houses elected after the next redistribution will probably remain much the same. But it will have a far reaching effect on the boundaries of all the constituencies in Canada.
I think we should realize, too, in approaching the objective of representation by population, that the constituencies of Canada vary a great deal in size in almost every province. For example, in the province of Ontario during the last census it was found that constituencies varied in population from around 29,000 to 267,000, while in Quebec they varied from 12,500 to about 233,000. This is a wide discrepancy. However, it should not be forgotten that these variations arise from two reasons, and I think those reasons should be kept apart in our thinking. One cause is a population change arising from the migration of people from rural areas to suburban areas, and the growth of cities generally. This

COMMONS	.
has resulted in large populations within constituencies which were mainly rural at the time of the last redistribution. There is another reason for the large discrepancies in population of constituencies across Canada; They were made that way for reasons which were considered sufficient at previous redistributions. In many cases these reasons were good ones and I believe they should have considerable effect on those who are now charged with the responsibility for redefining our constituencies. After all, it has generally been recognized over the years that there are certain areas which should have representation for certain special reasons. It has been thought proper that the northern territories should have at least one member each. We have also accepted the principle that there should be a certain minimum representation from each of the provinces which joined together in confederation. Thus, the provinces of New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island are protected in their representation.
There are still further considerations. Over the years it has been customary for rural constituencies to have a smaller population than urban ones. Theorists may scoff at this and consider it unjustified, though I would not agree with them. After all, there are some who argue that members of parliament-and I would not pursue this reasoning too far- represent not only the people of their constituencies, but the constituencies themselves. There is some room to argue this. For example, I think it would be agreed that the member of parliament representing a vast empire like the Northwest Territories not only represents the people in that riding at the present time but has a certain responsibility to safeguard the great natural resources of that area that are now held in trust, as it were, for the generations which may populate that area in the future.
I think most members of parliament will also realize that generally speaking rural constituencies require more representation per thousand of population than urban ones, or this seems to be the case quite frequently. This arises because of a number of reasons. One is that rural people in isolated areas frequently do not have readily at hand the office facilities of the various departments of government to which they can go. Instead of dropping around the corner to the federal building and seeing the appropriate civil servant, they write to their member of parliament for information as to how to proceed with regard to innumerable matters having to do with government, such as how to apply for an old age pension or how to put in a tender on some small contract. Rural constituents have the habit of writing to their

members of parliament about things of this sort. I stand to be corrected but I have the impression that members of parliament who represent urban constituencies do not have such a large volume of mail as those who represent rural constituencies.
In addition, by the very nature of the geographical size of the constituency the number of matters that are brought to the attention of the member of parliament is greater. This is especially true, I think, of seacoast constituencies. There are constituencies in the maritime provinces that have literally hundreds of federal government establishments of one sort or another within their boundaries. They may be small, but in a constituency like my own there are dozens of lighthouses, dozens of wharves and large numbers of other small federal government establishments and facilities, all of which require a certain amount of attention from the members of parliament for the areas. These are things that do not exist in inland constituencies and do not exist to any great extent in urban ones.
Therefore I think there are many considerations of this sort that should be brought into the balance when the matter of representation by population is being considered. It is a worthy objective as a theory but it is one that can only be approached. It cannot always be achieved.
I think it would also behoove us to consider how many people a member of parliament can properly represent under our system. After confederation each member of parliament in a much smaller house represented only about 18,000 Canadians. Now and after redistribution each member of parliament on the average is and will be representing about 70,000 Canadians. In addition there has been a great growth in the activity of federal governments over the years. For example, 70 years ago in the early 1890's the federal government spent in each year's budget approximately $200,000 per constituency. At the present time the figure is something like $22 million per constituency. In terms of dollars, and of course the dollar has not remained constant, there has been a hundredfold increase in the activity of the federal government in the average constituency over the last 70 years.
There are other things that should be considered as well, such as the community of interest of a certain area. If we set out to delineate constituencies of approximately the same size it should be realized that in order to adjust one constituency we will have to adjust the boundaries of perhaps all the constituencies extending in one direction from
Redistribution Commission that constituency to the border of the province. If one constituency is too small you cannot just simply adjust it by taking a certain amount of territory away from the next one because the surrounding constituencies may not be too large. The result is that a general reaction sets in, and I can visualize that even with a variation of as much as 30 per cent in constituencies in the next redistribution this will be the most far reaching distribution since confederation. It will create a tremendous amount of dislocation.
I would venture to say that it will not be possible to bring the constituencies of Canada within 30 per cent of equality without displacing a large number of the present membership of the house from the constituencies in which they now live. I would venture to say that after the next redistribution many of the present members of parliament will find themselves no longer resident in the constituencies they now represent, but perhaps in adjoining ones. There will be many cases where there will be new constituencies without any resident member of parliament, whereas others will have two or three.
The same thing will apply, of course, to the returning officers. Many of them will have to be re-selected and re-appointed because they have to be electors of the constituency in which they operate. When the boundaries are changed many of them will not be resident in the constituencies in which they now reside.
I should like to say a word for a moment about the question of the Senate floor as far as it concerns the provinces which now have protection under it, namely Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick. Some people, perhaps without thinking deeply about the matter, look on it as an ad hoc arrangement that was made without any valid reasoning or justification behind it, but I should like to point out that is not the case. When the various provinces of Canada entered confederation one of the terms under which they came in was that their representation should have a certain weight in the parliament of Canada. The Senate representation, of course, is fixed; but there was an understanding or a belief at least that the weight of provinces, like the maritimes, would continue to bear a reasonable proportion to the whole in the future. Already, of course, the percentage weight of representation from the older parts of Canada is much lower than it was immediately after confederation. If the unit of representation were the same now as it was then, Prince Edward Island would have six members of parliament but the percentage weight of those members to the total house would be much smaller than it was at the time of

