1964-04-16

Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, a message from Her Majesty the Queen signed by her own hand, which has been transmitted to me by His Excellency the Governor General.


Mr. Speaker:: The address which you have sent to me and which conveys your congratulations to myself and to my husband on the birth of our third son has given me very great pleasure and on this happy occasion we both deeply appreciate the kind sentiments and good wishes which you have expressed.
Elizabeth R.
7th April, 1964



TABLING OF EXCHANGE OF LETTERS RESPECTING IJ.K. CEREAL IMPORT POLICIES

Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, on March 19 and on earlier occasions I have informed the house of the discussions that have been taking place with the British government concerning their proposed new cereals policies. Hon. Lionel Chevrier, Canadian high commissioner in London, yesterday signed on behalf of the government of Canada an exchange of letters constituting an agreement between the Canadian government and the government of the United Kingdom concerning Britain's new production and import policies with respect to cereals. I ask leave of the house to table the text of this exchange of letters and supporting documents.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house grant leave?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mitchell William Sharp: Similar agreements have been concluded between Britain and its other principal overseas cereal suppliers, Argentina, Australia and the United States. I regard these arrangements as constructive and helpful. I am confident they will strengthen trade in cereals between Canada and Britain, and that they can contribute to the working out of broader cereals arrangements of an international character. These arrangements with the British and with their other principal overseas
cereal suppliers were worked out in a spirit of close co-operation and understanding.
These arrangements are complex. I am reluctant to take the time of the house to comment on them at this time, although I am prepared to do so. Instead, Mr. Speaker, I have prepared an explanatory memorandum and I would ask the consent of the house to have it printed as an appendix to today's Hansard to assist hon. members in their study of the agreement.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house give consent?


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Digby-Annapolis-Kings):: Mr. Speaker, ordinarily in a matter of this importance we would expect the minister to make a statement. However, I quite appreciate that the matter is highly technical and I presume that any statement he might make would not be brief. I think it would be helpful to the house if the minister had leave, without creating a precedent, to table this statement at this time. Then hon. members would have an opportunity of studying it and at a later date could ask questions in the house dealing with it.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house agree?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: For text of statement referred to above, see appendix.]



OLD AGE SECURITY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Leon Balcer (Three Rivers):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister.
Did the Prime Minister receive a request from the Quebec government, at the federal-provincial conference or since then, to the effect that it be handed over the whole administration of the Old Age Security Act, as far as the province of Quebec itself is concerned?
Could the Prime Minister also tell me what compensation the Quebec government is asking to take over that administration?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No such request has been received.

Inquiries of the Ministry EXTERNAL AFFAIRS



CYPRUS-REPORTED ACTION IN SELF DEFENCE BY CANADIAN TROOPS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State for External Affairs with regard to a report concerning action taken by Canadian troops in the United Nations force in Cyprus. I should like to ask whether the action taken by Major Tremblay, who said he had to take this action in self defence, was in keeping with instructions from the Canadian government. Was the government consulted; and if the instructions issued by the United Nations do not permit such action being taken, could they be amended so such action could be taken without violation of instructions?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of Stale for External Affairs):: Whatever action was reported as having been taken by the Canadian contingent participating in the force would be pursuant to the relations between the Canadian contingent and the commander of the United Nations force. Canada does not give direct instructions to the Canadian contingent. These are given by the commander of the force, who in turn is responsible to the United Nations. The action purported to have been taken is consistent with the instructions laid down by the secretary general.



SOUTH VIET NAM


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, bearing in mind reports today of what appears to be the increasing gravity of the military situation in South Viet Nam. I wonder whether the minister would consider informing the house of the situation there, as well as Canada's involvement in United States policy.


Paul Joseph James Martin: As I said the other day, the military situation in South Viet Nam has for some time been of concern to Canada as a member of the supervisory and control commission in South Viet Nam. However, it is not clear to me what the hon. member means when he speaks of a developing crisis or of Canadian involvement in United States strategy. I would simply say, we are not in any way involved in the sense of the implication of the question.



PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister if he is yet in a position to make a statement to the house with regard to the negotiations with certain provinces about the Canada pension plan. If not, does he hope to be able to make that statement tomorrow?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yesterday I said I hoped to be in a position to make that statement in a day or two. I expect to be in a position to make it not later than Monday of next week.


Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Jolielle-L'Assompiion-Montcalm):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question to the Prime Minister.
Does the Prime Minister inform the federal Minister of National Health and Welfare of the decisions he makes following his negotiations with Mr. Lesage concerning changes to be brought to the Canada pension plan?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.

Hon. George C. Nowlan (Digby-Annapolis-
Kings): Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. Is the government considering holding a constitutional conference representing all the provinces so as to discuss, and if possible agree upon, amendments to the British North America Act which will permit the Canada pension plan to embody benefits which now are limited only to the provinces?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I would hope that can perhaps be done without the kind of full scale constitutional conference to which the hon. member refers; but I hope that in my statement on Monday I will be able to throw some light on this.


George Clyde Nowlan: Thank you.



INCOME TAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of National Revenue.

Inquiries of the Ministry
Since the incidents which occurred last Mr. Harkness: As a supplementary ques-year at the Quebec city income tax office tion, could the minister assure the house that seem to be happening again this year, could before any final arrangement is made in con-the minister order an investigation in that nection with this matter, the veterans office concerning the work of income tax organizations, particularly those in Calgary, inspectors and assessors?	will be taken into consultation?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems to me that this question was asked during the last session, and in spite of its importance I do not believe it is sufficiently urgent to ask at this time. If the hon. member would put it on the order paper I am sure he would get an answer.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, it is true that this question has been asked on several occasions last year. However, the situation is not the same this year due to certain circumstances. Since the same thing is happening and that we keep getting a great number of letters in this connection, I wonder whether the minister could not tell us at least if he intends to conduct an investigation into the matter. I feel that this problem is very urgent, because the fiscal year has just ended. [Text]


Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I shall be glad to take this question as notice. It is obviously a question that cannot be answered without notice.


Gilles Grégoire: Then, could the minister consider the question as notice and give me an answer tomorrow?



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Is the minister in a position to inform the house of the outcome of the talks which were being held with the Alberta provincial authorities in connection with the Colonel Belcher hospital in Calgary?


Hon. Roger Teillei (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: No. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, I am not yet in a position to report to the house on that matter, but I am hoping I will be able to do so before too long. I think the hon. member will appreciate that there are many details which have to be looked into. There is nothing new to report at the moment.


Roger-Joseph Teillet: Mr. Speaker, I can certainly give my hon. friend that assurance.


Mr. R. W. Prillie (Burnaby-Richmond):: As
a supplementary question, would the minister use the occasion of his attendance at the annual convention of the Canadian Legion to make a statement clarifying the position of veterans hospitals?


Roger-Joseph Teillet: That is certainly my hope, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Terry Nugeni (Edmonion-Slralhcona):: My question is supplementary to a previous question asked by the hon. member for Bur-naby-Coquitlam, and I wish to direct it to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. The hon. gentleman said he intended to make a statement in clarification of government policy regarding veterans hospitals. Is my correct understanding that he intends to make this statement at a Legion convention rather than in the House of Commons?


Roger-Joseph Teillet: I do not know what the purpose of that question may be, but I have said before in this house that the question of clarification is a difficult one because I have to deal with each case on its own merits. It would only be when I had a clearcut case before me that a situation could arise to which the hon. member's thinking would apply. This is what I hope to be able to do, and it was in that context that I answered the previous question.


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: Would the hon. gentleman inform us what answer he has given to a telegram sent to him from the Royal Canadian Legion in Calgary, which reads as follows:
Number one branch of the Royal Canadian Legion expresses strongest possible opposition to proposed Belcher hospital solution. Unable to see logic of this policy when veterans are presently being denied admission.
What answer has been given to this telegram?


Roger-Joseph Teillet: I do not have the answer to the telegram before me. I would be glad to look it up and report.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Theogene Ricard (SI. Hyacinlhe-Bagol):: In the absence of the Minister of Labour, Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a

Inquiries of the Ministry question to his parliamentary secretary. According to the latest d.b.s. figures there are 456,000 Canadians unemployed. Could the parliamentary secretary tell us how many Canadians are taking advantage of the unemployment insurance fund at present?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Surely this is a question requiring detailed information which the parliamentary secretary may or may not have at the moment. I suggest that it be placed on the order paper.



CANADIAN CONFEDERATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Prime Minister. Could he tell the house whether his government is going to support the suggestion of the premier of British Columbia that a new territorial definition of the provinces should be made in Canada, so that instead of ten provinces we would only have five?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, this is a very important suggestion into which I would not care to go at the moment.



RIGHT OF MEMBER TO CRITICIZE PUBLIC SERVANT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Solicitor General, who is the acting house leader. Does the hon. gentleman consider it unconstitutional for a member of parliament to criticize a public servant in the House of Commons?


Hon. J. Watson MacNaught (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, neither the Minister of Justice nor myself, under the constitution, can give an opinion of that nature.



COMPLETION OF TRANSLATION OF BEAUCHESNE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Maurice Lamontagne (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to answer a question asked by the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) about the translation of Beauchesne's. I am pleased to tell him that the work has been completed and the text sent to the publishers. It is expected that the proofs can be corrected within the next few weeks and that the work will be published in June or early July.
[Mr. Ricard.l


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey North):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Will the minister table the appraisal made by the international joint commission on the situation as to water levels in the great lakes, recently forwarded to the government by the commission?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I would be very glad to take that into consideration.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Raymond Langlois (Megantic):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Can he tell the house what steps he intends to take, in conjunction with the provincial government, to solve the problems of eastern farmers who are now in a deplorable economic stagnation?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think this is a wide, broad, general question to which perhaps the minister may have the answer, but I very much doubt if he could give a detailed answer at this time on such a wide question.


Hon. Harry W. Hays (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say we are working on it.


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture once again. My last question was pretty wide in scope, but the malaise existing in the eastern provinces is also pretty wide in scope. Has the government any announcement to make to the house with regard to what it intends to do to raise the low incomes of all eastern farmers?


Harry William Hays: Mr. Speaker, we are working on this matter on behalf of all the farmers in Canada.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not see where there is any supplementary question. Yesterday I ruled a similar question out of order but today I allowed it in order to get the matter settled. I do not see how any supplementary arises at this stage.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I just wanted to ask the minister whether he intends to establish a policy designed to help Canadian tobacco growers who are discriminated against by the Minister of National Health and Welfare?


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This is not the first time I have brought up the question in this house, as have other hon. members also. This matter was brought up last fall during the previous session, and right now the minister is delaying and taking his time in giving a definite answer.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is indulging in an argument, not raising a point of order.


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Speaker, this is a point of order. I think the minister should at least tell the eastern farmers what he intends to do to help them out of their financial problems which exist today and which are so very lamentable. I think the government are faced with some drastic measures which they will have to take sooner or later.


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. gentleman will study his standing orders he will see that he should not make argumentative statements at this time.



TOBACCO


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture, whom we are happy to see in the house?
In view of the fact that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss LaMarsh) has $400,000 at her disposal to undertake an advertising campaign against the use of tobacco, does the Minister of Agriculture intend to ask the house to vote a similar amount so as to assist tobacco growers who will be adversely affected thereby?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I have another question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
Inquiries of the Ministry Has she consulted the tobacco growers associations before publishing a volume against the use of tobacco?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.



PUBLICATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Prime Minister a question. Has there been any further development in the last week or so in government policy on daily newspaper ownership by other than Canadian interests? I raise the question now because of rumours in Toronto about the sale of certain newspapers to foreign interests.


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker, there has been no new development in the last week or so on this matter.



RAPESEED


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reynold Rapp (Humboldt-Melfort-Tis-dale):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Trade and Commerce which is of urgency before the western farmers start seeding. Since Canada is the world's largest exporter of rapeseed, and since this grain is not under the jurisdiction of the Canadian wheat board, would the minister not have his officials look into the possibility of finding additional markets, particularly in Asia, so the farmer can diversify his crops and not put all his eggs in one basket?


Mitchell William Sharp: I thank the hon. gentleman for acknowledging the great accomplishments of this government in the field of exporting rapeseed. I can assure him that not only are we following up this matter and trying to expand the market still further, but that an oil seeds mission is in fact about to leave for Japan.



SOCIAL INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert William Prittie: wonder if I could ask the Prime Minister whether he has signed up for a social insurance number yet.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am. waiting to get a suitable cameraman to take a picture of me doing so.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: My
question is directed to the Postmaster General. I wonder if the hon. gentleman can explain to the house why his report for 1963 which was tabled on April 2 has not as yet been delivered; at least I have not received my copy.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I have mine.


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Postmaster General):: My first information was that they would be put in the mail today, but I then asked if they could be delivered to hon. members' rooms and I was told they were all delivered before the house met this afternoon.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Would the Postmaster General say whether there had to be an alteration made to this report?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: There had to be a correction in the date of the report signed by myself. It was a clerical error; it had been dated earlier than the date when I took office. I noticed it myself and promptly had it corrected.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Does the same explanation apply to the letter signed by the deputy postmaster general?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I would think so. It is purely a question of the date. I caught it myself before distribution was made and directed that it be changed.


Mr. J. A. McBain (Elgin):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether the Postmaster General can say why the original copy that was tabled earlier on April 3 contained on page 5 a letter from the deputy postmaster general dated April 1, 1963 and addressed to Hon. Azellus Denis; because I believe the election did not take place until April 8 and the Postmaster General was not sworn in until April 22.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I asked the same question, and that resulted in the correction.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for
[Mr. Prittie.l
Wellington South asked me some time ago if the board of broadcast governors had arranged for a public hearing concerning the conversion plan for station CJBC in Toronto. I am informed by the B.B.G. that the board has no plans to hold a public hearing in this respect, and that the conversion involves a question of programming, which is a matter resting with the C.B.C. I am further informed that in the board's opinion it does not have the right to order a public hearing in this respect.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, I would like to answer the question asked by the hon. member for Oxford with respect to changes in the civil service application form. Section 40, paragraph 1 of the Civil Service Act requires the civil service commission to give preference to Canadian citizens either by birth or naturalization. To implement this the commission must verify claims to Canadian citizenship. This is done, without any discrimination, by asking for birth certificates in the case of citizens by birth and, in the case of others, by requesting information which will enable the commission to check claims against the records of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Has he had extensive representation for the removal of the sales tax on drugs in Canada; and if so, is the government contemplating taking that step?


Hon. Walter L. Gordon (Minister of Finance):: The answer is no to both questions, Mr. Speaker.



REFUNDS OF SALES TAX TO CHURCHES, SCHOOLS AND HOSPITALS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. R. Soulham (Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Minister of National Revenue. Could the minister say whether a satisfactory formula has been devised by the Department of National Revenue to provide the refund of the sales tax on building materials as it applies to

churches, schools and hospitals; and if not, when does he expect to have one?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It seems to me that this question requires further investigation than one could expect at this time. May I suggest the order paper.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. Have the 500 officers in the air force who are being retired prematurely been notified individually of their retirement, or are they still being kept in suspense?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether they have yet been notified, but if they have not they will be at once.
The hon. member for Bow River asked a question yesterday in this regard, and I may say now that approval has been given to a proposal to advance the release date of a number of R.C.A.F. aircrew and air traffic control officers. These officers numbering about 500 are surplus to present and anticipated requirements during the normal period of their unexpired service.
The group concerned consists of an equal number of short service commissioned officers, serving extensions, and permanent commissioned officers nearing the end of their service career. Their termination of service is in no way a reflection on the officers concerned. On the contrary, their loyal and devoted service is recognized. Both categories have been selected to preserve a reasonable age spread among aircrew officers. Future programming confirms that these personnel will remain surplus to requirements, and in consequence it is planned to release or retire them this summer. All concerned, both short service and permanent commissioned officers, are included in the special benefits plan now being considered by the government for service personnel no longer required.


Erik Nielsen: A supplementary question. Are similar mass lay-offs being planned among the officer personnel of the army and navy?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Reductions will take place whenever surpluses are determined and whenever it is not possible to provide adequate employment for the personnel.


Erik Nielsen: Could the minister advise the house whether he or his department is now 20220-141
Inquiries of the Ministry planning any such mass lay-offs in the army and navy among the officer personnel?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: There are no immediate plans in this direction but as the integration process goes forward reductions will take place in all three services, as announced previously.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. Is any extra compensation planned for these men who are being let out now before their service expires?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I have just indicated that the government is now considering a plan which will have this effect.



SHAWINIGAN, QUE.  AMOUNT OF CLOTHING STOLEN FROM ARMOURY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence which is based on an answer to a written question which was given me yesterday. It refers to the items and quantities of military equipment stolen from national defence property since last September, and my interest in part was as to the amount of military clothing which was taken from the Shawinigan armoury in Quebec, the amount being unknown to me.
The answer I received from the minister reads "Unknown amount of military clothing, February 20,	1964, Shawinigan armoury,
Shawinigan, Quebec". Can the minister explain that answer and give the house some indication why it is impossible to ascertain the amount of military equipment stolen?


Hon. Lucien Cardin (Associate Minister of National Defence):: I will be happy to look into this matter, Mr. Speaker.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, "looking into the matter" is scarcely enough. I placed a written question on the order paper which stood there for almost two months, and this is the type of answer which is produced. The quantity of equipment is unknown to me, and the answer I get is "quantity unknown". Surely this is a flagrant abuse of the rules affecting answers which should be given in the house.


Mr. Speaker:: The minister has said that he will look into the matter, and I think he should be given time to do so.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Speaker, the answer to this question was very voluminous and I cannot say any more at this time than that I will look into the matter.

Inquiries of the Ministry ARTS, LETTERS AND SCIENCES



SUBMISSIONS TO ROYAL COMMISSION BY MEMBERS OF PUBLIC SERVICE AND ARMED FORCES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker,
I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister.
Following the question I asked yesterday, could the Prime Minister tell us today whether federal civil servants can personally submit briefs to the Laurendeau-Dunton commission without fear of reprisals from the government? Are members of the armed forces in the same situation?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I said that I would look into this matter and reply as soon as I am able. I am not able to reply today, but I hope to do so either tomorrow or on Monday.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Mr. Speaker, my question is properly addressed to the Minister of Justice, but in his absence I will address it to the Prime Minister, since it concerns his riding. On page 11 of today's Globe and Mail a situation is revealed which violates or takes undue advantage of welfare payments. I am wondering whether the Prime Minister can tell us if the Department of Justice is investigating the possibility of prosecuting the people mentioned in this story for obtaining welfare payments under false pretenses.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker. I am not familiar with this story but I will be very happy indeed to look into it; and if the facts are as alleged I should think prosecution would be undertaken.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Percy Verner Noble: Mr. Speaker, I will direct this question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Is any research being carried on by the minister's department with a view to discovering ways

and means of curbing air pollution by vehicular traffic, which is becoming an increasingly serious threat to the health of the nation?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, my department is conducting research into air pollution generally and we are keeping a close eye on efforts aimed at reducing the noxious gases from internal combustion engines. We are also in close contact with the United States public health service, which is spending vast amounts of money on this problem, and we are expecting to benefit from any developments which may take place there. Also automobile manufacturers in Canada and the United States have intensive research projects under way with a view to introducing measures to control pollution.



CANADIAN FLAG


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Prince Edward-Len-nox):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Now that the Manitoba legislature has approved a bill naming the Canadian red ensign as their official flag, has the Prime Minister heard of any other legislative bodies which are about to follow this good example?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker.



PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. In view of the inauguration of the confederation hall which took place yesterday, no doubt the minister will allow us to congratulate him on having chosen such a name for this splendid hall.
Hon. J. P. Deschatelets (Minister of Public
Works): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to accept those congratulations which I shall pass on to those responsible, and not necessarily the minister.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: The previous government.



PUBLIC BUILDINGS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Cote (Chicoutimi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Public Works. Since the government is in favour of a bi-national confederation, has the Department of Public Works started to put bilingual inscriptions on federal buildings throughout Canada?


Mr. J. P. Deschatelets (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend's question deals with the national policy on public buildings throughout Canada. After I have secured the proper information I will be glad to answer him in a few days, or as soon as possible.



EARTHQUAKE DAMAGE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. Has the government received a request to name a representative to a committee to administer the Alberni valley and west coast disaster fund? If so, what action has the government taken on this request?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, it is quite true that I received a wire from Mayor Hammer of Port Alberni asking us to make such an appointment. This request was supported in a telephone conversation I had with Mr. Lawrence Wallace, deputy minister of welfare for the province. I told them I would hesitate to make an appointment to a committee to disburse a fund to which at this moment we were not contributors.
I think I should tell the house that, very commendably, the member for the riding returned to his riding and remained there for several days. I believe he will agree with me that in general the immediacy of the situation has been taken care of and that the opinion is firmly held and there is every confidence that full reconstruction will take place. As I have already reported to the house, we are awaiting the report of the Earle firm of adjusters, at which time we expect the provincial government to advise us of their intentions.
16, 1964
Electoral Boundaries Commission REDISTRIBUTION



PROVISION FOR BOUNDARIES COMMISSIONS AND READJUSTMENT OF REPRESENTATION

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, April 15, consideration in committee of Bill No. C-72, 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-Mr. Pickersgill (for Mr. Pearson)-Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.
On clause 1-Short title.
Mr. MacLean (Queens):: Mr. Chairman, I have a few brief remarks I should like to make.


Mr. Pickersgill:: Mr. Chairman, I believe the hon. member for Medicine Hat had the floor.


Mr. Patterson:: Mr. Chairman, I believe the hon. member for Medicine Hat had the floor yesterday.


John Angus MacLean: I am perfectly happy to defer to the hon. member.


Mr. Olson:: Mr. Chairman, I had spoken for about 30 or 40 seconds yesterday before five o'clock, and I will take about the same amount of time now on the first clause of the bill. I simply want to say that our party stated its position at the resolution stage. There are a number of questions we want to ask. We will seek a number of clarifications, particularly with regard to clauses 12 and 13. There are other clauses, of course, such as clause 17 with regard to which we will want a more detailed explanation. However, we are prepared now to proceed with the clause by clause study and to raise these matters as they come up. That is all we have to say at this point.


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Chairman, I have a few remarks I should like to make on this bill, which is being piloted through the house by the Minister of Transport. I am grateful to the minister for the open-minded view he is taking of the problems involved for the purpose of having as fair an assessment of the situation as possible made, with the hope that a solution can be arrived at which will have the general support of all parties in the house. I think this should be our objective. Some members are a bit mystified as to why the Minister of Transport should be piloting this bill, and someone has facetiously suggested that it has something to do with telegraphing votes. But having said that may I say I do not subscribe to that view at all.

Electoral Boundaries Commission


John Whitney Pickersgill: I can assure the hon. gentleman that is not in the least necessary in Newfoundland.


John Angus MacLean: There are two or
three things I wish to bring to the minister's attention. I have noted his statement that it is proposed to stand clause 13 until a later time because in his view it is controversial. Arguments have already been put forward by many members indicating why they believe there should be a greater variation than 20 per cent allowed from the unit of representation as far as certain areas are concerned. These arguments have chiefly had to do with rural areas. I agree with them, but I am not going to discuss that point further at this time.
However, I think this same principle applies with great force to another important segment of Canada, and I refer to suburbia. I commend to the minister's attention the speeches that have been made by the hon. member for Carleton and the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond, I believe, in this connection, as well as those by other members. I regret though that as I understand their remarks they have set out certain premises and have come to conclusions which are diametrically opposed to the conclusions that I think the premises justify.
If the minister will bear with me, I say that for this reason. They are concerned with rapidly growing areas in Canada, and I think it is the wish of everybody in the house that these areas should be fairly represented. But I should like to point out that I do not believe this objective can be achieved by having a limited deviation from the unit of representation. If you take the extreme case where the deviation has diminished to the vanishing point and you have an area with the exact population of the unit of representation in 1961-let us say 70,000 for the sake of argument-by the time the commission undertakes the redistribution of this area they will be forced under these circumstances to make the area one constituency regardless of its present population or its rate of growth. On the other hand, if there is a deviation of 20 per cent allowed they can cut the riding down to an area that had a population of roughly 54,000 in 1961, and this would be a desirable thing if it had grown very rapidly in the meantime and now had a population of perhaps 150,000. However, they could make the redistribution even fairer if they were given greater leeway to take into account the rapid growth that might occur from one redistribution to another. In some cases the growth will have already taken place since the last census by the time the commission undertakes the redistribution.

If you were to allow a deviation of 30 per cent, for example, you could take a riding with a population of 45,000 in 1961, let us say, and still make it into a riding now even if its population should be much above the unit of representation at the time the commissioners are making the readjustment. To take an extreme case, let us say you have an area where there were only 10 people living in 1961 and which may have a population now of 200,000. You would have to do the redistribution on the basis of the fact that there were 10 people living there in 1961. That would be the only variation that would be allowed.
I feel that perhaps this has been overlooked, but I believe if the minister studies these speeches carefully he will come to the conclusion to which I have come, namely that this is another forceful argument for allowing a greater tolerance, at least in this first redistribution which is being conducted on rather an experimental basis. In this way these rapidly growing areas can be reasonably well accommodated and they will not have a population the size of two normal constituencies even at the time they are created.
The other point I want to raise just for a moment relates to dual ridings. I hope the minister will be able to find himself in a position to have one of his colleagues move, at the proper time, that the appropriate section be amended to allow the commission to recommend the retention of the existing dual ridings if they so wish. I do not believe the commission should be obligated to maintain dual ridings, but I believe it should have that option. Dual ridings have perhaps some disadvantages but they also have advantages, and in some ways they are fairer than single ridings to the people who elect members to parliament.
I believe that in Prince Edward Island at first there were three dual ridings which were eliminated following the census of 1891, and five single ridings were created. At a later redistribution the dual ridings were again created, so there must have been a good reason for them. They have continued to be recreated at every redistribution since that time. I believe there is perhaps even greater force to the argument that the other dual riding should be retained, but I will not go into that argument.
However, I should like to give one illustration of what I am talking about. You could have a situation in an election when a member of parliament is elected to this house by a majority of one vote.


John Whitney Pickersgill: We have one.


John Angus MacLean: I agree with the theory that members of parliament represent everyone in their constituencies, the people who have voted against them as well as the people who have voted for them. I wholeheartedly support that view. Nevertheless, it is seldom that you have that sort of situation in a dual riding. In a single riding, as the political pendulum swings from one party to another you reach a point where a member is elected by a very small majortiy. In a dual riding it is very rare for the candidates of any one party to get exactly the same number of votes, although in the case of Queens the other member for Queens and I polled very close to the same vote on most occasions. In dual ridings there is usually a spread of votes between the candidates of any particular party, with the result that as the political tide moves you have an area in which you have members from two different parties elected. In that situation everybody in the riding feels that at least one of his men has been elected and he is represented in the House of Commons in a very particular way.
This is only one of the arguments for dual ridings. There are a number more. I am not wedded to any particular view as to whether dual ridings should be continued or eliminated, but I should like to see the commission concerned given the option of studying that particular question and then coming to whatever conclusion they may think proper rather than have parliament, in a rather arbitrary way, say that dual ridings should no longer exist.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if I might rise to speak to a point of order in a completely non-controversial way. My point of order does not relate to what the hon. gentleman said about dual ridings but is related to the first part of his speech. We did have, I thought, an understanding that we would save the discussion on tolerance until we got to clause 13. I did not want to interrupt the hon. gentleman, but I wonder if we could not agree to wait until we get to clause 13 in order to avoid having that debate twice.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: If I may speak to the point of order, I may say that on the first item I intend to speak about a number of subjects that are rather interlinked, one of which may be the tolerance factor. When we get to that particular section of the bill we can deal with that subject in particular way. However, on the first item we can deal with the subject in a general way and discuss how it will affect the whole situation.


John Whitney Pickersgill: We had a rather long debate on second reading in which this subject was rather well canvassed. I do not want to seem 20220-142
16. 1964
Electoral Boundaries Commission restrictive in any way, but I just wondered if hon. members did not feel they could keep this particular subject until we come to the clause dealing with it. I assume that the big debate is going to be on this subject, and I thought perhaps general observations could be made on the first clause.


John Angus MacLean: I was only trying to save time. I was trying to put forward this point of view so the minister would have time to consider it, because to my knowledge it has not been raised before.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not believe the point had been raised before.


John Angus MacLean: I did not want it to come as a surprise to the minister if he had not considered the point when the particular section came up. I had finished my remarks, and if the minister had not raised this point I would now be seated.


Gordon Minto Churchill: If I may speak to the same point the minister has raised, I would say I was not present yesterday. However, I have read Hansard very carefully and I did not interpret what was said by the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings as agreement on the proposition now put before us by the Minister of Transport. I intend to speak on item No. 1 and I may refer to the tolerance factor. It is all very well for the Minister of Transport to say we have had a lengthy debate on this subject, but there are some members who spoke on the resolution stage, some on second reading, and others have not had an opportunity as yet to speak. So far as I am concerned, I spoke for ten minutes the other night, and I will not submit to any restriction with regard to item No. 1.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate what the minister has said in relation to some restriction, and I should like to direct my introductory remarks to that point. I would have taken part in the debate on second reading, but since I wanted to particularize I thought the best way to do this would be to speak to clause 1 in committee. I hope that in so far as my remarks may be general and not particular there will be no agreement to prevent me from saying what I want to say. I hope to be brief, anyhow.
This is the first time I have had an opportunity of speaking on this subject because I was unavoidably absent during the debate at the resolution stage. I am sure the minister will bear with me. I believe we all want to congratulate the minister upon bringing forward a piece of legislation which will result in the establishment of an independent body to deal with redistribution and get away from any form of gerrymandering. Every ten years

Electoral Boundaries Commission we have a census, and as a result we find there has been an increase in the population of our country and we must therefore adjust our constituencies. We have all agreed on that. We have always tried to get some form of representation by population.
I believe the population of Canada at the present time is 18,238,247 and, irrespective of the method being used, it has always been the endeavour to follow some rule of representation by population. Of course we have never had a perfect formula, the reason being that we are put together as a rather complex country and we have some very complex problems; but I think any political science student or student of history would agree that we have tried to achieve, with some equity, representation by population.
Other problems have been mentioned. Sometimes the cartoonists in various newspapers have referred to the agriculturists of the country as wanting to have greater representation in the House of Commons than other groups. I think I can speak for that group in this regard, not only because 1 represent, as I said previously, a partly agricultural riding but because my early career was connected with agriculture. I do not think the farmers or agriculturists have ever asked for greater representation than other groups. This is just one of those things which grew up in the course of the development of the country itself.
Years ago, before western Canada became industrialized, it was primarily an agricultural area covering Saskatchewan, Alberta, Manitoba and even some parts of British Columbia, and because it was such a vast area there was a large tolerance factor given to it. One has only to look at a map of the prairies and see the constituency boundaries as they presently exist to realize how large some of the ridings are. I believe these will be subject to some real revolutionary change if some of the rumours we hear are true.
A number of these constituencies are 300 miles long. The boundary of the riding of Bow River extends west to the British Columbia border, and proceeds east of Calgary for about 100 miles. The constituency is about 70 miles deep; therefore it measures roughly 250 miles long and 60 or 70 miles wide. Like many other constituencies in Canada it surrounds a large city, the city of Calgary, whose suburban areas have moved out into former rural areas, with the result that for the last ten years one third of the riding's population has been formed by city people living in such areas as Thorncliff and Forest Lawn.
This might be a good time, when we are considering the equity that must be put in the bill with regard to the problem of tolerance,
	.
to place on record the fact that it is not unusual for a candidate to put anywhere from
12,000	to 20,000 miles on his car if he is to cover his constituency. This is the basic reason why the agriculturists, over the years, have had greater representation than the cities in the House of Commons, and as an analogy to that I should like to refer to the provinces themselves.
When we look at the composition of the provincial legislatures such as British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and even the eastern provinces, we find that the agricultural areas probably have greater representation in them than students of political science would like to see. The reason for this is the very one I have just outlined, and it is the reason we should consider this bill very carefully when we come to decide how much tolerance is to be given. It is because the primary industry of the country was, for many years, agriculture.
We all, even those members from western Canada, realize the tremendous industrial development that has taken place in eastern Canada; and we all know, including the minister himself, who I understand is a western raised boy from Manitoba, that the west also is becoming heavily industrialized and in the next ten or 20 years may become almost as industrialized as Ontario and Quebec.
Toronto at large has about 17 or 18 constituencies and some people feel that, because there has been pressure for closer representation by population, cities like it will get more representation. However, I am sure even the minister will agree that constituencies in the centres of cities, be they Calgary, Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver or Winnipeg, do not measure up now to the average quotient figure of 70,000 electors. Therefore they will be cut down and the suburban representation increased, with the result that the city of Toronto will probably gain only one constituency. I do not have the experts' figures here, but I believe that cities like Toronto and Montreal have not had representation by population for some time.
I have some figures here to show the discrepancies that exist in certain of the provinces. Alberta has a constituency with a population as low as 42,000 while the hon. member for Calgary North, who I am glad to see is in his seat, has the largest riding, holding some 134,000 people. The lowest population constituency in New Brunswick has about 23,000 people, while Saint John has 101,000. Ontario has one constituency, I believe Bruce, with a population of 29,000, while York-Scarborough has a population of 267,000. Quebec has one constituency with a population as low as 12,000, while the

constituency of Merrier in Montreal has a population of some 250,000 odd, almost the same size as York-Scarborough.
These figures are not exact, but they illustrate the facts I am emphasizing. Manitoba has one constituency as low as 40,000 and another with a population as high as 116,000. Saskatchewan has one as low as
37,000	and another with a population as high as 95,000. These figures speak for themselves. They emphasize that not only is there not representation by population, because the scales appear to have been weighted heavily in favour of the rural areas, but also show that representation by population is not true of the city areas because there has been a tremendous influx of population into the suburban areas, and that is why members of parliament sometimes find they are representing as many as 200,000 people.
Now, I want to go into the principle for a few moments, and in doing so I wish to refer to section 51(1) of chapter 304 of the federal statutes, which is an amendment to the British North America Act, well known to the minister and other hon. members present. It outlines five rules. Basically there are 18,238,247 people in Canada; more than 18 million. The first thing you have to do is look at the rule. Section 51, subsection (1) says:
Subject as hereinafter provided, the number of members of the House of Commons shall be 263.
Looking at that, one would think there would be no problem at all. One could merely divide the 263 into the total population. But there are some safeguards which have been introduced in order to protect minority rights, and to protect those provinces where expansion has been slower than in the rest of Canada. Let us look at the formula we have today. We have what we call a Senate cushion; that is an expression I would coin in this regard. Under this arrangement there cannot be fewer members in the House of Commons from a province than there are senators from that province. I believe this rule is well known to the minister, but at this time I believe it would pay us to review the situation.
So the first thing to do is to subtract the members from those provinces which are affected by that arrangement. If you take 263 members as laid down by the act, you must then subtract the members representing the provinces to which I have referred. What are the provinces which would benefit under the redistribution proposals at the present time? I am informed they are New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island; the Yukon and the Northwest Territories are excluded anyhow, so we can forget about them. But there are ten in New Brunswick, four in Prince Edward
16. 1964	2241
Electoral Boundaries Commission Island, one in the Yukon and one in the Northwest Territories. This adds up to 16. Deduct 16 from 263 and you arrive at the quotient, a figure which comes to 247.
Let me review briefly what I have said. The act calls for 263 members. We deduct the representation of those provinces which, because of their lower population due to a lack of expansion, cannot have fewer members than they have senators. This number amounts to 16, bearing in mind the Yukon and the Northwest Territories. We are then left with 247. Now, the population of Canada is 18 million in round figures. Next we take the population of New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, the Yukon and the Northwest Territories and we subtract the total from the 18 million. This gives us a figure of about 17.5 million people. Then in order to arrive at the quotient we divide this latter figure by 247 and we find that every constituency, if we could achieve perfect boundaries and true representation by population, would contain approximately 70,800 people. Now, there are in western Canada, as everyone knows, 24 senators; I believe there are six from each province. The rule which protects the maritimes against losing their representation and which excludes them from the strict rule of representation by population does not apply and has not applied to western Canada because our population has for a number of years been much higher than the floor provided. The safeguards which protect the maritimes certainly do not protect western Canada because I trust we shall always have more representation than six members from Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. In this regard one might say this afternoon, though I do not wish to press the point, that western Canada, in the absence of any other rules, has been discriminated against.
It would be interesting, I think, to put on record the degree of representation at the present time. Newfoundland, the new home of the minister, at the present time has seven members. Let us see what might happen under the formula which is before the committee now. Those seven members would be retained. Nova Scotia has 12 members and this number would be reduced to 11. Quebec has 75 members whose number might be reduced by one to 74. Ontario has at present 85 members and this province would gain three seats for a total of 88. So while Quebec would lose one, Ontario would gain three. Manitoba at the present time has 14 members and would lose one, its representation being reduced to 13. Saskatchewan would be the hardest hit. At the present time the province is represented by 17 members and it would