Redistribution Commission confederation because the house is larger. The protection afforded by the Senate floor gives Prince Edward Island as well as New Brunswick greater representation in the House of Commons than they would be entitled to strictly on the basis of representation by population.
This is a recognized principle. Perhaps the most obvious example of it occurs in the United States. The more influential of their two houses is the senate, but every state of the union, regardless of population, is represented by two senators. You have states like New York and California with populations around 16 million represented by two senators, whereas you have a state like Nevada with a population of something like 300,000 also having two senators. This means that the senator from New York represents about 50 times as many people as the senator from Nevada.


Mr. Macaluso:: You might also include in your comparison the electoral college system for the election of the president, because the two systems are quite different.


John Angus MacLean: I am not talking about the election of a president at the moment, but that is true. The president is actually elected by the electoral college which has representation from all the states and, depending on the majority obtained in each state, as I understand it, all the votes from that state go to the candidate in question. It is possible, I believe, for a president of the United States to be elected by a majority of the electoral college but still have a minority of the total popular vote.
However, I was not intending to embark on that question at the moment. I was simply pointing out that, with the protection of the Senate floor, in so far as the representation of certain provinces is concerned it is merely an attempt to guarantee a certain minimum weight of representation in the national parliament from those provinces. As the Secretary of State pointed out, it is generally agreed that this principle will be followed and I do not believe it is contemplated that it should be disturbed.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The senatorial floor?


John Angus MacLean: Yes.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Certainly I would oppose disturbing it, very strongly indeed.


John Angus MacLean: Yes, I understand that. I am not questioning the views of the Secretary of State on this at all. I was just pointing out that I believe that we are all agreed that should be the case.
tMr. MacLean (Queens).]

In closing, Mr. Chairman, I want to point out that, so far as this contemplated legislation is concerned, I believe it is an important forward step so far as Canada is concerned, that we should embark on a new method of redistribution. Then I should like to point out that the first redistribution under this new system, if it becomes operative, will be vitally important. I think we should not try to make progress too rapidly with this first redistribution under the new system. Great care should be taken to look carefully at all these various factors, so that we do not disturb some principles that would have to be reinstated at a following redistribution. I think if we make progress without trying to accomplish everything at once then, after the first redistribution, under the new system following redistributions will be relatively easy.


Mr.   Kindi@: Mr. Chairman, the subject dealt with in this resolution, that of redistribution, is an extremely important one to every member of this committee. This evening I should like to speak primarily on the question of tolerance. The Secretary of State has mentioned 20 per cent, someone else has mentioned 30 per cent and still another person has mentioned 40 per cent. I want to point out to the Secretary of State and to the committee that there is a tremendous difference between rural and urban ridings. There is the question of heterogenous conditions in rural ridings as compared with the relative homogenous conditions of urban ridings.
In the rural riding, for example, there are all the various industries and types of production which one can find spread over a large area. I speak from experience with my own constituency of Macleod, which consists of an area about 150 miles from north to south and 150 miles from east to west. There are the Rocky mountains on the west which divide the two provinces of Alberta and British Columbia. In this area one finds oil and natural gas. Fifty per cent of the natural gas which goes to Ontario originates in the Pincher Creek area; another 25 per cent or 50 per cent goes to California, and it also originates in that area. In addition there is the oil in Turner Valley. Then, at Okotoks, Texas-gulf Sulphur has constructed a plant, and if it were working at capacity it would be in a position to ship out one trainload of sulphur per day. Sulphur is also produced at Turner Valley at the Shell plant, and at the B.A. plant south of Pincher Creek.
In addition to these products which come from beneath the surface there are the various lumber products and agricultural products. There are approximately 6,000 farmers producing wheat, cattle and a wide range of products. If a member is to get to all the corners of his constituency he is faced with

a vastly different problem in serving a constituency scattered over an area 150 miles in both directions than in serving an urban area where a member can walk down a street and talk to someone. In other words, in a compact area all of your problems are centralized and it is much easier to get around to the various parts of your constituency.
Now, I mention this because I believe that in considering the principle of representation by population in connection with redistribution, a tolerance of at least 40 per cent should be given to rural areas. In other words, the theory of representation by population is all right as far as it goes. It is also necessary to recognize that a member of this House of Commons not only represents the people in his constituency but also the constituency itself, with all the natural conditions and natural resources with which he is familiar. He must also serve the people working on the resources in his constituency, scattered as they are throughout the riding. There is a tremendous amount of travelling involved, and so on.
I go even further, Mr. Chairman. My constituency is not the largest in the dominion by any means; I am not suggesting that. I could cite many others which have a much greater area than Macleod. One hon. member has mentioned the Northwest Territories, which is a tremendous area. People in the house who represent rural areas believe we must have a tolerance when it comes to representation by population, and this tolerance must be at least 40 per cent in favour of the rural constituencies. There is another factor which I hope the Secretary of State, the commissions and those who may be giving direction with regard to this measure will take into consideration. I believe that in so far as possible the people living in a constituency should be left there. If an addition is to be made, all well and good. If something is to be subtracted, that is equally well and good. But to take people from one side of a boundary and add them to another would simply cause great confusion to the constituents of a riding. People become accustomed to looking to the constituency in which they have lived for a number of years. For example, those who live in Bonavista-Twillingate look to that constituency as being the one in which they belong, and if they were suddenly pulled out of that riding and put into another there would be a great deal of confusion in their minds.


An hon. Member:: They would be delighted.


Mr.   Kindi@: It would also mean that the people moved would take a considerable time to catch up with the facts of another constituency. The same would be true of the
Redistribution Commission riding of Macleod. For these reasons, Mr. Chairman, I believe that wherever it is possible the commissions that will be working under this legislation should keep intact the boundaries and the people now living within the constituency of which they have become part. In other words, the constituency of Macleod has 51,000 people in it, and if it is necessary to subtract or add to that constituency in order to bring it up to some over-all average, I believe it is not necessary to take from one side and add to another. The constituency should be added to in a way that would not disturb the people now living there.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I would say that the remarks I have made this evening are only by way of preamble, because we have not before us the bill that will be introduced in this regard. When that bill is introduced there will be an opportunity to study and comment on its provisions.


Mr. Dinsdale:: Mr. Chairman, when the resolution was first introduced I did not intend to speak at this stage in the debate. After hearing the Secretary of State on that occasion making his rather interesting approach and presentation of this very important matter, and having come to the conclusion that the government's consideration of this new approach to redistribution is still in a somewhat fluid state, I thought it would be best to make my comments before we passed the resolution.
In introducing the resolution the Secretary of State pointed out that it was the desire of the government, as it had been the intention of the previous government, once and for all to get this matter of the redistribution of seats in the House of Commons, which follows automatically after every decennial census, out of the hands of the politicians themselves. I think all hon. members of the house will agree that this reform is long overdue. Indeed, if one looks back at the history of the discussion of the measure in the house, he is invariably surprised that it has taken so long for parliament to come to grips with this obvious abuse. For anyone who has been a member of the House of Commons for a number of years, particularly during a period when redistribution has taken place, has had forcibly brought home to him, from personal experience, the fact that there is indeed a better method of dealing with the redistribution of parliamentary constituencies than any of those which have been used hitherto.
I have experienced one redistribution in this house, that which was carried out following the census of 1951. It was obvious on that occasion that the objective approach was not taken in handling this difficult problem.