Electoral Boundaries Commission appear, if this formula is not changed, that its representation would be reduced from 17 to 13.
An interesting point occurs to me. I know that the administration, or the officials of the department, may not agree with me about this. Possibly the officials of the Department of Justice would not agree with me, either. But I believe there is food for thought in section 51, something which has been carefully analysed by this committee. As far as I know -and the minister may have some other information, because I have worked on this for only a short time and there may be judicial interpretations of section 51(1), although I do not think there are, because I do not believe the matter has ever come before the courts-


An hon. Member:: What act?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The British North America Act. Let me read an extract from rule 5. It says:
On any such readjustment the number of members for any province shall not be reduced by more than fifteen per cent below the representation to which such province was entitled under rules 1 to 4-
Rules 1 and 4 of the said act I have already discussed; that is how we arrive at the quotient of 70,842 if there is to be perfect representation by population. So what they say is this. If Saskatchewan had 20 representatives in 1952, because rule 5 of section 51 provides they cannot be reduced to 12 or 15-12, I believe it was-rule 5 applied and they got 17 members. So Saskatchewan, because of that special rule 5, has been given more representation since 1952 than otherwise it would have been given. The administrative officials, I believe, say this. It may be correct. But I think there should be some hard thinking on this point that because the rule was applied on the last occasion it cannot be applied again. That is interesting. If members will look at this section they will find it says:
-than any other province that according to the results of the then last decennial census did not have a larger population; but for the purposes of any subsequent readjustment-
And we are dealing with a subsequent readjustment now.
-of representation under this section any increase in the number of members of the House of Commons resulting from the application of this rule shall not be included-
I say this to the minister. We are not increasing the number of members of the House of Commons by this legislation. That is the first question I pose. We are not increasing the members of the House of Commons. We will probably end up with 264 members where previously we had 265. Under the formula we

will now arrive, properly and legally, at 264. So we are not increasing the over-all picture in Canada.
I will come to the next question, Mr. Chairman, which I think the minister should consider very carefully. We are not increasing the number of members of parliament from the province of Saskatchewan. So if we are not increasing them at large and we are not increasing them provincially, I ask the minister to consider with his legal officers whether rule 5 does not apply today. This is a subsequent readjustment. I am going to emphasize this point because it is awfully important to western Canada and to the members sitting here from Saskatchewan. If that province is going to lose four seats it may be very important to them. If the legal officers are wrong, and if the interpretation of this section happens to be different, Saskatchewan may only lose two instead of four, and this means a great deal to western Canada.
This is a question I pose to you, Mr. Minister. I want to read this again because I think it is very important:
-but for the purposes of any subsequent readjustment of representation under this section any increase in the number of members of the House of Commons resulting from the application of this rule shall not be included-
I ask this question once again. We are not increasing the number of members in this house; we are decreasing them by one. The legislation will reduce by four the members who represent Saskatchewan. Was there a question that you wanted to ask?


Mr. Choquelie:: The only question is, how long are you going to speak?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: All I say to you, sir, is that if you want to go out for an afternoon cup of coffee and you are not interested in the seriousness of this bill, that is what I suggest you do.


Auguste Choquette: I am interested in the bill.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I say with the greatest respect, and I think the minister will agree with me, that I am raising some pretty serious questions as far as western Canada is concerned.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, Hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I assume the hon. member is addressing the Chair.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I am, and I assume that you are doing the same thing at the moment while you are sitting down.


Mr. Dinsdale:: Touche.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I was just wondering, in view of what the hon. member said, whether you, sir, were planning to go out for a cup of coffee.


An hon. Member:: Do you know you look like Red Skelton?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Well, I may look like him, but I haven't his bankroll.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, while the hon. member is looking for his notes I wonder if he would entertain a serious question.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Yes, I would.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is an admission as to the last one. As the hon. member knows, all of us are concerned about the application of these senatorial floors, and some of us have some views about them in terms of what they do to the balance of representation. Is it not correct that for all practical purposes the provinces of western Canada have a floor of ten, in view of the fact that their population is greater than the populations of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: They have a floor of ten.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is there not a rule in section 51 which says that no province shall have fewer members than another province with lesser population? Therefore though by one part of section 51 our floor in the prairie provinces seems to be six because we have only six senators-as far as I am concerned that is six too many-in point of practical arithmetic our floor is ten, is it not?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, as long as the population of Saskatchewan remains greater than the population of Nova Scotia or New Brunswick. I just picked Saskatchewan because, though I think at the last census, Saskatchewan was slightly higher than Manitoba, I think now the population of Manitoba is higher than the population of Saskatchewan. But they are the only two provinces that seem in any possible peril at the present time. It would appear to me that the hon. gentleman is quite right and that ten is the practical floor for Manitoba and Saskatchewan.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I agree with the minister, and the only reason I raised the question of six was this. I said that if the rule was applicable to the west, then I agree with the hon. member's interpretation in that regard.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I thank my hon. friend.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Thank you. I know that all of us have done some studying of this matter. I certainly am not by any means holding myself out as an expert, because this matter is pretty complicated, and needs a lot of research. I would say that members of the House of Commons who have been here for a considerable length of time, who have seen much of this legislation pass and have been
16. 1964
Electoral Boundaries Commission here at other times when we have readjusted the constituencies, have that experience which I do not enjoy.
I want to deal with several particular points that I have tried to make. First of all I say that to be fair to western Canada we must have a high tolerance. I know what the answer is going to be, and it can be debated. It is said that at the present time-and you can point a finger at us-we in western Canada have more Conservative members of parliament. But I would say this is supposed to be a long term or long time bill; the formula as to tolerance will probably change with changing circumstances. However, the fact is that we should forget about where the representation is from, and I say that western Canada will be discriminated against by the fact that Saskatchewan will lose four members.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the hon. member would permit a question. He says that western Canada would be discriminated against by the loss of four members. Of course the matter of how many members are given to each province is not in question in this bill, as the hon. member has recognized; it is governed by the constitution of Canada. Any discrepancy, therefore, between rural and urban representation would be within the constitution. Does not the hon. gentleman think that the discrepancies are far greater in eastern Canada, particularly in what he and I were brought up to call eastern Canada-I mean Ontario and Quebec *-than they are in western Canada? I think the difference between Scarborough and Bruce is far greater than the difference between Calgary North and Bow River.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I agree with the minister, but as I pointed out earlier in my remarks, the discrepancy between York-Scarborough and other constituencies in Toronto is identical with the discrepancy with regard to Bow River, because the change must come within the whole of Toronto proper. I feel we should protect the people of western Canada and other people concerned in just the same way as the maritimes are protected by the rule to which I have referred. I believe the tolerance figure-particularly because we have so many rural constituencies-should be at a higher level.
I have said that I think we should take a careful look to see whether rule 5 can be interpreted in the narrow sense, whether it does or does not apply to a second occasion. I think also that we should be very careful with regard to the tolerance used in connection with large areas and rural constituencies. I have also mentioned the difficulty of getting around a large rural constituency in western

Electoral Boundaries Commission Canada. I said, and I repeat, that I do not think the farmers or agriculturists have asked for a heavier representation in the house; it is done to assist the member to better represent the area from which he comes.
Therefore I say that if we wished to have true representation by population we would repeal the whole of section 51 and the other rules that apply. I think we should make certain in the act itself that the commission set up is an independent body. I will discuss this question more fully when the particular clause comes before the committee, but I think it should be set out very clearly that the head of that commission should be the chief justice of the province or a member of a superior court, appointed by him. It says as worded now, "from his court". That might be interpreted to mean merely the court of appeal, which would include the remaining three or four judges. Perhaps the chief justice would feel that, because the act suggests his appointment he has an obligation or responsibility to appoint someone other than himself. But whether the chief justice of one province or another has been appointed by a Conservative or by a Liberal government, I want to say that in the 20 years in which I have been before the bar I have found, particularly with men at the chief justice level, that they are not only steeped in jurisprudence but have been carefully chosen not only because of their wisdom but because of their public relations ability to understand all forms and levels of human behaviour. I feel that a man of that calibre is the kind we need to head these commissions, if we are to have ten commissions in Canada, or if we are going to have just one commission with subcommittees, whichever the case may be. The bill at the present time proposes to set up ten separate commissions.
With regard to placing an objection before the commission itself. I think that ten days is not long enough and that it should be extended to 60 days or even longer. I would also ask whether the objectors are going to be armed with all the information. First of all, they should be allowed to see the proposed maps of the province delineating the constituencies and what each constituency will contain by way of population, so as to enable them to decide whether they have real objection. Probably that is the reason that the tolerance figure should be enlarged to 30 or 35 per cent, because it is just impossible for some areas to be represented by one member of parliament only owing to its diversification. For example, I draw the analogy of my own riding, which has the tourist trade of Banff, coal mining in Canmore and Drumheller, the
[Mr. Woolliams.l

ranchers in the foothills and the wheat growers around Drumheller. There is a great diversification of industry in the province and it might be better that those people with similar interests be in one area.


The Chairman:: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but his time expired at four o'clock; in view of the interruptions I thought he should be allowed an additional five minutes.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If the hon. member has a sentence or two perhaps the committee would be tolerant, Mr. Chairman.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Well, I am just finishing. I feel that wherever possible the constituencies will keep the nucleus which they have. If the constituencies are going to be enlarged, it is far better that the nucleus be retained because those people residing in the constituencies have often lived there for years. Sometimes their fathers and grandfathers have grown up in constituencies like Bow River, Saskatoon, Regina or Winnipeg. So wherever possible the nucleus should be kept together.
One other point arises here. Where a discretion is given to the commission itself, I should like to know what kind of discretion will be exercised. What is meant by an equitable discretion? How far can the person exercising the discretion go? Should there be a legal floor? Is the legal floor quotient to be
70,000	with a 30 per cent drop or rise? That is the question. How much is to be left to the discretion of the commission? I hope that the commissions will not turn out to be a rubber stamp for other people's work. I hope that, whatever the tolerance be, when a change is made it is made equitably and with proper discretion. I would emphasize that if evidence is prepared for the commission, and I think evidence has to be prepared, it should be made available to anybody who requires it, so that if an objection is made the objector is armed with the same material as the commissioners or the counsel who appears before the commission.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, I will take only two or three minutes of the committee's time to make one or two suggestions. The first is in connection with a matter brought forward to some extent a little while ago by the hon. member for Queens, namely that some consideration should be given to the growth which is taking place in certain areas since the last census was taken. By the time the commissions which are appointed report, it will have been at least four years since the last census was taken, and during that period a considerable change in population will have taken place in certain districts. I would

suggest that one of the terms of reference for the commissions concerning the general rules under which they would operate should be that consideration shall be given to the growth which has taken place in some areas since the last census was taken. I also suggest that consideration be given to what one might call growth areas, areas in which it is quite apparent that growth will continue. If that is done, we will obviate very severe discrepancies arising in the future no matter what the tolerance be. I hope that something might be written into one of the clauses of this bill which would lay this down as a consideration which the commissions would have to take under advisement, when deciding what are the boundaries of the various constituencies.
I mention this particularly, because I have seen the bad effect caused by the absence of this consideration in my own city of Calgary. Prior to the last redistribution in 1952 there were in effect three constituencies in the city. There was Bow River, which took in the eastern part of the city plus the rural area to the east and to the north of it; there was Calgary east, which I represented and which really took in the central part of the city and the rural area to the south; and there was Calgary west, which took in the western part of the city and the rural area to the west and north.
In the Redistribution Act of 1952, in spite of the fact that a considerable amount of growth in population had taken place in the city of Calgary since the previous census was taken, and that it was quite apparent that this would continue at a very rapid rate, the number of constituencies was cut down to two, with the result that the two constituencies in Calgary at the present time are two of the most populous constituencies in Canada. I hope that mistakes of this kind will not be repeated and that the inclusion of a provision something along the lines I have suggested in the terms of reference of the commissions will ensure that there be some insurance, shall I say, against a constituency becoming too large in terms of population before the next revision of boundaries takes place.
The only other point I want to mention at this time is with regard to some remarks made by the Minister of Transport yesterday to the general effect that it was undesirable to have mixed rural and urban constituencies. If I misinterpreted what he said I know he will correct me. I think that the converse is the case. Mixed rural and urban constituencies are very desirable and from many points of view. For eight years I represented a mixed rural and urban constituency, and as far as the interest of the people is concerned, and as far as the more impartial attitude, shall I say,
16, 1964
Electoral Boundaries Commission toward questions affecting urban people on the one hand and rural people on the other is concerned, a member who represents a mixed constituency of that sort has a great advantage. I say that because he gets both points of view and can also do something to reconcile those points of view when they are opposed to each other. Therefore, rather than making any attempt to try and ensure that constituencies are either purely urban or purely rural, I would hope that there would be a considerable number of constituencies which would at least be of a mixed nature.
As far as the composition of this chamber and the representation of the people of Canada is concerned, I think that this would be of distinct advantage rather than disadvantage. I put that before the minister, ask him to think about it and perhaps reconsider the attitude he expressed before.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder whether the hon. gentleman would permit me to say that really what I was doing yesterday was trying to agree with the hon. member for Regina City who had made the point. I had not given much thought to it, and perhaps the hon. member could carry on the debate with the hon. member for Regina City. The matter is very unlikely to arise in my case anyway.


Mr. More:: Mr. Chairman, I do not want words put in my mouth. I did not say that mixed constituencies were inappropriate. I said that the complaint from my area had been that people outside the area of the city could not vote together with the city people. I did not say anything about mixed constituencies.


John Whitney Pickersgill: All I did was agree with what the hon. gentleman said, and if I misunderstood him I did not know what I was agreeing with. In any case I can assure the hon. member I have no intention of seeking to direct anyone in this matter and I really have no very strong views on it one way or the other.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, I was not thinking of the matter from the point of view of its possible application to the Minister of Transport. I was thinking of it from the general point of view of improving representation and thus the welfare of the country as a whole, as I am sure the minister is. But one reason in particular why I have mentioned this matter is that at the present time there is a considerable area around every urban centre of any size in which the majority of the people are really people primarily interested in and connected with the city. They live in the country but they earn their livelihood in the city. Their interests lie primarily in the city although in many cases

Electoral Boundaries Commission they may carry on some sort of small agricultural enterprise and sometimes not so small.
In the case of my own city of Calgary, for at least 20 miles in every direction around Calgary perhaps two thirds of the total population are people who work in the city of Calgary, who gain their livelihood there but live outside the city limits. This is another reason why I think a certain amount of what I call mixing of urban and rural areas is a good thing. The fact is that in many cases the attaching of a portion of rural area to a city riding simply means that you are including in that riding for the most part people whose interests are primarily in the city rather than in the rural area. These are the only two suggestions I wish to make. With regard to the first one in particular, I hope the minister can find some way to include it in a definite form somewhere in the bill.