Redistribution Commission My own experience in dealing with the matter at that time was of course restricted to the problems of Manitoba. The problem there, as has been the case in the redistribution previous to 1951, was made more difficult by the fact that it was necessary for the province of Manitoba, along with the province of Saskatchewan, to lose some of its seats in the House of Commons. Hon. members who have reviewed the history of former redistributions will have discovered that Saskatchewan lost several seats at that time; but in order to save the situation an artificial floor was put into operation in that particular instance. Manitoba had no artificial floor placed under its representation following 1951, with the result that we dropped two more seats in the House of Commons. This has meant that our representation since 1941 dropped from 17 to 14 seats. That, for a province such as Manitoba, was a very serious loss indeed, particularly when we take into consideration the fact that Manitoba is dominated by Winnipeg, an urban area which at the present time contains almost half the population of that province.
In 1951 the decision was made to amalgamate the constituency I represented at that time, the old Brandon constituency, with the former constituency of Souris. This meant that the whole southwestern corner of the province of Manitoba would be represented by one member of parliament, and the population of the new constituency rose to something like 70,000, which was about the average for a typical urban riding. It meant that the member for Brandon-Souris, which happened to be myself, would be representing an area much larger than most urban ridings, but having at the same time a population that was comparable to the more closely integrated and more easily serviced typical urban constituencies.
There was an even deeper implication. It so happened that the only two rural Conservative members at that time were from the southwest corner of the province of Manitoba. The late Arthur Ross had sat in this house from the year 1940 as the sole Conservative representative from Manitoba until I and the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre joined him in 1951. It might have been merely a coincidence that the decision was made to amalgamate those two constituencies. There could have been an operation conducted on other parts of the Manitoba political anatomy, but it was not without some significance that the decision was made to combine the old Souris and Brandon ridings into the new riding of Brandon-Souris. In fact I would dare to suggest there might have
[Mr. Dinsdale.l
been some aspect of gerrymandering involved in the considerations.
Having come through that experience I think, Mr. Chairman, you will understand my present enthusiasm for the resolution that is before us and my desire to make a brief statement on it at this stage, particularly as my good friend the Secretary of State indicated he was still flexible in his thinking as to the specific proposals that would be in the bills when they are brought down. It is for that reason I am making my brief remarks at this time.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder would the hon. gentleman permit me to say one word on that?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Certainly.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would like to indicate to the committee that not only am I paying careful attention to every suggestion being made at this stage, but when the bills have been given first reading it is also the view of the government that anything in those bills can be changed, and can be changed by a majority of the house, even if that majority does not necessarily include the majority of hon. members on this side, provided it does not touch one fundamental point which is that there must be an independent, impartial redistribution; and on this we are all agreed.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I am pleased to have that interjection by the Secretary of State. I only wish that attitude of sweet reasonableness had prevailed back in 1951, because I think we might have been able to save the day for the old Souris riding if we had such a spirit of tolerance at that time.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps the hon. gentleman would never have been here then.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: That is a matter of interesting speculation, but as I recall it at that time it was hoped I would not be here representing the new constituency, because it was anticipated that the late Mr. Arthur Ross, who was several years my senior in the house, would receive the nomination and that the new member from Brandon, who had only been here for two years, would be sent out into the political wilderness.
As it happened, and as it always happens, there is poetic justice in all of these things. Colonel Ross stepped aside. He was a man of great courtesy and chivalry, and he went on to contest the provincial election and wrested a traditional seat from the provincial Liberal party. Indeed, looking back in terms of historic perspective, I might say that was the beginning of the ascendancy of the Conservative party in Manitoba. So you see, in all such things, as the poet Robbie Burns said, "The

best laid plans of mice and men gang aft agley." That is why I find it so difficult to understand that parliament had not decided long ago to deal with these matters from a scientific and objective basis rather than from a political basis.
I would like to make some mention of the degree of tolerance that will be decided upon in the legislation. We have had various suggestions made as to how far this should go. Certainly it should represent the traditional viewpoint of representation by population. However, the geography of Canada being such as it is, with the population distributed across the country on a somewhat inequitable basis, we must give ample consideration to the geographical aspects of representation.
It is not just a rural-urban problem in the traditional sense, because in many parts of Canada there are no urban communities in the sociological sense. In some constituencies there are a series of small towns which might be semi-urban and semi-rural, but they certainly do not meet all the characteristics of the typical urban community. The very fact that there is a constituency made up of a series of these small towns places an additional burden of responsibility on the member representing it.
For example, in my constituency there are about a dozen substantial towns, and this means that all the community organizations and services are duplicated in each of these areas. A member representing an urban constituency might complain that its population is somewhat larger. According to the tolerance that is being suggested, he might have a population of some 85,000 in an entirely urban constituency, but in his constituency he has only one group of social institutions. There is only one of each denomination of churches, only one Canadian Legion and only one municipal authority to deal with, and so on. I could go through the whole list of community institutions, but in what I might call a rural-urban constituency, a constituency that is semi-rural, semi-urban, with up to 12 small communities in it, and with a population of 70,000, all these social institutions are duplicated in each of the larger towns.
It would seem to me, therefore, Mr. Chairman, that the matter of tolerance should be very closely examined by the government, and those who will be carrying on discussions with the government regarding the specific terms of the legislation. This has particular significance in the province of Manitoba. As I have already mentioned we have an urban community which, in terms of population, represents almost one half the total population of the province. I suppose the population of greater Winnipeg now would be somewhere around 500,000 which does in absolute terms 28902-5-344
Redistribution Commission of population represent one half of the population of the province. If some of the suggestions put forward in the preliminary statement by the Secretary of State are applied in the province of Manitoba, it would mean that an urban centre such as Winnipeg occupying a comparatively small geographic area would have almost one half the representation of that province. This would be particularly so were the province of Manitoba to lose another seat and reduce their representation to 13 members.
Therefore I take this opportunity to point out to the Secretary of State, and through him to the government, that in setting a specific percentage quota this problem, which is perhaps peculiar to a country like Canada, should be given earnest consideration. If we are going to have the kind of representation which is required in all parts of this country we must give consideration to geography in the specific terms I have outlined in my remarks this evening. It was mentioned the other day when we were discussing this resolution that the provincial government of Manitoba had already tackled this problem of redistribution within its own boundaries; and I think hon. members of this committee would be interested in knowing that it gave very careful consideration to the special problem which I have outlined.
Another point I should like to raise is that of the machinery that is to be set up in order to carry out this independent, impartial redistribution. On all sides of the house there has been agreement that the spirit of independence must prevail if this forward step is going to prove successful. The only difference between the official opposition and the government is that of the membership of the commission and the number of commissions which should operate in the various areas of Canada. The Leader of the Opposition expressed some reservation about a commission for each province. I would underline that reservation because it seems to me its going to be difficult enough to get uniformity across the country, because of different social, economic and geographic circumstances prevailing in the various regions of Canada, if we do not have some method which will closely integrate the policy. True enough there is going to be an attempt at co-ordination among the ten commissions suggested by the government in this resolution. However, it seems to me that some closer measure of coordination is going to be required; perhaps the regional approach would be better than the provincial approach. But there certainly needs to be some better method of co-ordination to meet the special circumstances of

Redistribution Commission Canada which I have already outlined, if we are going to have some uniformity in carrying out redistribution.
The final point I want to make is that I would draw the government's attention to the desirability of having judges connected in some way with the redistribution process. This is the formula that has already been established in the province of Manitoba and it has worked there with eminent success. There have been no complaints concerning the workings of that independent commission on redistribution in the province of Manitoba. It was one of the proposals in a somewhat similar resolution and consequent legislation contemplated by the former administration, and it seems to me that it would be the best method of ensuring the high degree of independence which I am sure all hon. members of this committee are desirous of obtaining for the work of this commission.


Mr. Chapdelaine:: Mr. Chairman, last Wednesday, when the house adjourned, I had not completed my remarks concerning redistribution of electoral constituencies, but I did not intend to complete them, because I had thought at that time that everything had been said at the resolution stage. My only hope was that, since all parties agreed to the redistribution, this might be done as soon as possible.
However, in view of the stand taken by the Conservatives, who seem to want to prolong the debate, without telling us just why, I feel I will not be blamed for prolonging it a little if I make a clear contribution to the proposed measure.
Mr. Chairman, after listening to several members, one reaches the conclusion that the real problem with redistribution is that it must be done in such a way that representation of one group of the population must not be detrimental to another group. In that connection, one recognizes the claim of some people who want the rural ridings to be represented according to their population and in as great a number as the rural ridings.
Mr. Chairman, I am of the opinion that the size of the electoral ridings as well as the linguistic and religious aspirations of the various areas must be considered in order to determine exactly the boundaries of an urban or a rural electoral riding.
As far as I am concerned, as I stated the other evening, in view of what is happening in the house, I would be in favour of a decrease in the number of members rather than of an increase since every time we are studying a bill, we have to go through the resolution stage where suggestions are made to the government but very seldom accepted since