Mr. Bell:: Mr. Chairman, I have a suggestion I should like to put forward, but first of all may I say I do not agree with the statements made by some that because New Brunswick has a senatorial floor everything is rosy. We are going to have some very serious problems when the final decisions are made. We have communication problems. In addition, the French-English situation in New Brunswick has to be considered in the new constituencies. I see that the hon. member for Charlotte is following the debate very closely. His riding is alongside mine. The population of my riding is four times that of his, but I think we both have many problems. He has to cover the islands and a tremendous extent of coastline. I do not consider that either one of us works harder than the other, but there is the problem of keeping in touch with people which looms larger in a rural riding than in a large metropolitan area.
This leads me to my proposal. I suggest that when we come to clause 13 it might be possible in some way to stagger the tolerance so that, looking ahead to the census of 1971 and the results that might be anticipated then, we could have some fairly general objectives. There will probably be two elections before 1971. There will be a census, of course, in 1966 and another in 1971. I do not want to go into any detail now, but it might be possible to place the tolerance at 30 per cent now and 20 per cent in 1971 with the result that we would have some objectives to work toward.
I think this would have a fairly good effect, in that it might answer some of the problems raised by the hon. member for Queens (Mr. MacLean) with regard to the tremendous
[Mr. Harkness.l
growth of urban areas. I looked at the parliamentary guide where there are some interesting facts. My own constituency includes the greater Saint John area, which I suppose is the population centre of New Brunswick, although Fredericton and Moncton are becoming larger each day. I noted that in 1867 the constituency was Saint John city. A little later it became Saint John city and county. Then Albert county was added and it became Saint John city and county and Albert county. Saint John city and county and Albert county had two members, but before 1935 one member was taken away from the dual constituency. This is the situation now. There is one member from Saint John city and county and Albert county. I would imagine that after the changes are made resulting from this legislation we will almost be back where we were in 1867, regardless of the tolerance, with one member for Saint John city as we know it now, in the same way as there was one member for Saint John city in 1867. I do not know what this proves. I suppose it shows that after 100 years we are right back where we started so far as redistribution is concerned.
But without entering into all the details of my constituency or with regard to New Brunswick generally. I throw out the suggestion quite seriously that it might be possible to formulate some definite idea as to what our final objectives should be for 1971 so that the dislocation of constituencies and members will not be as great. This factor looms very large in the maritimes. I am not speaking in any partisan political way, but I would point out that in the maritimes the member becomes closely identified with the voters. If we start to change the constituencies then, no matter whether the member is hard working like the hon. member for Charlotte and myself, it will take quite a few years for the member to become identified in the same way with his constituents. If we could spread out the process over a ten year period it would not be undemocratic and I think everybody would be better off.
There is another point that has not been put forward lately but which I think should be considered. It has to do with the tolerance, but I merely bring it forward in a general way so that we can be prepared for it. I should like to know what difference there would be in the actual boundaries with a tolerance of 20 per cent as opposed to a tolerance of 30 per cent. In other words, are the serious initial changes not made at the 20 per cent level, and how much greater would the difference be at the 30 per cent level? I am thinking of a figure of 30 per cent and I am wondering what greater dislocation there would be with an additional 10 per cent tolerance.

Perhaps the minister might prepare himself to say something on this point in a general way. I appreciate that he certainly does not want to deal with what he thinks will be the result for every constituency in the country, but it is my impression that once the changes have been made at the 20 per cent level there may not be that much more difference. In other words, you are really only playing around with a few housing developments in the urban areas.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, I think we should examine with the greatest of care the bill now before us. I appreciate the desire of the Minister of Transport to get this thing pushed ahead. That is the general idea when you are on the government side. My experience in the House of Commons has been that legislation does not normally detain the house unless it is highly controversial. On the other hand, legislation that is put through the House of Commons sometimes contains errors. Our job as legislators is to examine legislation with the greatest care when it comes before us. If there is any wasted time in the house, it is wasted on other aspects of our life here. I feel therefore it is important for us, when we are dealing with something which is going on the statute books, to make sure it is correct.
We have had plenty of experience with having to alter bills which have been brought before us. We have accepted in principle the bill to set up a brand new system to deal with redistribution. The principle which has met with general acceptance here has been to remove from the field of political controversy one of the most highly controversial subjects that affects politicians. Having done that, we are not content with making this major change, the first one in a hundred years, but some people want to go further and place certain restrictions within the bill. The advocates of strict representation by population have been heard. I am suggesting that we move slowly on some of these matters and that we examine the situation which has existed in the past in Canada.
The other night when I was restricted as to time and was speaking on the second reading of the bill, I indicated I had some concern with regard to what might be in the minds of the commissioners. The mere fact you select a man as a commissioner does not endow him with any special intellectual capacity to judge an issue. The persons who are going to be selected as commissioners are not likely to be persons who have had practical experience in politics. They may be men of very sound judgment, and I hope they are. Nevertheless, there has to be a 20220-143
16, 1964	2247
Electoral Boundaries Commission background of experience for persons who are going to decide a question as important as this particular one.
I am not at all sure that the commissioners who will be working on this job will have the necessary background. I expressed some concern the other night that they might ignore the opinions expressed in the House of Commons. I hope they do not. I expressed concern that they might be swayed by opinions, one way or the other, expressed in this house, and they might not get the consensus of the House of Commons with regard to this particular matter. I suggested that if the commissioners had, over the years, given any serious consideration to the matter, they might have been imbued with the theory of "rep by pop" and might be swayed that way unduly. I did suggest, too, that I was converted from the "rep by pop" attitude a number of years ago. I went into that subject very fully at one time, and I certainly changed my mind when I came to study the Canadian scene and the redistributions that have occurred in Canada.
I want the commissioners to have in their minds the fact that in this country we never have had strict representation by population, attractive as that idea is. In fact, we have varied from it in every redistribution. We are living at the moment under the redistribution that took place about ten years ago, the ninth redistribution. There were eight former redistributions, starting from confederation. The quota per member rose from
18,000	to 54,000 when we reached the ninth redistribution, and the number of members has increased from 200 to 262. The difference in population by constituencies has varied all the way from a low of 10,000 to a high of 40,000 in the first two redistributions and from 10,000 to 80,000 or more in the six later redistributions. Prior to the ninth redistribution made about ten years ago, there was a constituency in Canada with a population of 10,000; one with 17,000; one with 18,000; and at the top of the scale there was one with 159,000; another with 115,000 and another 101,000. In all of the eight redistributions prior to the one of 1952, only one tenth of the constituencies were within the allotted quota of population, which gives hon. members an idea of the great discrepancies that have persisted.
Hon. members have pointed out the great discrepancies that persist at the present time. These are most noticeable within the large cities. These figures have been put on the record, so I will not repeat them. I am interested in attempting to use this medium to instruct the commissioners with regard to the history of redistribution in our country.

Electoral Boundaries Commission I should like them to reflect upon the exceptions that have been made to the representation by population principle. Mark you, when people in the past were talking about redistribution, they always mentioned the necessity of equalizing the many constituencies. Sir Wilfrid Laurier suggested the population should be equalized between the constituencies of Canada; that municipal boundaries should be considered and there should be a larger number of people in urban than in rural constituencies. Sir Robert Borden agreed with that attitude and added that attention should be paid to community of interest and geographical features. So, down through the years people have had these factors in mind, but the diversity has occurred year after year.
Let us not forget, as was pointed out a few minutes ago, that if redistribution takes place within the next 12 months, we will then be four years away from the census. If the election is deferred for another two years, we will be six years away from the census. The growth of the various urban and suburban populations will inflict upon certain areas the discrepancies that are apparent at the present moment. I hope to deal with that matter in a minute or two, if I have the chance.
Then, I hope that the commissioners will have in mind all the exceptions to representation by population which have been so numerous amongst our provinces. From 1914 to 1946, Ontario retained 82 seats although by 1933 she should have had only 78. This situation resulted from a special clause in the British North America Act which has since been repealed. In 1915 the senatorial floor was placed in the act which has given protection to the Atlantic provinces. When the province of Manitoba was formed a good many years ago, her population was too small to warrant even one member, but she was given four. That was in anticipation of an increase in population.
When British Columbia entered confederation her population would have entitled her to one member, and she was given six. In 1886, prior to the formation of the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta, the Northwest Territories were allotted four seats, although only two would have been justified on the basis of their population. In 1903 the territories were given ten members, although they were entitled to only six.
We are also familiar with the splitting of the Yukon and the Mackenzie into two seats, although their population factor would not warrant so high a representation. The commissioners should bear this in mind when they try to work out the application of representation by population. In fact, in the history of Canada we have never had it, and we are not

going to have it in the future. It is not going to be strictly applied because of the tremendous growth of urban centres presently taking place, and that is why we may be making a mistake in the legislation we are placing on the statute books.
This is a one-shot effort by the commissioners. We are not making provision for a review of the constituencies in two or three years time, yet all of us realize how quickly suburban developments can be put up in this country, and how quickly thousands of people will move into a certain area.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder would the hon. gentleman permit a question. On June 1 each year the dominion bureau of statistics publishes estimates of population. Does he think that a commission, in working out the tolerances, should take into account the growth that has taken place since 1961?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I think that matter should be seriously considered by the committee, in view of the fact that the finding will be made four years after the last census; but that does not answer my other problem.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I merely asked the question because that is what I thought the hon. gentleman was driving at, and I agree with it.


Gordon Minto Churchill: It is one factor that should be taken into account because, even where I live in Ottawa, a suburban development started last fall. It is going up at a rapid pace and soon there will be several thousands of people living not very far from me, on what was vacant land just five months ago. The committee should examine the bill to see if some amendments could be made along that line. But that does not answer the problem that will arise prior to the next decennial census. Supposing there is an election-and don't get nervous-in 1965, and then another one before 1971; that means there will be two elections before the 1971 census, with perhaps another following two or three years later, with the result that we shall again be out of balance.
The only answer to that problem is perhaps what they have done in Great Britain. That is why I drew attention to the experience of Great Britain, when I was speaking the other night. I hope the commissioners will examine the activities of the British people in trying to solve this problem of redistribution. They coped with it in 1944 and they amended their act in 1947, with the express purpose of relaxing the rigid formula of a 25 per cent tolerance which they had written into it. They wiped that out, and they consolidated the act in 1949. They have passed two amending bills since that time, which have not seriously upset the main basis of their operation, and I

hope the commissioners will look into their experience. In fact, I hope the committee will examine this British practice because it is a country which has had the experience of doing this for some 20 years.
As I understand it, although they do not want their boundary commissions to be changing the constituency boundaries every year, nevertheless they are in a position to make changes if the population increases at a rather great rate in certain areas, and we should be prepared to do something like that.
They also have some leeway, so far as England is concerned, with regard to the membership of the House of Commons. It is a loosely worded phrase, but it does permit them to alter the membership a little bit. This might be necessary in some instances where you require an extra seat by splitting a very large constituency. I do not see why we should not have a look at that, especially when we are putting on the statute books something that is to apply for a considerable length of time.
I would like the commissioners to look at the British practice. I would like this committee to examine the situation in Great Britain where they have their four area divisions of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland; and for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland a fixed number of seats has been written into the act. This has been done in order to provide for representation to less populated regions, so that they can maintain their position of representation within the House of Commons and not gradually be cut down-they will not pass out of existence-to the point where their representation would be very low.
I think a relationship can be shown between the situation in Canada and the situation in Great Britain. Here in Canada we have a situation, by the process that has been going on under the senatorial floor, which is written into the act, where the Atlantic provinces correspond to, say, Wales or Scotland, because under the floor for the Atlantic provinces the number of seats in the maritimes will not drop below 31. They will drop to 32 in this redistribution, but they will not go below 31, and even if the populations of Quebec and Ontario were to increase at the same rapid rate they have shown in the last ten years-which is about 3 per cent -the representation from the Atlantic provinces will be maintained in the house. I favour this. I think it is proper and I would not like to see that representation reduced.
Why should we not seriously consider something like that for other parts of Canada? Some hon. members have pointed out the effect the present redistribution will have on Manitoba and Saskatchewan. In 1952, by 20220-1431
Electoral Boundaries Commission quite a bit of skilful footwork, the representation of Saskatchewan was not as seriously reduced as could have been the case. But we are now faced with the situation, pending the interpretation which the hon. member for Bow River has asked for, whereby Saskatchewan will lose four seats and Manitoba will lose one.
Here is a major discrepancy which I think we can avoid if we give serious attention to the bill before us and make a proper amendment. Under the census of 1961 the combined population of the four Atlantic provinces was given as 1,897,425. Now under the distribution of seats to which they are entitled at the present moment they will have a combined total of 32 which gives them a quotient of 59,294. Set that against Manitoba and Saskatchewan. The combined population of those two prairie provinces is 1,846,867 according to the 1961 census-only 30,000 fewer than the population of the four Atlantic provinces. The seats to which they will be entitled under the redistribution now contemplated will be 26 and the quotient per constituency will be 71,033 which is, incidentally, higher than the quotient which has already been estimated for Canada as a whole. Here, with our eyes open, we are establishing a discrepancy between two very important areas of this country. I suggest we should guard against doing so, because why should the Atlantic provinces have 32 seats in this house while the prairies provinces of Manitoba and Saskatchewan with a population almost the same, have only 26? Immediately one finds a variation of six seats as between two of the great areas of Canada. This situation is one which 1 think should be examined.
Then, as has been pointed out, we have a somewhat nebulous protection, which I think has been mentioned, for the provinces out there in the absence of a senatorial floor. So by 1971 it is conceivable that Manitoba and Saskatchewan representation could drop from 26 seats to 20 and that the Atlantic provinces would then have 31.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think the hon. gentleman has forgotten the 15 per cent rule. I do not think it would be possible to fall from 15 to ten in one single drop.


Gordon Minto Churchill: We have to get a legal opinion on that 15 per cent rule, do we not?


John Whitney Pickersgill: On the basis which is usually accepted, not on the interesting variant which was offered by the hon. member for Bow River.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Interesting variants are very acceptable in this house sometimes. I am pointing out what might happen unless we

Electoral Boundaries Commission take the time to examine this bill very carefully. One does not like to be continually apologetic, or on the defence, but again let me say I am not approaching this matter on a partisan basis at all.
I have been trying to make a serious study of this situation. Twelve years ago I came to the conclusion that in the light of the history of redistribution in this country we should accept the fact that we cannot get strict representation by population, desirable as that might be, and that we should allow for area or regional representation as we already do in the case of the Atlantic provinces. I direct the attention of the committee to the fact that area representation or regional representation for Manitoba and Saskatchewan might be the answer to this particular problem. It is difficult to forecast population trends accurately. I tried to do so 1-2 years ago, and when I look back at my records now I see I underestimated the trend. But I did foresee the increase in population in Ontario and Quebec and the loss of seats in some of the other provinces.
It appears at the present time, however, that the increase in population in the central industrialized provinces will go ahead faster than in the Atlantic provinces or in the prairie provinces, though the population is increasing at a good rate in Alberta and British Columbia. While I am suggesting consideration of regional representation in order to avoid too great a discrepancy between two very important areas of our country, I am at the same time suggesting that this will not change the balance of power in the House of Commons. I would not necessarily restrict the increased representation which should properly go to those areas of Canada where the population is growing very rapidly. I do not advocate at the present moment a large increase in the membership of this house. That might be a mistake. At the same time, I dislike seeing a decrease in the representation of important areas of our country. This is why I am satisfied that there should be no further reduction in the representation of the Atlantic provinces.
I think it is to the advantage of parliament to have the representation we do have from those provinces. I think it is important to Canada's economy to have spokesmen here in Ottawa who can interpret the special condition of the Atlantic provinces and represent the views of their people, so that in the economic contest which goes on constantly the interests of the Atlantic provinces shall not be neglected, as could happen if their representatives were outweighed in numbers.
The same considerations apply, I submit, to Manitoba and Saskatchewan. A population increase there might not keep up with the

national average. We are not predominantly industrial societies, although we are making giant strides in that direction. We shall continue along with Alberta, to be great primary producers of agricultural products. The point of view of this region requires expression here in the House of Commons-I am sure no one will deny that this is the case-and I believe its representation should not fall below what is the present total for that region.
Members of the House of Commons represent not only people; we represent the interests of an area, and economic factors. I know we say we represent everybody in our constituencies, but there are a lot of people there who wish we did not represent them. With the division of this country into ten provinces we speak from time to time with a united voice on behalf of our own provinces, even though we may belong to different political parties, and I think this provincial representation is a factor which should be taken into account.
I believe my time is running out, Mr. Chairman, and I put these matters before the committee in the hope that we may take our time over this bill. I do not mean we should stretch our considerations out for weeks, or anything like that, but I hope we will not attempt to rush it through, that there will be plenty of time to consider the subject, and that if we are able to make certain amendments we shall put ourselves in a position where the disparities presently obtaining in Canada may be considerably reduced. I close on this note- that we should look at the British experience with regard to the tolerance figure which they wiped out. We should consider approaching representation by population while at the same time remembering regional representation.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I wonder if I might rise on a small question of privilege. I am sure the minister would not wish to leave an incorrect impression as a result of his intervention when my hon. friend from Winnipeg South Centre was speaking. During my argument I made it clear there was no question but that section 51(5) applied on the first occasion. There was only the question whether it applied on the second occasion, the subsequent occasion. The minister left the impression that I said it did not apply at all. I am sure he did not mean to leave that impression.