it already holds its views on the matter. Moreover, when we come to the motion preceding the second or third reading of the bill, we renew our claims which always remain unsatisfied. Therefore, it would be better to do away with the resolution stage so that we would not have to listen so often to speakers who do not intend to make a constructive contribution to the progress of the business of the house.
Mr. Chairman, I believe that everyone agrees that the distribution of seats should be revised and that the principles of such a redistribution consist of the unbiased appointment of qualified people. However, in the present framework of Canadian politics, it is very difficult to find people who are proof against any partisan influence, because even at the judicature level, it must be remembered, as I pointed out the other day, that in most cases, judges are appointed by virtue of their political ties.
Mr. Chairman, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) stated that he advocated the appointment of judges instead of commissioners for the redistribution job in the various provinces. Moreover, as I said before, I think the commissions should be created at the provincial or regional level throughout the country, and that there should be five or six commissions which would represent the various territories of our country. Besides, these commissions should include members who understand the needs of the different areas, in order to be in a position to proceed accordingly with redistribution.
Mr. Chairman, this brings me to mention the inconsistency we have shown at election time ever since 1867, as the problem of redistribution dates back to the beginning of confederation, when everybody admitted that the distribution of ridings had to be constantly revised.
Today it is more and more obvious that an immediate redistribution is necessary in order to be fair with everybody. At the present time, elections are made to the prejudice of several citizens of this country. We find that there are several parties which would nevertheless like to have elections in ridings where they know that justice will not be done to voters after the election.
I believe that the fact that the present distribution is inadequate should be taken into consideration before considering whether to bring about an election because the parties already agree the Canadian people, in the event of another election, would be unfairly treated on account of the wrong distribution of the constituencies.
There is a view, Mr. Chairman, which it would be wise to remember. If, as I suggest,

the number of members of the House of Commons should be decreased, owing to the time being wasted, often on account of empty speeches, higher allowances should be provided for those members or candidates who have to travel longer distances during their electoral campaigns.
A travelling allowance could be provided for candidates or members for large ridings like those of the prairie provinces, for instance, so that there would be no disparity between them and members for urban constituencies.


Auguste Choquette: There is not a penny left in the hon. member's campaign fund.


Gérard Chapdelaine: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that it would be more appropriate to make such a proposal when the house is discussing the Canada Elections Act, but 1 feel that it is relevant to the question under consideration.
Be that as it may, Mr. Chairman, I still say that the debate on the resolution is a waste of time for the taxpayers, for the house and for everyone. The sooner it is over the better it will be.


Mr. Baldwin:: I appreciate the generous invitation of the Secretary of State which, as I understood it, constituted a suggestion that all members who had some contribution to make or some suggestions to advance should, either at this stage or on second reading, give the committee or the house the benefit of their views. That statement removed any doubt I had felt about speaking at this time. As a matter of fact, I think that at this stage we are far less cribbed and confined than we are on second reading, despite the fact that the Secretary of State did hold out the hope- and I think we can take it at its face value- that the government would not be too strict in its interpretation of the rules and would be prepared to consider meeting reasonable suggestions and making amendments at that time.
Like the previous speaker I feel that on a subject as important as this it is not only the right but the duty of every member to make his views known. I should like to have seen the range of our discussion on this particular measure broadened to include expressions of opinion by those who sit opposite and support the government. I hope that before this resolution passes we shall have the benefit of their wisdom. I say this because here we have an opportunity, on behalf of our constituents, who are even more vitally concerned with the results of this measure than are the individual members of this committee, to make known the views of those who elected us. If we have been good members we probably know by 28902-5-344$
Redistribution Commission now what the people in our constituencies feel about this measure. Now we have an opportunity to put those views on record. Not only will the government be able to hear and read them in due course, but the tribunal itself will, I hope, in the discharge of its task, turn to this debate and to the debates which follow to learn how the people of Canada wish these problems of redistribution to be handled.
I am in accord with what has been said by my hon. friend from Brandon-Souris, by my leader and others, that it is of the essence that the tribunal to be established should be composed in part of people who are or have been high court judges. I do not wish to go into the subject to any great extent because I think everything that could usefully be said has been said. But I think it is undoubtedly a fact that men who have been partisan and prejudiced in political life, upon taking the judge's oath and ascending to the bench have, in almost every instance I can think of, put to one side their preconceived prejudices and views and have discharged the duties which have been cast upon them without regard to the views they may have held in the past. For that reason I think it would be most useful to have as at least a considerable element in this tribunal some people who have held judicial office.
I think that all of us bring to this particular problem some of the views we have elicited as a result of our own particular circumstances in the constituency or the area of which we have particular knowledge. I do not think it would be amiss for me to give very briefly some of my views which have been generated as a result of my own experience in a constituency vast in size and covering more than one third of the province of Alberta but which has a population of approximately 80,000 people. I can say that my remarks tonight are objective. Nothing that can be done within the limits of what has been suggested would in any way hurt my constituency or do damage to it, so I hope my remarks will be considered to be generally objective.
The constituency of Peace River extends from the westerly boundary of the Canadian shield to the eastern slopes of the Rockies and from the 55th parallel to the 60th parallel. The population is scattered throughout the constituency, not like many northern constituencies where the largest number of people are to be found in the southern areas of those constituencies. In this case they are to be found in all parts of the constituency. When I go home during recesses it takes me two months to two months and a half to cover the constituency adequately and attempt to give that service to the people

Redistribution Commission of the area which in my view a member of parliament should provide if he is going to be a good member of parliament. This does not mean that I make personal contact with anything other than a percentage of the people, but at least I attempt to place myself in a position where the people of the area have the opportunity to see me, talk to me and present their views. I do so because, as I see it, it is part of my duty when I come here representing these people to bring to the house the views I have gathered during discussions with those I represent. I submit that anything less than that would be short of what my true function as a member of parliament must be.
Having in mind the impetus which has been given to northern development-I hope hon. members will not think I am being too partisan if I refer to some of the measures passed under the last government-this district will acquire another 20,000 to 25,000 people in a comparatively short time. There is bound to be a division. Yet as I see the situation, if specific and inflexible rules are laid down requiring that population shall be the main criterion as to the size of a constituency, it may well be that a division cannot be arranged which will permit the true representation that the area should have.
It is my submission that, apart from anything else that has been said, some attempt should be made to introduce, in addition to the criterion of population and the tolerance which would go with it, a measure which would provide that, subject to certain set, specific conditions being present, a member may be returned from an area with less than the minimum population referred to in the legislation. I think you would have to provide very specifically what those conditions were. I do not think such a provision could be allowed to be used improperly or injudiciously, but I do feel this suggestion might well provide an answer to some of the views which have been expressed by some of the members during the course of the debate.
I think there is a precedent for this, Mr. Chairman. The government has just concluded a conference with the 10 provinces. During the course of and following these discussions certain new views have been advanced as to payments to certain provinces on the basis of equalization. It is my understanding that in this unique experiment of building a nation from sea to sea in the northern part of this continent, which is subject to such tremendous variations in geography and economy, we have established the equalization principle in order to provide a measure of equality and to iron out these differences. Without that we would not have a viable nation. I submit that the same

principle of equalization might well be applied to the question of representation.
I appreciate the problem of those members who represent constituencies with tremendously large populations. Their problem is a very difficult one. I do not for one minute attempt to minimize it, but I think there is at least a homogeneity to their representation which is of advantage to them and, more important, permits their constituents to have access to them. This is not always apparent in the case of rural constituencies.
What will be the ultimate result if we should carry through to its logical conclusion the principle of representation by population? As I see it, we would ultimately find in Canada not only 10 provinces but, superimposed upon those 10 provinces, some 10 or 12 or 14 large city states. These city states would probably control two thirds to three quarters of the representation in the House of Commons. This in turn would attract a concentration of power into the hands of these city states which I think would add immeasurably to the complexity of governing this country. Hon. members are familiar with the old principle as expressed by one southern senator, "Them that has gits". Having in mind human nature, which all of us recognize is a factor, large cities with a large membership in the house would inevitably in due course be able to provide greater and greater benefits for these large centres of population through legislation which they would be able to control. If this should happen I believe the inevitable result would be the breakdown of the country as we see it.
There may be hon. members who feel I am too far fetched in projecting my thoughts to this ultimate conclusion but I do not think so. I think this is very likely to happen. Therefore in my view any measure of redistribution affecting the membership of the house should take into consideration the vital fact that there should be a measure of representation which is not necessarily consistent with population but is consistent with the proper growth of the country. To that end I suggest that those who have spoken, and I understand and appreciate the sentiments which motivated them, for a rigid yardstick of population with a very small tolerance are, in the final analysis, doing a disservice to this country.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If I might be permitted to say a word at this point, Mr. Chairman, I have the impression that it is not the disposition of the committee to carry the resolution this evening. I have no criticism whatever to make of that. Perhaps it might be helpful to have a little consultation outside the house before we go on with this particular matter.