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, Mr. Chairman. All I meant to suggest was that the hon. gentleman had suggested an interpretation of this clause that I had never heard before; that was all.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: If I may just finish on a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman; just

because the minister has never heard that interpretation before, if the judiciary have not interpreted it that does not mean the interpretation that has been accepted for 10 or 15 years happens to be the correct interpretation. Nor did I submit in my argument that my suggestion was right or wrong; but I asked the minister a couple of questions.
I said that as the members of the House of Commons at large are not being increased and as the members of the province of Saskatchewan are not being increased, what about the interpretation of that section? I think they are proper questions. I was not questioning whether the rule applied. It has been applied in the past, and will be in the future unless it is repealed.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, the hon. gentleman should not get excited about this.
I think he had a perfect right to suggest a new interpretation. The fact that everybody I have ever heard of up to now thought it meant one thing does not mean that it does mean that at all. The hon. gentleman may have made a discovery like Columbus did; but, you know, when Columbus made his discovery a lot of people were sceptical.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether I could ask the Minister of Transport a question. My question is based on the very interesting observations made, particularly in the latter part of his remarks, by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre. When I refer to the "interesting observations", I mean his suggestion that consideration might be given to area representation or something of that nature, particularly in cases when provinces like Manitoba and Saskatchewan are called upon, under the rule as it now exists, to lose seats.
My question is this: Is the government considering or, as a result of the discussion taking place on this bill, would it consider asking the house to make the necessary amendments to section 51 of the British North America Act? I suppose that in effect I am saying to the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre what has been said already, that the bill now before us is not one that makes changes or could make the kind of changes he has proposed. But it does seem to me that his suggestion should be given consideration, and perhaps the hopeful thing or the encouraging thing to come from the minister would be the assurance that this would be considered and that, if necessary, amendments to the British North America Act would be brought before the house, so that we could work out something of the nature suggested by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre.
16. 1964
Electoral Boundaries Commission


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, I am very grateful for the addition to my remarks. I omitted to mention the fact that some of the things I was proposing were of course not strictly applicable to the bill and would require an amendment, as suggested, to the British North America Act.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is exactly the point I was going to make, Mr. Chairman, that the speech made by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, and particularly his references to the English commission-and I use the word "English" because they are not applicable to the Scottish or the Welsh or the Northern Irish commission, but only to the English commission-would of course be very difficult of application under the present rules in Canada because, though the commissions are directed not to make the house too large, they are not restricted as to the ceiling. We are under the constitution of Canada, where the ceiling is set out in the British North America Act as amended, and nothing we could do within the ambit of this legislation could change that.
If it was the wish of the house that the constitution be amended to change the rules that apply in the constitution and to change the proportions between provinces, of course it is possible to do that. That has been done before; it was done, in fact, in 1952. I think there are some people who suspected me of being the actual author of rule 5, and I have never been able conscientiously to deny that I had some part in devising that rule. The feeling at that time that was shared by the whole house was that because of the war and the sudden and rapid shifts of population during the war-and we did not know whether they were going to continue-Saskatchewan did represent a special case. I would point out, as an old Manitoban-and I do not think either member for Winnipeg would disagree with me-that I would find it very hard, and I think even the members from Saskatchewan would find it very hard, to suggest that Saskatchewan should have more members in this house now than Manitoba, because it is well known that, though there was a difference of 5,000 in favour of Saskatchewan in 1961, it is somewhere about 20,000 in favour of Manitoba today. I think it would be rather repugnant to any of us, as rule 5 says, to give to a province with a smaller population a larger number of members than a province with a larger population. I would think at the present time one would feel very uncomfortable about having any difference under any rules between the representation of Saskatchewan and Manitoba.
But the matters that have been raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, the hon. member for Bow River and one or

Immigration Act
two others are very large questions that, strictly speaking, sir, are not within the ambit of the legislation now before us, as the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre clearly recognizes. But certainly if there is any strong demand, strong feeling, in the house or in the country that something ought to be done about these matters which have been raised, I think the government, particularly in a matter of this kind, would be bound to take notice of them. However, Mr. Chairman, I would hope that now we have had a number of general speeches we can perhaps get on to the detail of this particular case of legislation while giving consideration to these larger questions.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Because of your remarks you have just lost the Saskatoon by-election.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Mr. Chairman, I had just a very brief remark to make on this bill, but it being five o'clock I think I should call it five o'clock.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if permission could not be given to the hon. gentleman to make his remark, if there is any hope of getting through clause 1.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, much as I would like to hear the hon. member at the present moment, I think we should now carry on with private members' business and stick to the rules.


The Deputy Chairman:: Order. It being five o'clock, and in order to permit the house to proceed to the consideration of private members' business, it is my duty to now leave the chair.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: 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 notices of motions and public bills.



IMMIGRATION ACT


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood) moved: the second reading of Bill No. C-18, to amend the Immigration Act (disclosure of reasons for deportation).
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to bring hearings of deportation proceedings into line with principles of natural justice, into line with the solemn declarations contained in the bill of rights, and into line with the intention expressed in the Immigration Act that every would-be immigrant should have a fair hearing as to his admissibility. This bill, if it were adopted, would have the effect of putting an end to the type of 
proceeding which has been described as farcical by the highest courts in the land.
To explain the situation, it is necessary for me to review briefly the Immigration Act and the procedures which have grown up under that act. The Immigration Act is based upon the vital necessity, if Canada is to grow and prosper, of encouraging immigration into this country. It is also based upon the necessity of regulating the flow of immigration by reasonable restrictions. The act sets out in great detail the people who are prohibited from entering Canada. These prohibited classes include those who are mentally or physically defective, those with criminal records, alcoholics, drug addicts, prostitutes, members or supporters of subversive organizations, and those who are likely to become public charges. The act also excludes those who do not comply with the regulations contained in the act. This last prohibition is the most important of all, because I would say that in nine cases out of ten applicants are excluded by the regulations rather than by the prohibitions in the act.
The regulations, which are passed by the cabinet under the authority of the act, really lay down the main criteria of admissibility. The first stream which is admitted are those who have the skill and training which make it likely they will be able to establish themselves successfully in Canada. The second stream represents persons whose relationships to those already in Canada justify their admission. The regulations also provide for a system of documents, visas, letters of preexamination, and medical certificates. These documents can be issued by immigration officials in the country of origin. This enables the applicants to be examined so as to determine whether they are eligible for admission under the act and regulations.
The act further provides for a hearing by special inquiry officers, with a right of appeal from their decision to an immigration appeal board, or in some cases to the minister. The special inquiry officer is required by the statute itself to receive evidence, although he has some wide discretion as to the type of evidence, and to permit the applicant to be represented by counsel. He then determines whether the applicant is admissible under the standards of admission set up by the act and regulations.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that it is perfectly obvious that the intention was that parliament desired to provide a full and fair hearing for those who sought admission to the country. This indeed has been declared to be the fact by the courts on a number of occasions. The courts have also made it clear that a fair hearing requires the person who is threatened with deportation to be

furnished with particulars of the objections to his admission, so that he can make an appropriate answer to those objections.
It is necessary, Mr. Speaker, to refer very briefly to some of the decisions of the courts. I can tell the house that I do not propose to quote legal excerpts at great length, but in 1932 Mr. Justice Duff, who later became Sir Lyman Duff, the chief justice of Canada and one of the very greatest judges produced by this country, or by any other country as far as that is concerned, in what was known as the Samegima case, which dealt with the deportation of a Japanese immigrant, had this to say, as reported at page 642 of 1932 Supreme Court Reports:
The jurisdiction of the board, as an investigating body, is limited to the investigation of the facts alleged, a condition, again, implying intelligibility of allegation. Indeed, unless the person concerned is to have a reasonable opportunity of knowing the nature of the allegations, what is the purpose of requiring his presence? The deportation order must fully state the reasons for the decision, in respect of the allegations. The spirit, as well as the frame, of the whole statute, evinces the intention that these provisions are mandatory.
Then he went on to make this observation:
I gravely fear that too often the fact that these enactments are, in practice, most frequently brought to bear upon Orientals of a certain class, has led to the generation of an atmosphere which has obscured their true effect. They are, it is needless to say, equally applicable to Scotsmen. I admit I am horrified at the thought that the personal liberty of a British subject should be exposed to the hugger-nugger which, under the name of legal proceedings, is exemplified by some of the records that have incidentally been brought to our attention.
I want to inform the house, Mr. Speaker, that the "hugger-nugger" to which the learned jurist referred is still going on. In fact, it is not only on but it is the normal procedure.
Later the immigration department found a new way to get around the requirement which was indicated by the judge, namely the requirement of a hearing. This was revealed in the Brent case, which was heard by the Supreme Court of Canada. I am very conscious of this case, Mr. Speaker, because I was the successful counsel in it. Mrs. Brent was a young lady who lived in Buffalo and she wanted to marry a Mr. Brent who lived in Toronto. The department of immigration refused to admit her. The real reason was that she was suspected of Trotsky-ite associations, but this was not stated in the order of deportation. The reason put forward was that she had failed to comply with the regulations in that a special inquiry officer had deemed her to be unsuitable for admission to Canada by reason of the economic, social, industrial, educational, labour or health conditions prevailing either in Canada or in the
Immigration Act
country from which she came to Canada. She asked what these conditions were and why objection was taken to her, and she was told: "You can read the regulations".
The courts, and finally the Supreme Court of Canada, struck down that regulation on the ground that parliament had delegated to the cabinet and not to special inquiry officers the right to set up the standards of admissibility to Canada. They also held that before a person is ordered to be deported he is entitled to know the objections to his admission in order to give him a fair hearing; and Mr. Justice Rand in the Supreme Court of Canada described the proceedings in that case as farcical. Again I say that these same farcical proceedings are carried on to this day.
After this decision the immigration department found a new and ingenious way to get around the intent of parliament. The present Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) was then minister of immigration. I do not know whether he was responsible for this ingenious way of getting around the decision of the supreme court, but the method was as follows. It was provided by regulation that before anyone could be admitted to Canada they had to have a visa, a letter of preexamination and a medical certificate. The only people who could provide these documents were the immigration officers; and the only people who could provide a medical certificate were the doctors appointed by the department. So that when it was decided to exclude a person, for whatever reason or for no reason, the would-be immigrant would be refused a visa or a letter of pre-examination. Or they would not be allowed to get an appointment to see a medical officer. Then they were solemnly deported on the ground that they did not have the piece of paper which the immigration department had refused to give them, and refused to give them without giving any reason for so doing.
Then a hearing is held and the hearing is concerned with whether they have this piece of paper. They are solemnly sworn in and are told they are entitled to have counsel, but the only question that comes before the special inquiry officer is, "Have you got this piece of paper?", which he knows you have not got because he is the only person who can give it to you, and he has no intention of giving it to you. The result of this so-called hearing is a foregone conclusion.
I have before me a typical case of the reasons why a visa is refused. It is a letter sent out a week or two ago to a Canadian who wanted to bring his brother and his family to Canada. This is what the letter says:
Information has been received that the above named-

Immigration Act
The brother and his family.
-cannot meet requirements for admission to Canada. It is regretted that a favourable decision is not possible.
That is all. In other words, all the information you are given or are entitled to receive is information to the effect that you do not meet the requirements of the Immigration Act.
I can give the house an illustration of a typical case under this particular regulation. I mentioned it during the discussion of the estimates of the department last session. It is the case of a Scots lady. She had come to Canada to rejoin her first husband whom she had divorced. When the immigration department found out about that she was ordered to be deported. There was a hearing on the matter and the ground that was given to her was that she did not have a letter of pre-examination. She was asked: "Do you have a letter of pre-examination?" She had to say no, of course, that she had never even heard of a letter of pre-examination. So she was solemnly ordered to be deported because she did not have this letter of pre-examination. After the hearing was over she spoke to the immigration officer and he told her the real reason. The real reason, he said, was that she was living in sin with her previous husband. He said: "That is the real reason you are not be allowed into the country".
The procedure of refusing admission by reason of failure to have a document, which in turn is refused without any reason given, has received the legal imprimatur of the Supreme Court of Canada, with Mr. Justice Cartwright dissenting, in the recent Espaillat case. But because the department can now claim that it has the legal power by this device to effect the deportation of people without any real reason therefor does not make it right. Indeed in my submission it is very wrong. It denies the elementary principle of justice. It deprives the hearing prescribed by parliament in the act of any reality. It is totally inconsistent with the bill of rights passed by this parliament. I remind the house that section 2 of the bill of rights provides that no law of Canada shall be construed or applied so as to deprive a person of a right to a fair hearing in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice for the determination of his rights.
The fundamental right to a fair hearing is contained in thousands of cases. The sort of practice we now have and which we are now discussing is a cloak behind which people can be refused admission on any discriminatory ground that the officials see fit to employ. In addition, refusal of admission to Canada without grounds given can mean that someone may be excluded, shall we say, because of malicious gossip, in some cases mistaken
[Mr. Brewin.1
identity in the country from which they came, some incidental attendance perhaps at a communist meeting, a mistaken police report. Any of these things, undisclosed to the applicant, can be used and are used from time to time as a reason for the refusal to admit people into this country.
These are real rights, Mr. Speaker. They are human rights. These cases are cases of husbands seeking to bring their wives to this country or parents seeking to bring their sons or daughters to this country. They are rights which are not only human rights but rights conferred by the statutes of Canada, and those rights should not be denied without the opportunity for a hearing. The fundamental elements of a fair hearing are contained in thousands of cases, are summed up in the Latin maxim, audi alteram partem, and were expressed by Sir John Fortescue in his quaint English way in 1723 when he said:
The laws of God and man both give the party an opportunity to make his defence. I remember to have heard it observed by a very learned man upon such an occasion that even God himself did not pass sentence upon Adam before he was called on to make his defence. "Adam" says God, "where art thou? Hast thou not eaten of the tree whereof I commanded thee thou shouldst not eat?
As Sir John Fortescue says, the same question was also put to Eve. The purpose of my bill, Mr. Speaker, is a simple one. It is that expulsion from Canada, this other Eden, this demi-paradise, if I may borrow a Shakespearean phrase, should not, any more than the expulsion from the original garden of Eden, be without an opportunity to answer any adverse allegations that may be made. The purpose of the bill is to re-introduce the fundamental right that a fair hearing shall be given to a person whose rights are being dealt with.
I can anticipate some of the arguments that may be made on the other side. I am glad to see the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Tremblay) in the house. He has not been in office very long. I hope his term of office will be one of substantial reform in this field. I know these matters are not simple. There are arguments on the other side about security, but in my view security grounds are no excuse for the denial of fundamental rights. Indeed, security reasons really do not have much to do with this matter. Even in time of war when people were interned they were given the reasons why they were interned, after they were interned they were given a hearing at which the reasons for their internment were disclosed. You cannot tell me that all sorts of people should be denied the right to know why their sons and brothers cannot be

brought into this country by the simple edict: You do not meet the regulations and we will not tell you why. That was never the intent of parliament.
I have become sufficiently familiar with the proceedings of the house to know that I would be over optimistic to expect this bill to be passed in the brief hour that we have to discuss it. But I do urge hon. members of the house, particularly the government members who happen to be here, that they urge that this blot upon the administration of our immigration law that goes to the very root of the administrative process be removed. The present procedure-perhaps I have tried to detail too technically how it works out-has the result that an arbitrary administrative decision can be substituted for the process contemplated in the Immigration Act and by parliament itself. I do urge upon those members who are listening to me that if they agree with some of the things I have said they make sure that the minister thoroughly understands their position, so that in due time when he has become more familiar with his duties as minister he may himself bring legislation before the house which may incorporate the basic and fundamental principles provided in the act.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) on bringing forward this bill. I agree with him and I want to incorporate his remarks in mine so I can be quite brief. I should like to draw the analogy immediately that the same problem arises when certain people in this country apply for citizenship. I have said this ever since I have been a member of the House of Commons, even when the Conservatives were in power, and I still want to repeat it now that the Liberals are the government.
I am convinced, and I say this with respect, that the procedure has become a bureaucratic frustration of justice in relation to a fair hearing on a deportation order and a fair hearing on the rejection of a citizenship application. There are hundreds of people in this country who have been refused citizenship. After a certain period of time, the act provides that they can apply again. Sometimes their application is accepted, they pass the judge's hearing and the application gets down to Ottawa. Then, because some file exists that only the bureaucrats and the minister can see, this person is refused citizenship in this country. Surely, a person has a right to a fair hearing to find out what the evidence against him is.
I can give one example. I know a man in my own riding, and I am not going to give his name, who has applied twice for citizenship. This man's father was a citizen, but 20220-144
Immigration Act
because this man went over to Europe, for some technical reason he has to apply for citizenship and has been refused. The only reason for the refusal that we can find, and this is hearsay because we cannot examine the file, is that he attended a meeting of Tim Buck's in East Coulee or some other place. I recall that when I was practising law in the town of Tisdale I went to hear Dorise Nielsen, who was a good friend of Tim Buck. I heard her on many occasions, but I did not go there because I was a supporter of Tim Buck. I have always been a Conservative. I am certain, whether this man attended one of Tim Buck's meetings or not, he should have been given a fair hearing. If the refusal of his application for citizenship is based on the fact he is a communist sympathizer, then he should be told of this so he can meet it. How can you meet something if you are never presented with it, if you can never go before a board and say, "What have you against my becoming a Canadian citizen?" There may be five points presented and the applicant cannot answer them. Somebody can judge whether or not he is a credible witness with reference to those five points.
It seems to me, and I say this with respect, that this particular department has a tendency in this direction. I agree with the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) that this word "security" is used rather loosely. We are told questions cannot be answered because of security reasons. This department is flaunting the law. This bill would not be before the house if the department would implement the law as it is. As I understand it this bill really is directed at a hearing by a special inquiry officer who settles doubtful cases referred to him by an immigration officer. His duties are found set out in sections 23 to 29 of the Immigration Act, being chapter 325, volume V of the revised statutes of 1952. If he finds that a person seeking to come to Canada is not eligible under the regulations, he makes a deportation order.
The Immigration Act does not require a special inquiry officer, or other appeal authority, to state the reasons for deportation. However, the forms include a space entitled, "Reasons for Rejection". As the hon. member for Greenwood pointed out, there are judicial decisions to the effect that reasons for deportation should be given in words. The department has got around this ruling, as the hon. member for Greenwood says, be refusing to give him an immigrant's visa, or something else. They say, "You have not got this document that only the department can supply; you have not got it, so then you have not won your case. Your appeal is dismissed." What a terrible usurpation of natural justice.

Immigration Act
There are two decisions referred to in connection with this matter. One was referred to by my good friend from Greenwood. The first reference is re Oilman, 62 D.L.R. 223, 1921, and the second is re Samegima, 3 W.W.R. 56, 1931. These cases, as mentioned by the hon. member for Greenwood, state that it is not sufficient reason to say that the applicant is in Canada contrary to the provisions of the Immigration Act and effected entry contrary to the provisions of section 33, subsection (7) of the said act. These decisions have been followed in recent cases. However, the sponsor of the bill claims that the reasons now being given are that the applicant does not possess an immigrant visa, a proper medical certificate or some other document. Since the immigrant visa can be refused without reason being given, since the medical certificate can be refused without reason being given, the result is the same. In other words, the department and its officials are usurping the law of Canada, the law laid down by the parliament of Canada.
I want to repeat that I believe it is high time that, in a democracy such as Canada, people who apply for citizenship, who have served Canada in many different ways and have been here 20 or 30 years, were given reasons for the refusal of their citizenship. If one reason is, "You are a communist and you cannot become a citizen of Canada", then that person should be told this. He should be told he does not qualify because of security reasons, not because he attended some meeting or did something while at university. This is getting down to the level of McCarthyism. I am not blaming the minister particularly, because some of the ministers before him have not done anything to remedy the situation. People come to the offices of members of parliament or go to the offices of lawyers in the various cities, but no one can get information for them. The department is breaking the law. The law is not being enforced in Canada.
I support the bill wholeheartedly. As I say, I am not blaming the minister, because this dirty linen was on his doorstep when he took over. However, it is high time somebody cleaned up this situation. How can we expect new citizens to apply for citizenship or to value democracy when the department is usurping the law? I want to repeat that this is a bureaucratic frustration of justice and it is up to us as members of parliament to speak out against it. I support the bill and I congratulate the hon. member for bringing this problem before the House of Commons.


Mr. Hubert Badanai (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I have followed with considerable interest the comments of the

hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) who introduced this bill. The bill purports to require of the department the reasons for deportation beyond the lack of a visa or other document, et cetera, and that they be given in each case where deportation is ordered under the Immigration Act.
The explanatory note attached to the bill reads as follows:
The purpose of this amendment is to give reality to the hearing by a special inquiry officer provided for by sections 27 and 28 of the act and to put an end to proceedings in which the only issue in the hearing is whether or not an applicant has an immigrant visa or other document, which can only be granted to him by officials of the immigration department and which are refused without reason.
It seems clear to me from the explanation given that the bill is intended to operate in those cases, principally if not entirely, where visitors to Canada apply for the privilege of permanent admission or, in any event, refuse to leave Canada in accordance with the conditions governing their original entry. In such cases the individuals do not have in their possession an immigrant visa or other document prescribed by the regulations as being prerequisite to securing "landed immigrant status".
The explanatory note contains two inferences which I do not think I can let pass without comment. The first of these is that the department withholds immigrant visas or other documents, and orders deportation without reason. This, if taken at face value, would certainly indicate a complete lack of responsibility on the part of the department, absolutely at variance with the facts. The department takes a very serious view indeed of the whole matter of deportation and I can assure hon. members-


Francis Andrew Brewin: On a point of order, may I say to the hon. member that the statement they refuse without reason does not mean it should be without reasons given. I am not suggesting that the department acts without reason.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: I cannot accept the hon. member's point of order as a point of order.


Hubert Badanai: The hon. member takes exception to my statement that his bill refers to deportation without reason, and I would point out that this is not true. The department takes a very serious view of the whole matter of deportation, and I can assure hon. members that deportation proceedings are not instituted without good reason. The second implication, which is another interpretation, is that the possession of a visa or other document is really not important in itself, and some other substantive reason for deportation is required.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to make it perfectly clear that in all deportation cases, the reasons for deportation are given. These reasons may be the lack of visa or other documentation.
Where the lack of visa or other documentation is given, and this seems to be the core of this issue, according to the hon. member the implication is that this is not good enough, in that the department must prove the individual is being prohibited under some other section of the act or regulations as well. This ignores two essential and fundamental areas in immigration as it applies to Canada and to most, if not all, other countries of the world.
The first of these areas is concerned with the necessity of conducting immigration in a fair, orderly and efficient manner. The administration of the legislation related to immigration-and this includes the admission and control of those seeking permanent admission as immigrants as well as visitors-is a much larger and more complicated job than is generally realized. This year, for example, we expect to receive more than 100,000 immigrants. Our aim is for a greater increase. We also expect that in excess of 30 million visitors will come to Canada in 1964, the United States contributing the major share of this influx.
I should like to say that I have a great deal of sympathy with the principle and the reasons for the hon. member's introduction of the bill under discussion which, in effect, proposes an amendment to the Immigration Act that would reveal the reasons for refusals by the department in granting an immigrant visa, or admission to Canada as a landed immigrant, or where deportation is ordered because of the lack of an immigrant visa. As everyone appreciates, it is the responsibility of nations to decide who shall be admitted to their territories, and to take considered measures to allow in the number and character of people who wish to enter as permanent residents.
A word about the concept of immigration to Canada, and the assignment of responsibility in the application of legislation may be of interest to hon. members, who may not be familiar with it. When the present Immigration Act was before a committee of the house prior to its passage by parliament, considerable discussion took place. The present act was passed in 1952, and replaced chapter 93 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1927.
At that time, and in line with previous concepts of immigration to Canada, it was the almost unanimous view of members that immigration generally should not be a matter
Immigration Act
of law, contestable before the courts in individual cases, but a matter basically of ministerial responsibility. The legislation itself reflects this concept to a very considerable extent. The minister is responsible for explanations of policy and for the administration of the legislation. Naturally, the minister is accountable to parliament for his conduct of the serious and onerous responsibilities placed on him. Having regard to these principles then, a visitor to Canada has no "right" to gain permanent admission to Canada and the department, through the minister, must accept responsibility for refusing permanent admission where this occurs.
The government is actually encouraging people from other countries to visit Canada. On February 21 of this year a 15 man group representing the Canadian travel industry, and sponsored by the travel bureau of the Department of Trade and Commerce, visited the British Isles, West Germany and France, for the purpose of stimulating visits to Canada. They especially appealed to hunters, fishermen and skiers, and invited European travel writers and travel agents to visit Canada.
I am informed that this travel trade mission, during the three-week tour, had arranged 20 Canadian holiday presentations and meetings and held nine press conferences, which received excellent publicity. Several members participated in television and radio interviews. Good will toward Canada was evident everywhere they went, and preparations are being made by the travel bureau to launch a comprehensive program to attract visitors from Europe for the 1967 centennial celebrations.
It is only natural that with an ever increasing stimulation for travel, with low cost air transportation available almost for every purse, it is comparatively easy for anyone to visit Canada. In these days of rapid communication and greatly increased international travel, Canada has been endeavouring to reduce to the greatest possible extent, consistent with the national interest, formalities required of visitors to this country. In this direction, within the past two years Canada has waived the non-immigrant visa requirements for visitors from all major western European countries seeking entry for three months or less.
This is a desirable step. However, in addition to increasing the traffic of genuine visitors, it also provides an opportunity for those who have been refused immigrant visas abroad for good reason, to come to Canada ostensibly as visitors and then seek to remain. The arrangement can also be used by

Immigration Act
persons who hope to gain permanent admission but who are unwilling, tor their own reasons, to follow established immigration procedures which would involve applying for immigrant visas abroad.
They hope to gain a special advantage for themselves over their compatriots by securing temporary entry to Canada and then demanding permanent residence. These practices are not restricted only to persons who enter without non-immigrant visas, but the concessions granted can make Canada vulnerable unless careful control is exercised. And it seems to me that most of these cases of deportation stem from this group of visitors, who come to Canada as visitors. In most cases they are visiting relatives and then they apply for permanent residence.
To administer the legislation related to the admission of immigrants, the government has established quite extensive facilities abroad. In some areas the Department of Citizenship and Immigration has its own visa officers and in other regions it has co-operative working arrangements with the Department of External Affairs and British posts to service prospective applicants in their country of residence.
All this is designed to provide for the preexamination of prospective immigrants where the necessary background inquiries can be made. To attempt to complete this task in Canada on any general scale would lead to administrative chaos and loss of effective control of the immigration movement. In brief, control, not only of individual admissions but of the over-all movement, is dependant to a substantial degree on the immigrant visa or its counterpart, the letter of pre-examination.
In order to establish the fact that we have competent officers in charge of these examinations, let me give the house an example of their qualifications which, I am sure, will be of interest to all hon. members. Senior officers in charge of posts abroad are required to have the qualifications, experience and demonstrated ability to administer a post, including the supervision and direction of other officers engaged in visa offices and informational activities. As a means of improving the calibre of the staff abroad a new class series has been approved for the overseas service, with the mandatory requirement of university graduation for appointment to the career service.
These qualifications require university graduation and a minimum of four years experience, two of which must have been in a responsible capacity overseas as a visa officer or in the counselling or informational areas of work, plus a broad general knowledge of Canadian government, economy, geography,

society, people and institutions, and possessing an ability to assess, counsel and deal satisfactorily with people under all circumstances, including competence in dealing with groups, ability to participate in public meetings, film shows and speaking engagements.
Prior to posting abroad, all officers receive intensive training in the specialized fields related to the assigned post and are given an extensive tour of Canada, including discussions with responsible officials in government, industry and business on every aspect of the Canadian economy, to equip them to provide factual information to potential newcomers.
I might add that members of the legal profession are called upon to act in particular situations as special inquiry officers at each regional headquarters under the following conditions: (a) when indications are that the case may be contentious; (b) cases where an inquiry has commenced with an immigration officer and subsequently develops into a contentious case; and (c) almost all cases where the appellant is represented by counsel.
Where an immigration officer in the field becomes aware of a person who may be deportable under section 19 of the Immigration Act, an investigation is made and a report, with related documents, is forwarded to the immigration branch headquarters. If the director, immigration branch, considers that the situation warrants it, he orders an inquiry to be held.
Where an appeal results from an order of deportation following an inquiry or further examination, it is dealt with directly by the immigration appeal board. The appeal board is headed by a member of the legal profession who is a Q.C., and the other members are senior officials.
When the board reaches a decision its findings and recommendation are referred to the minister and the case is reviewed on his behalf by a senior immigration official to determine if the outstanding order is to be implemented or if proceedings are to be deferred. If the minister decides that deportation is to be carried out, administrative arrangements are made under the supervision of the head, deportation section, admissions division, branch headquarters.
The immigrant visa or letter of pre-examination are the only effective means of control and their lack must be sufficient reason for deportation if efficient administration in the national interest is to be maintained. The alternative is to re-instate the non-immigrant visa requirements and in the case of all visitors, conduct a rigorous and searching examination to determine whether, in all respects, they can meet the requirements of

the legislation. The effects of such procedures, which I would certainly not recommend, would be unwelcome to say the least.
Apart from the extremely important problems of control and administration, there are other reasons for using the lack of visa alone as the cause of deportation, for instance: (a) The individual may have a medical condition, e.g. a social disease, which would make him prohibited from entry under the act. It would be embarrassing to the individual to reveal this, (b) The person may have benefited from an amnesty for a conviction in his past life. The conviction in itself could bring him within the prohibited class. To use it as a cause for deportation, however, exposes the situation and can cause serious harm to his reputation and personal interests.
I realize that if it is at all possible to do so it would be desirable to tell an applicant whose application for admission has been refused the reason for the rejection of his application. I must say I have an open mind on this and I can assure the hon. member that considerable attention will be given to some of the suggestions he has made, provided this can be done in accordance with the best interests of the individual concerned, and of course in the interests of Canada. I should like to inform the house that this matter is now under searching examination by those responsible for the administration in an effort to resolve this difficulty in as just and equitable a manner as possible, having regard to all the legitimate humanitarian and other circumstances involved.
The hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) said the bill of rights had something to do with this. I wish to make it clear that the bill of rights does not affect the validity of a deportation order properly issued under the law. The bill of rights simply ensures than an individual is given all the safeguards which are contained in the law. The hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Woolliams) referred to certain situations where an applicant for Canadian citizenship is refused that status and is not informed of the reasons for refusal. I can assure the hon. member that the minister will look very closely into that complaint in connection with the examination of citizenship procedures now under way.
It is difficult to make generalizations about matters of this kind. However, hon. members can be certain that there is no desire on the part of the minister or the department to act in an unnecessarily arbitrary or bureaucratic manner as suggested by the hon. member for Bow River. At the same time, parliament has placed on the minister of this department the responsibility for exercising discretion in the
Immigration Act
granting of admissions. This is not an exercise which the minister takes lightly and while it may not be in the public interest to give explanations in detail in all situations, hon. members may take it as a matter of record that a very exhaustive examination of the circumstances is undertaken before a decision is reached on matters of accepting landed immigrants.
It is not the intention of this government to deny to applicants for citizenship any privileges which, in conscience, they may properly be granted and as I have indicated, the department will again look into this matter to determine what, if anything, might be done with respect to methods introduced for the examination of applicants for citizenship in the future.


Reynold Rapp: It gives me great pleasure to say a few words on this bill, No. C-18, introduced by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin), and I should like to say at the outset that I congratulate him on having brought this measure forward. I have no legal training and I cannot make such an eloquent presentation as my hon. friend from Bow River (Mr. Woolliams) has made. At the same time I should like to say there is much merit in the bill which the hon. member is asking us to consider.
Every member of parliament at one time or another has been confronted by people who came to this country and afterwards applied for citizenship papers and were refused citizenship. Every member of parliament at one time or another has been confronted by people who have received notice of deportation. I think our Department of Justice and our Department of Citizenship and Immigration should give serious consideration to having some changes brought about in our immigration laws.
First of all I think they should employ people to study the psychological behaviour of the immigrant. It is not the easiest thing for an immigrant coming from Europe or any other country to adjust himself to a new life and new customs. There is no question that some immigrants take a long time to break their ties with the old country, and because of this they may do something which later on they regret. Our officials should give serious consideration to these matters, because I know people who have said what they should not have said but as time has gone on they have adjusted themselves to our way of life, our country, our customs and our regulations and have become different people altogether.
I know of cases where immigrants who applied for citizenship were refused this privilege and who at the same time were

Immigration Act
raising families born in this country. I know of a husband who has not received his citizenship papers, but his wife, the mother of the family, has received them. As I said, sometimes these people make mistakes. For this reason, Mr. Speaker, I do not think this system should continue from year to year. And what is much worse, these immigrants are not given an explanation for their citizenship papers having been refused, and sometimes when they are deported they are not given the reason for their deportation. We have in this country a bill of rights. The bill of rights should not apply only to the Canadian citizen; it should have the same applicability to a landed immigrant. He too should have the right to present his case, and if injustice has been done it should be corrected.
I am very much in favour of this bill, Mr. Speaker. I hope it will come to a vote, or if not, that at least it will be presented to a committee so it can be discussed in detail. I see that I have very little time left. I would definitely like this bill either to come to a vote or be referred to the appropriate committee. I am very pleased that I have had the opportunity to say these few words on this bill.


Mr. J. J. Greene (Renfrew South):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I should like to commend the proponent of the bill. I think its subject matter is certainly important and pertinent at this time. I should also like to commend the last speaker, the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort-Tisdale (Mr. Rapp). I think that in his address to this house we heard a very moving plea for the subject matter of the bill, and I think those of us who are interested in its subject matter are particularly interested by reason or virtue of some association we have had with persons who have become citizens of this country and have played such a very great part in its development and growth. In fact, some of those people who were new citizens not too many years ago have even become members of this honourable house. I often wonder how many other good men and women we have rejected who might have made a contribution just as effective, just as important, as have some of those good men and women, simply because our procedures were too restrictive, simply because while on the one hand we preached the doctrine of the necessity of immigration, on the other we did very little in the past to encourage it, to make the road easy, to make the road just, to make the road equitable.
As is the case with other hon. members, I do not associate the present minister and his associate with this situation. They have not yet had time to do to the immigration policy, practices and procedures what we hope

will be done during their tenure of office, namely make them broader, wider, more just, and make the procedures such that for the first time they are up above the table, instead of down below somewhere, where we have to crawl on our hands and knees to find among the dust why people have been precluded from entering this country in the past. I do suggest, as the parliamentary assistant said, that this is not as simple a procedure as would be a courtroom procedure. However, I think we have all known of cases where, for reasons unknown and for reasons undisclosed, immigration was not permitted. I have seen, in my limited association with this department over the past ten years or so, several ministers who intended fully when I spoke to them to correct these things. I have heard them publicly on many occasions deprecate the fact that immigration must be in some way hidden. They have said that the reasons for refusal of permission to enter the country or to stay here as a citizen should be brought out in the light of public disclosure where a person would have, as he has in any matter affecting civil rights otherwise, the right to defend himself or herself, the right to hear why he or she is being refused.
I know that many ministers in good faith and with the best of intent have intended in the past to remedy this deplorable situation that has existed for so long; but somehow the weight of bureaucracy, of circumlocution of the department has been too much for their efforts. It is to be hoped, with this new enlightened government and with this new minister who is, I know, keen to do these things, and who has the very able help of his experienced parliamentary assistant, that under this administration we will succeed in remedying this situation which lesser beings have not been able to do in the past.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. It is my duty to inform the house that, the hour appointed for the consideration of private members' business having expired, the house will now resume the business interrupted at five o'clock.