If it were agreeable to the committee I should like to move-I am not doing so now- that the committee rise, report progress and then I would ask hon. members if there would be unanimous consent to have item No. 16 on the order paper called. This is a resolution preceding a bill to amend the Aeronautics Act. I think this is a non-controversial measure and it is designed to remedy a defect in the law. I think the debate on this measure could be conducted far better when the bill is in front of us and we see precisely what is in it. If there were such a disposition the bill would be available, amongst the several measures that I hope to announce at the end of the day, with which the house could deal tomorrow.
I think it would be better if we could stand over this redistribution matter for a few days and then we could make better progress towards the goal I think all hon. members share, and that is trying to conclude the business of this session in an orderly fashion before Christmas.


Gordon Minto Churchill: We are in agreement, Mr. Chairman.


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall I rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Progress reported.


AERONAUTICS ACT
John Whitney Pickersgill: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Aeronautics Act to authorize the governor in council to make regulations prescribing charges for the use of any facility or service provided by or on behalf of the Minister of Transport for or in respect of aircraft or at an airport and to make such regulations as he deems necessary to impose upon the owners or operators wherever resident, of any aircraft charges for the availability during any flights of such aircraft within or outside Canada of any facility or service provided by or on behalf of the minister; to provide also for the payment of certain expenses of witnesses attending before boards of inquiry established by the minister to investigate aircraft accidents; and to make certain other amendments for the better administration of the act.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.


Mr. Herridge:: I have one question to ask the Secretary of State, and that is whether this legislation applies to airports owned by municipalities that have received grants from the federal government?
Telecommunication Corporation Act


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think the bill will make that point clear. This is precisely why I thought it would be preferable to have the bill before us. I have read the resolution carefully and it does not appear to me that it would apply to any airports except those under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Transport. I think the bill will explain this much better than I could hope to do.


Mr. Barnett:: Might I ask the minister, is it the intention of the government that this bill be referred to a standing committee for detailed consideration after second reading?


John Whitney Pickersgill: There has not been any such thought. I think when hon. members see the bill they will probably have doubts about whether, in view of the number of other committees we have sitting, it would be worth while to do this. However, if there were such a disposition I am sure the Minister of Transport, who is one of the most agreeable members of the house, would be very happy to consider the request.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Pickersgill (for Mr. Mcllraith) thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-117, to amend the Aeronautics Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if the committee would like to take the C.O.T.C. bill, which was in committee of the whole. We could probably do that in the next couple of minutes.


CANADIAN OVERSEAS TELECOMMUNICATION CORPORATION ACT
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Monday, November 25, consideration in committee of Bill No. C-112, to amend the Canadian Overseas Telecommunication Corporation Act-Mr. Mcllraith-Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.
On clause 1-Composition of board.
Lucien Lamoureux: Shall clause 1 carry?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Give us a chance to find the bill, otherwise we will not agree to this at all.


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall clause 1 carry?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Ten o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 2 to 6 inclusive agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
[Stage Direction]
Business of the House
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read a third time?


Some hon. Members:: Next sitting.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps we should hold it for the next sitting in case any hon. member who was not here this evening might wish to say something on third reading.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gordon Minto Churchill: May we now hear about the business for tomorrow?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, acting on the advice of the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, I am not going to ask the house to go on tomorrow with the resolution we were considering this evening. Instead I hope, unless there is any strong objection, that we could start with third reading of this bill to which we have given such careful consideration. Having done that, we would take the second reading and, I hope, all the other
stages of the aeronautics bill, and then the bill on the Currency, Mint and Exchange Fund Act. If we make very good progress, there are two or three other bills which could be dealt with. There is No. 5 on today's order paper, regarding an agreement with the province of Ontario respecting public harbours; No. 7 the National Harbours Board Act; and No. 8, the Carriage by Air Act. These items standing in the name of the Minister of Transport might be disposed of. I think that will probably be enough; but if not, there are one or two other items on the order paper. Anyway, I hope the house will be prepared to go on with those items with which the government intends to proceed.


Gordon Minto Churchill: No. 4?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, we could dispose of No. 4.


[Stage Direction]
It being three minutes after ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put.
[Stage Direction]
HOUSE OF COMMONS Wednesday, December 4, 1963