REDISTRIBUTION


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of Bill No. C-72, 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-Mr.	Pickersgill-Mr. Batten in the chair.
[Stage Direction]
On clause 1-Short title.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.

AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
Alfred Dryden Hales: Mr. Chairman, I should like to deal with one subject in particular before we leave clause 1 of this very important bill dealing with redistribution. Before I proceed with the point with which I wish to deal- that is, one commission versus ten commissions-I think it might be in order to point out that this bill appears to be in four major parts. There are two points on which the committee seems in agreement, agreement not yet having been reached on the other two. The committee seems to be in general agreement on the non-partisan approach to this whole matter of redistribution. We appear to believe in the principle of referring the adjustment of electoral boundaries to a judicial tribunal, with rules for that tribunal. The other matter we seem to be in general agreement on is that parliament should have the final word. The two points on which we do not seem to be too close as yet, are those dealing with the percentage of tolerance to be applied, and as to whether we should have one central, national, independent commission or one commission in each province.
I should like to confine my remarks to this question of the number of commissions. I think that if we were to have ten different commissions across the country we could not help but have ten different viewpoints. We would have great difficulty in reconciling the viewpoint of say, Prince Edward Island with that of, for example, British Columbia. I think that if we were to have ten commissions we would have no continuity of thought. Uniformity would be lacking in this whole matter of redistribution. I know that the minister who introduced this bill feels that more time would be taken if we had only one commission as compared with ten. I am not so sure about this. I do not agree with him on that point. It has always been my experience that if a matter requires to be discussed in an organization of any kind, you can get the work done, and much faster, by one commission or committee than if the matter is delegated to ten different committees.
The minister has emphasized this matter of time. I do not think time is the most important consideration at this time. We should be very careful to take all the time that is necessary in order to do a good job. We
16, 1964	2261
Electoral Boundaries Commission should compare this question of ten commissions versus one with a sales organization which might be considering opening up sales areas in all parts of the country. This sort of project would be mapped out in the head office. Perhaps a sales manager would go across the country to break down the sales areas; but there would be more direct and closer contact with them with a central office than if there were ten offices scattered across the country. This analogy can be applied to the question of setting up ten commissions across the country. Also, we must realize that any commission will only be as good as the men appointed to it.
Nothing has been said so far about the great duplication which is going to take place. If we have ten commissions we will require ten of everything.
Nothing has been said in this committee about the cost. It is high time someone in this committee, preferably someone on the government side, stopped and considered the cost of some of the activities being carried on in government these days. We have a great opportunity at this point to stop and think of the cost of ten commissions compared with one central, independent commission.
As hon. members are aware, the commission to be appointed in each province will be made up of four persons. There will be the chairman. No extra costs will be involved here, because his salary will be paid through the courts. Both the government appointee and the opposition appointee are to be paid. According to this bill they are to be paid a per diem rate, and also travelling and living expenses. If we take a look at the cost of the per diem, we will find that a figure of $100 a day is what is paid by the C.B.C. to such commissions. Perhaps $50 a day would be an average figure. If we take this figure for the two appointees, assuming that the commission was in operation for a whole year an expenditure of some $25,000 is involved.
As I say, there would be four members to each commission. If travelling and living expenses for the ten commissions were calculated at the moderate amount of $25 a day, this would add up to another $25,000. Ten commissions would require ten offices. Miscellaneous expenses would also be incurred. We are going to need secretarial help in all of these offices. The representation commissioner will have to travel across the country. I have taken nominal figures for each of these items, and one single commission will cost approximately $69,000. Multiply that by ten and you have an amount of $690,000 representing the cost of operation of ten commissions across the country-a conservative figure, I would say.

Electoral Boundaries Commission
If you think this is out of line, Mr. Chairman, let me refer you to our own blue book of estimates for the last fiscal year, 1963-64. According to page 362 the royal commission on banking and finance cost this country $199,300. The commission on health services cost $275,500; another commission on pilotage cost $301,220. If you add these figures and take the average you will find it is approximately $258,000. With the setting up of 10 commissions costing $690,000, less, say $258,000 for one central commission, it would cost roughly $432,000 more than if we had one central commission. I venture to say that before all these commissions finish their work it will cost the country half a million dollars more to have ten commissions than if we had one central commission. I bring this to the attention of the committee because no one has mentioned the cost of ten commissions as opposed to one and it is a point that should be given serious consideration.
There are many other things I might say about the bill but they have been discussed very well. I do not think we should be in too much hurry with this legislation. We must be sure that we do a good job because it will be another ten years before it is revised. With a population of 19 to 20 million people Canada is overgoverned now. If you ask the average Canadian citizen he will tell you we are overgoverned. Personally I hope that when this redistribution is finished we will have no more than 265 members in the house. I think the average Canadian citizen would like to see fewer members rather than more.
I commend the minister for bringing this legislation before the house. As I said at the start, we believe in the non-partisan approach and a judicial tribunal with rules for its guidance. We agree that parliament should have the final say. I hope that before the bill passes, the committee amendments will be made in respect of the tolerance figure because the fact is that rural ridings, because of their very nature, should not be required to have the same population as urban constituencies. I have expressed my views why there should be one independent national commission. One commission can do just as thorough a job as the very costly and expensive set-up of ten commissions throughout the country. Having in mind the few amendments that I hope will be made to the bill, I am sure we will enact legislation that we will be proud of and that future generations Will thank us for it.


Mr. Muir (Lisgar):: Mr. Chairman, one problem which I find rather disturbing was presented to the committee very ably this afternoon by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre. I refer to the matter of unequal

representation as between similar areas of the nation. I do not think anyone can quarrel with the minister's statement that Manitoba and Saskatchewan, having equal population, should also have equal representation. However, I was intrigued by the comparisons made by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre in which he showed that the combined population of Manitoba and Saskatchewan is almost equal to that of the Atlantic provinces. It seems to me that in all fairness an amendment should be made to section 51 of the British North America Act establishing a formula whereby the provinces losing seats would be protected to the extent that no serious discrepancies would be allowed to exist between areas as far as representation is concerned.
As I have said, no one can seriously quarrel with the fact that Manitoba and Saskatchewan should have equal representation, but as these two provinces encompass a large part of central Canada it is reasonable to assume that in regard to representation a comparison with the Atlantic provinces could be made. As mentioned by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, redistribution would leave Manitoba and Saskatchewan with 26 seats compared with 31 for the Atlantic provinces, although the populations of the two areas are almost equal. Under these circumstances I think the government should give consideration to amending section 51 of the British North America Act to give Manitoba and Saskatchewan an electoral floor of 14 seats each. The elected representatives of the people for that area would have a far better opportunity to keep in close touch with their constituents than would be possible with an enlargement of the constituencies to any great extent. With any further enlargement it would be almost physically impossible to provide proper representation.
Aside from the question of the vastness of the constituencies I am particularly disturbed about the representations concerning the constituency of Churchill, a riding which takes in two thirds of the province of Manitoba and yet would fall far short of a quota. Any enlargement of that area would simply make it physically impossible for the member to do the job he is expected to do as the elected representative. There is also the factor of rivers and the lack of access roads which constitutes a real problem. I hope these matters will be taken into consideration by the commission when it is doing its work.
Every province, of course, will face the possibility of losing some of its historic ridings in the shuffle. This is not only to be regretted but, if possible, it should be avoided. I am not going to mention particular ridings but there are

ridings of that nature in every province, some dating back to the time of confederation. I believe, however, that Manitoba and Saskatchewan have a special problem, representing as they do a large and important part of the Canadian economy. The minister is a native of the prairies and I should like to appeal to him to bring to the attention of the government the particular problems of the prairie constituencies where the populations are smaller and the areas to be represented are vast I hope the minister will provide this information to the government and bring to their attention the necessity of giving serious consideration to providing equal representation as between these two prairie provinces and the Atlantic provinces.
We in the prairies do not expect miracles to happen, but there have been times since confederation when special compensations have been made because of certain features which would make it impossible for the area concerned to have the proper representation.
I hope some consideration will be given to an amendment to section 51 of the British North America Act to put a floor under those provinces which are expected to lose members as a result of redistribution. I do not believe it is unreasonable to expect that in the case of Manitoba and Saskatchewan, with equal representation, this floor should be 14 members.


Mr. Enns:: I should like to make a few brief comments on this subject. I want to echo pretty well what my colleague from Manitoba, the hon. member for Lisgar has just said. I do feel that Canadians are not in the mood to accept any suggestion to increase the membership of this house. I merely wanted to lend some emphasis to this thought by making a comparison with the United States. If we think of ourselves as having about one tenth the population of the United States, then we would suggest that the United States congress should consist of 2,600 members. I believe everyone agrees this is an exaggerated representation. I feel the people of Canada are adequately represented by the present membership. While there may have to be some amendment to section 51 of the British North America Act, I do not believe Canadians would want the membership of this house increased.


Mr. Latulippe:: Mr. Chairman, I want, for a few minutes, to express my views on Bill No. C-72, to provide for the establishment of boundaries commissions. I carefully listened to the remarks of hon. members who preceded me, and speaking objectively, I can state that the ideas expressed by the hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska (Mr. Vincent) are very sim-
Electoral Boundaries Commission ilar to my own with regard to the standards to be set for going ahead with the bill.
As far as I am concerned, I shall advocate a tolerance of 33 per cent instead of 20 per cent. I believe that the difference established in this way between urban and rural ridings would be the most logical and fair, as the many economic, geographical, human and social factors which characterize a riding would be taken in consideration.
As the hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska said, such a tolerance would establish the maximum population for a Quebec riding at about 93,500 and the minimum at 46,750. I consider those figures quite fair.
To support this statement I shall quote my own riding of Compton-Frontenac, which, at this time comprises about 45 parishes, for a population of 42,366. Including two provincial counties, the federal riding I represent is vast, and rather complex, because of its economic, and even social, diversity. The basis of 33 per cent would certainly include five or six communities in the riding and the population figure would rise by 7,000 or 8,000.
This means that the member's task will become harder, and his representation work wider, because that area is quite large even now. Though a tolerance of 33 per cent would entail some practical disadvantages, it is far better than 20 per cent, because the riding would at least keep its agricultural pattern.
As it is, the rural riding representative has less time than his colleague from the city to spend on legislation and on problems brought before the house. But it is essential to give our population an opportunity to see that some general work is being accomplished by the house member and that is why I think that even if the number of parishes were to be increased, their nature would be relatively the same, the problems would be relatively identical and the representation work would become easier.
But with the 20 per cent tolerance, my riding-I take that one, but I could take any one of the 28 ridings put on record yesterday by the hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska-would be cut down to almost one third or one half of its present area. In my riding as in many others, all across Canada, there is a certain regional interest which must be maintained. Surely, splitting of a riding which would reduce that factor of regionalism to a feeling which cannot be found within political structures, would not be in the best interest of the citizens, or would not tend to provide in this house a more homogeneous and better balanced representation.
Moreover, if we look further, if we look into the future, we all agree that our population will almost double within 25 years. It

Electoral Boundaries Commission means that at that time, the situation will require a new redistribution and that the basis of 33 per cent now suggested will leave room for that, while the 20 per cent basis would not allow any changes, because of the too radical carving up it would require at this time.
To conclude my remarks I should like to underline once again the following points. It is essential not to cut down a rural community-often indirectly governed by regional interests-into a so-called riding just to give a new value to urban ridings. We must guard against setting up extremist procedures but we must strive to solve as many problems as possible while respecting, in our reforms, a certain established order so that politics will finally help us to provide a better direction and definition.
If urban centres seem to have some overpopulated ridings, on the other hand, others are not so heavily populated.
I think that the solution would be to divide urban ridings and maintain rural ones intact.
I agree with several hon. members of the house, especially with those who represent rural ridings, because we have many parishes, and we have to cover extended areas during an election campaign or to inform our constituents.
Incidentally, I could say that when I wish to visit every section of the constituency which I represent, I have to travel almost 1,000 miles by car to visit its 45 parishes. If 25 to 30 other parishes are added to them, well I think no member will be able to visit the whole riding during a one month election compaign.
Therefore, I feel it would be much better not to change anything in rural ridings and if urban constituencies are considered overpopulated, the best thing would be to divide them up.


Mr. Kindt:: Mr. Chairman, the centralization and decentralization aspects of this bill are features which are deserving of some additional consideration. The bill proposes that ten commissions be established, one in each province, and there is the question of whether a centralized authority, under Mr. Caston-guay's direction, would be in a better position to work up the figures for each of the constituencies and let them be the final figures. However, the plan in a sense is to decentralize and establish a commission in each province thus giving the appearance of local determination, with the thought that commissions with local people on them would make decisions that would be more fair and equitable to all concerned. It remains to be seen whether this will work out or not.

I believe with the statistical work that will be required-and there will be a tremendous amount of statistics involved-it will be necessary to have a central agency making an over-all plan, delineating a map, and presenting that map to each provincial commission. When that is done there may be one alternative, two alternatives or three alternatives, but it will be pretty much a question of the individual provincial commission performing the function of a rubber stamp, to say which one of those alternatives will be accepted.
Without going into all the statistics of shifting boundaries and so on, a local commission would not be in a position to do that unless its members had the figures at their elbows and unless they would, shall we say, familiarize themselves to a large extent in dealing with the figures with which they must be familiar in order to bring about these boundary shifts and changes.
What I am trying to say is that the centralized authority will have to do most of the spadework in bringing figures together, and it will be just one step further to have a provincial commission say with which of the plans submitted to it that it agrees. For the life of me I cannot see how, in the province of Alberta where I represent the Macleod riding, it would take a year to decide on the boundaries of constituencies if all of the statistical material were worked out in advance.
I should also like to point out that I have been unable to find any provision in the bill whereby the commissions intend to seek the advice of local members of parliament, or to co-operate with them. There is no one in a constituency who knows more about it than its member of parliament. He also knows equally as much as most other people about the adjoining ridings, with regard to where the boundaries may be changed. For instance, I am thinking of my own riding which contains four Indian reserves, or parts of four Indian reserves, with a fifth Indian reserve close at hand to it. It could be that in considering the adjustment of constituency boundaries, since I already have four Indian reserves, adding one more reserve to my riding might not be a bad change to make, because I have to deal at present with a tremendous number of Indian problems. There is a certain similarity between the problems of these reserves and it might be well to bring them all under one member of parliament.
On matters of this kind I suggest that a member of parliament would be in a good position to discuss them with the people who

will determine the boundaries of the constituencies, and would be in a good position to assist them in making a determination, and thereby avoid mistakes.
Above all, what we want to do in this matter is avoid as many mistakes as possible. It is sometimes said that we progress by mistakes, but I am sure the Minister of Transport is not one of those who wishes to advance by mistakes; at least I hope he is not. However, it could be that unless this matter is handled properly many, many mistakes will be made, and once a determination has been made this machinery the act proposes to set up is not sufficiently flexible in order to bring about changes.
There are a couple of other points I should like to mention. For example, rural constituencies because of their very nature and their problems are, in a sense, quite different from urban constituencies, and in so far as possible they should be kept as rural constituencies. Many of the rural constituencies cover large areas. For instance, my riding is about 140 or 150 miles north and south, and 150 miles east and west. In such a tremendous area population is very scattered, and some parts are very thinly populated. But that area requires attention and has its problems just the same as other places. It requires the servicing of industry and it takes a lot of travelling to cover it thoroughly.
It would be to the advantage of its residents to have the riding left as a rural constituency so that the thought and attention of its member of parliament can be devoted primarily to rural problems. If that is true, and without going into further detail on the nature of these various problems, I think there must be a 33J per cent tolerance to overcome the factor of the tremendous areas which rural constituencies cover, as compared with urban constituencies. With the advent of the motor car and the concentration of population in cities, in contrast to the rural areas, it is only fair that at least a 33 & per cent tolerance be given with respect to the number of people in a rural constituency as compared with the number in an urban riding. With these few remarks, Mr. Chairman, I turn the floor back to you.


Mr. Bigg:: I just wish to add a few words to what has already been said on this question of redistribution. I should like to begin by mentioning just one constituency where the application of any rule of thumb would not work out at all, and I refer to the Northwest Territories. I think the total population of the territories is in the neighbourhood of 20,000, and as hon. members probably know
16, 1964	2265
Electoral Boundaries Commission it is by far the largest. I am certainly surprised that we should be thinking of including an even greater area as part of this already immense riding.
My own constituency has a total area of some 65,000 square miles and at least half of it is without roads. In fact, I believe some 40,000 square miles are without roads. Large regions are not even served by airports. It is really a part of the north country and should be included among the areas to which special consideration should be given if they are to be covered adequately. I should like to see a clause in this measure-call it an emergency clause-to deal with circumstances of this kind. I think the government should give quite special consideration to these areas- areas whose coverage presents peculiar and singular problems. It is obvious that there are vast stretches of this northern country where an hon. member cannot get around his constituency in a normal way and I think a clause should be written into the elections act to take into account the special difficulties caused by the nature of the territory, the scarcity of communications and the unusual expense which anyone representing these areas has to bear. I cannot understand how a member representing the Northwest Territories can possibly get along, bearing in mind the expenses they must bear.
As the commissions begin their work, I think they should certainly consult the local members, not necessarily to take their recommendations-I realize there may be political recommendations made-but in order to take advantage of realistic and practical suggestions which might well save the government and the people of Canada both time and money. After all, our only reason for being here is to represent our ridings, and if it is physically impossible for a member to move around the constituency he represents, something should be done to help him do so. This is why I maintain every effort should be made to set up the boundaries in a realistic fashion. Let me give the committee one or two illustrations of what I mean. The hon. member for Jasper-Edson has to travel a hundred miles through my district of Athabasca to get to the town of Smith in his own constituency. There is no other way of getting there. It seems to me it would be logical to alter the boundaries between these two districts, because I can certainly get to that particular locality to handle the complaints or to attend to the wishes of the people there much easier than can the hon. member from next door.
The use of arbitrary lines to mark constituency boundaries often leads to trouble. We have used meridians, and when this is done, except perhaps where an interprovincial
2266	HOUSE OF
Electoral Boundaries Commission boundary runs along a meridian, a great deal of difficulty is often encountered. I have at least four Indian reserves in my district and the meridian cuts right through them. It seems ridiculous that two members have to be consulted about the affairs of one Indian reserve when one is dealing, for example, with a complaint. Surely the boundaries of reserves are plain enough. In such cases I should like to see the commissions call on members for advice even if they do not intend to take it.


Mr. Caoueite:: Mr. Chairman, I shall be brief. After hearing several hon. members state their opinion on Bill No. C-72 which provides for the establishment of electoral boundaries commissions, I wonder if the setting up of ten commissions will not be more confusing than anything else.
I am inclined to believe the hon. member from the western provinces who said a while ago that the cost of establishment and operation of ten commissions would be excessive. In the past, a parliamentary committee and the chief electoral officer were entrusted with redistribution when the occasion arose.
At that time, from all points of view and in every part of the country, that parliamentary committee, composed of representatives of the various political parties, carried on its activities with understanding and honesty, and this to the satisfaction of the voters and the districts concerned.
For instance, I recall that in 1947, at the time we were proceeding with the redistribution of electoral districts in Canada, I was representing Pontiac county which included all the old provincial Pontiac county, the Quebec Temiscamingue county, as well as the Rouyn-Noranda county, part of Abitibi east and part of Abitibi west. At that time, when the commission decided upon or adopted a reorganization or redistribution policy, the members concerned were invited to the committee, and proceedings went along on a friendly basis. My riding was divided in two. In spite of all that was said then about alleged political partisanship and interference in the redistribution, I feel that everything was on the level.
On the other hand, I am of the opinion that ten commissions would create more confusion than anything else. A parliamentary committee that would invite the federal members to discuss and submit their points of view, their objections, if any, would be more normal and more proper.
Ten commissions may oppose two or three provinces to accept a larger representation. For instance, a commission will be set up for the small province of Prince Edward Island, which has only four members of parliament 

and will cost the same as the commission which will determine the limits of the ridings in the provinces of Ontario, Alberta and Quebec. It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that all this will be really confusing. And the same thing will happen as when the government, for instance, asked all Canadians to submit a national flag design. At that time, ten thousand flag designs were sent in, when Canada does not have a flag and when the government could have acted to give a flag to the country.
The same thing applies to redistribution, we talk of a 20 per cent margin for a population of 70,000. Others suggest a tolerance of 33J per cent rather than 20 per cent, giving as a reason that such a tolerance of 33J per cent would be of a greater help to the rural constituencies.
In this connection, I agree with the hon. member for Compton-Frontenac (Mr. Latu-lippe) who mentioned earlier that we must protect the rural constituencies not only in Quebec but throughout Canada.
Some rural ridings covering an area of more than 100 square miles are inhabited at the most by 100,000 people, while in cities such as Toronto and Montreal, urban ridings covering one square mile have a population of 100,000 and even more sometimes.
It must also be remembered that in urban ridings, the needs of the people are almost all the same. There is not the diversity that is seen in our rural areas. Thus, for instance, in my own riding, there is a variety of problems related to mining, agriculture and forestry; there are also the everyday problems and even, as pointed out by my hon. friend from Megantic (Mr. Langlois), the unemployment problem.
Such diversity is not found in urban ridings, and in cities like Montreal, some ridings have 25,000 electors, others have 32,000, 33,000 and sometimes even 150,000. We do not object to giving adequate representation to cities like Montreal or Toronto. But we are strongly against any move to decrease representation of rural ridings to the benefit of urban ridings. In fact, I do not think that we could accept such a representation or such a redistribution.
It has already been pointed out that during an election campaign, the representatives of rural ridings must travel thousands of miles, while those in urban ridings have only to go from door to door to meet several hundred electors in the same apartment building.
Mr. Chairman, I do not think that it is the proper time to deal with the establishment of electoral boundaries, since we are only concerned at present with the setting

up of ten commissions, but just the same I hope that the few remarks which I wished to make will be taken into serious consideration.
I do not think it would be in the best interests of Canada to advocate the establishment of ten commissions which will certainly not give satisfaction. Let us take our responsibilities as members of the federal parliament, since redistribution comes within the jurisdiction of the federal government.
The provinces are increasingly jealous of their autonomy and since they are themselves ready to respect federal autonomy, I believe it is up to the federal parliament or a federal parliamentary committee to decide on redistribution throughout Canada, so as to maintain federal unity.

Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
On clause 3-Commissions to be established. [Translation]


Mr. Rondeau:: Mr. Chairman, I have a few short comments to make on clause 3.
Following the brief observations made by the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) respecting the establishment of commissions to report upon the readjustment of the representation of the provinces in the House of Commons and in accordance with the very principle set forth in the bill, that of representation by population, I should like to propose an amendment.
In order to improve that representation by population in Canada, the house should reduce the number of the proposed commissions, because there is no point, as I have said before, in setting up ten commissions, because some would only represent four federal members and would have but a few problems to deal with, especially, for instance, in the case of the maritime provinces.
Some members have said that if we have only one commission for the whole country, its work would not be efficient. On the other hand, others have contended that if only four commissions were established, there would not be enough commissioners to settle all the problems.
For my part, I would think that if we want to have a number of members proportionate to the population, these commissions should be established on the same basic principle, that is, a commission for the western provinces, including Alberta, British Columbia, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, would be sufficient, because it would represent a good deal of the population of Canada, that is about 40 ridings. A commission could be set up for
16, 1964	2267
Electoral Boundaries Commission the province of Ontario which would include about 80 constituencies, one for the province of Quebec, including approximately 75 constituencies, another for the maritime provinces, for about 35 constituencies.
If the principle of representation by population has been put forward, I feel that the same principle should be applied to the establishment of the electoral boundaries commissions.
Therefore, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Kamouraska (Mr. Dionne):
That the number ten be replaced by the number four.
And I also move that the following be added at the end of section 3:
That those four commissions be divided as follows: one for the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia; one for Ontario; another for the province of Quebec, and the last one for the maritime provinces, namely New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland.


Lucien Lamoureux: Is the committee ready for the question?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I would like to say a few words about the amendment. I may say to the hon. member for Shefford that this was precisely the idea we started with when we began to consider this measure, when it was brought to my attention, as I think I told the house quite frankly in the last session of parliament at the first stage of the discussions on this whole business, and was made clear to us that we could not really hope to have an election under a redistribution before 1967 or 1968 if we had only one commission, because of the time that would necessarily elapse between the establishment of the commission and the time it would complete its work-


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. member for Bow River interjected at that point. I might point out to him that he ought to look at the history of the provincial commission in Ontario and see how long it has been engaged already in the task; and up to now it has dealt with metropolitan Toronto and not the rest of the province. Everyone who has studied these things has come to the same conclusion. We then thought, and it seemed a very reasonable thought, as the hon. member has put it forward now, that perhaps the tasks would be about equal-not quite; but about equal in proportion and in size-if there was one commission for the four provinces east of Quebec, one commission for Quebec, one for Ontario and one for the four provinces west

Electoral Boundaries Commission of Ontario. That seemed to have the attraction of creating problems of about equal proportions.
When we began to think that, unless these commissions for the western and eastern provinces were to be of inordinate size, there would be only one resident of each of these provinces on the commission, whereas in the case of Ontario and Quebec there would be three or four, and again in the case of one commission for the four western provinces there would be only one representative from Manitoba, one from Saskatchewan, and so on, it did not seem to us that this would prove very acceptable to the population.
With regard to the point made by the hon. member for Wellington South, I know he was speaking sincerely and it certainly sounds reasonable to suggest that the more commissions the greater the cost. However, I doubt whether in this particular circumstance this is true at all. The commission in Prince Edward Island, for example, is not going to have a very extensive task. There will always be four constituencies, or constituencies to elect four members, so that commission should not have to work for a whole year; it will work only as long as required to do the job. The same is true of Nova Scotia and the same is true of New Brunswick. It seems to me that if we had one commission for those four provinces it would more likely take longer than if we had a separate commission for each province.
Those of us who had to do with the matter of drafting were very much fortified in this view by the experience of Australia, which experience we examined. Although the population there is much smaller, and in some respects it is a more homogeneous country perhaps than Canada, Australia has six commissions, one for each state. I reached the same conclusion, but quite independently, as that reached by the representation commissioner after his return from Australia, when he advised me that he had also come to the conclusion that the most efficient and satisfactory way to carry out redistribution would be to have ten commissions. That is why the legislation was brought in in this form.
As I indicated before adoption of second reading, Mr. Chairman, we are not making this matter of confidence or anything of that sort, but I said that I felt that ten commissions would be much more satisfactory than one commission; and I think one commission would probably be more satisfactory than four, though it would take even longer.
In the circumstances, therefore, I do not feel I can support this amendment, although I can easily understand why the hon. gentleman has put it forward.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, if I may, I shall say a few words on the amendment submitted by my colleague, the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Rondeau).
The Minister of Transport raised some points against such an amendment, and all those who put forward any arguments must have cudgelled their brains for a long time to find such sophisms.
Indeed, there was not a valid argument against the amendment. It is obvious that a single commission for the four maritimes provinces will take longer than four commissions would, that is, one for each of the four provinces. With four commissions, one for the west, one for Ontario, one for the maritime provinces and one for Quebec, it is to be expected, as there are 35 counties in the four maritime provinces, that the commission responsible for those provinces will probably complete its task before the one responsible for Ontario, with 85 ridings.
It might perhaps take a longer time to have the work of the four maritime provinces done by one commission, instead of four, but that one commission for the four maritime provinces will certainly not finish its job before the Ontario commission, as that province comprises 85 ridings, or before the Quebec commission, which will have to deal with 75 ridings.
With ten commissions, as advocated by the Minister of Transport, some of them in certain provinces, would be completing their task in a few weeks, or a few months, whereas, those responsible for other provinces, would finish their work much later.
In the meantime, commissions having completed their work would have nothing to do while remaining on the federal government payroll. On the other hand, if only four commissions were appointed, with four secretariats, four personnel services, etc., a considerable amount of money could be saved and it would not take a longer period of time to establish the boundaries of the constituencies. Even if the four maritime provinces had only one commission, it would complete its work ahead of the Quebec and Ontario commissions.
The work for the country as a whole would not be delayed either should there be only one commission for the western provinces where there are only 72 ridings, or less than in the provinces of Quebec and Ontario.
Mr. Chairman, I submit that the Minister of Transport who contemplated earlier the appointment of four commissions, was right at that time; it was an appropriate thought, a bright idea-he has had a good idea for once, he should consider it again and carry it out.

Mr. Chairman, I feel that to have four commissions instead of ten would be more economical and that it would not delay by any means the fixing of electoral boundaries. On the other hand, the work would probably be more efficiently done since it would be concentrated in the hands of four commissions instead of ten.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Chairman, there is
another point which was not raised by the hon. member who spoke before me.
Throughout the debate which preceded examination of this bill, in committee, it was said that a member of parliament should represent people and not mountains, lakes, rivers or so many square miles of territory.
Consequently, according to the same principle, the proposed commissions should represent people rather than mountains, rivers or other water courses.
That is why I say that four commissions would represent people rather than square miles of territory.


Lucien Lamoureux: Is the house ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.
Amendment (Mr. Rondeau) negatived: Yeas, 7; nays, 81.


Lucien Lamoureux: I declare the amendment lost.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, this clause has been the subject of much debate in the house, some favouring one general commission as against ten, and we have just disposed of another variation. The Minister of Transport seems to be of the opinion that with 10 commissions the work will be done much more speedily than if it is arranged in some other way. He appears to be contemplating a period of 12 months for the completion of this task. I suggest there is a real danger of this objective not being achieved with 10 commissions, because if you look further along in the bill you discover that one of the members of each of these 10 commissions is to be the representation commissioner. So in actual practice it may well be that the work of the 10 commissions will be retarded because the representation commissioner has to be present at the meetings of each of these 10 commissions. He is only one man and he has to attend these meetings in 10 provinces. I think this is a matter which should really be reconsidered.
It is for that reason that some of us had in mind the setting up of one main commission of which the representation commissioner would be a member, and the work of that commission might be sublet to
16. 1964	2269
Electoral Boundaries Commission subcommittees in the provinces. I think that would tend to speed up the work rather than the present proposal doing so. I think the work should be done within a year, of course, and perhaps it can be done in a shorter time if the work is pursued expeditiously.
There is another reason why I like the idea of one general commission with subcommittees by provinces working under it. That reason is that the application of the act, the interpretation of the sections and the general method of approach to problems which arise will be determined by a senior body, a commission which has supervision over the whole country. I would expect that with 10 separate commissions we might have 10 varieties of solutions to the major problem which will affect each province, the closing of the gap between various constituencies. It is just possible that if there are a number of commissions operating within the provinces we will have considerable discontent and discussions which might well be avoided, whereas if there was one general plan and that general plan was applied by the subcommittees in each province the picture as a whole would be more complete. That is one of the dangers I see in the suggestion of 10 commissions.
I mentioned earlier that with 10 commissions there may very well be delay. I now say that in addition there may be 10 varieties of solutions to the problems that will be drawn to the attention of these commissions. Is this what we want to do? Here we are setting up a method to be followed on the basis of the last census and which will be followed in the future after subsequent censuses.
At the resolution stage and on second reading the Minister of Transport said that the government is not unalterably committed to anything in the bill, that suggestions will be seriously considered and might even be welcomed, and that modification of the bill might be acceptable after due consideration. I put this before him now. He weighed in his mind the idea of four commissions for four areas and then came out in favour of 10 commissions because he thought it would expedite the work, but I doubt that he weighed carefully the two factors I have just mentioned. Will he now put his mind to these points and let us see if we cannot come up jointly with an alteration here that will do a better job for us? Frankly, I do not see the work being done within the time limit the minister has put before us and I am a little dubious about the separate activities of 10 commissions.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, since the hon. gentleman has put the point directly

Electoral Boundaries Commission to me I should like to say it is almost exactly a year since I first began to give serious consideration to this matter. In fact, it will be a year next Wednesday. It was on the very first day that the government took office that I was entrusted by the Prime Minister with the task of trying to prepare this legislation. I do not think a day has passed in that time that I have not reflected on some aspect or other of this very difficult problem because I realize, as so many members have said, that this is a historic departure we are taking. I have given, I think, just as much consideration as my mind is capable of giving to this question and, as I indicated when I spoke just before second reading, it was the only point in the whole bill on which, so far as I was personally concerned, I felt I had reached a conclusion that this was the preferable way of doing it.
The suggestion of the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre is certainly not without its attractions. He suggests that there should be one over-all commission, a kind of appeal body, and ten subcommissions; but on balance it seems to me that would be a more complicated structure. It means that everything has got to be looked at twice and it seems to me that any advantage that arrangement would have is equally well fulfilled by the arrangement of having the representation commissioner as an ex officio member of each one of the ten commissions, and without the duplication of consideration that would be involved by having one commission with ten subcommissions.
As for the matter of time, it would certainly take far longer. It is not contemplated that the representation commissioner will attend all the meetings of all the commissions, and I think it would be a wasted effort if he did. He will undoubtedly exercise a co-ordinating function and will attend meetings from time to time. As the time required for these various commissions will obviously be different because of the difference in the magnitude of the problems, I do not think there will be much difficulty about his being able to go to some of the smaller provinces, where the job will obviously be done earlier, for their final meetings before some of the other provinces are ready for the final stage. So that on reflection I do not think I would conclude there is any real danger on this particular score.
As for variations, I have a couple of amendments I am going to propose that have been suggested by the debate on both sides of the house when we come to the relevant clauses, in order to try to ensure that the rules of procedure will be kept in line. But I am not sure that all those social, historical and traditional considerations that various


members have suggested in the course of the debate are not apt to have more account taken of them by commissions, in each case composed of three people resident in the province and conscious of the background and history of the province, than would be the case with an over-all commission on which, unless it was very large, there would not be the same local representation.
It may well be that, because of the different character of the different provinces the tolerance will be exercised, and ought to be exercised, in a somewhat different way in one province from another. As the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre rather indicated this afternoon, a rather rigid adherence to the representation by population principle will more likely come from a single centralized commission than from a series of ten commissions each familiar, because they would be composed of people living in the province, with these local considerations which are, I admit at once, very important.
I think one hon. member stated that as far as possible we ought to try where possible to have the new constituencies based on a nucleus of the existing constituencies. I agree with that and I think most members of the house agree with that. This, again, is something that will be provided better by three people resident within a province than by someone looking at it from outside the province, as would be the case with a single commission. I think we have gone over most of the arguments, one way or another, and after a lot of very careful consideration I have come to the conclusion that, while there is a lot to be said for both schemes, on balance I think the job would be done better and I am quite certain it would be done more expeditiously, if we had ten commissions instead of one.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I am grateful to the minister for his comments, but I should like to ask him this question. Earlier in his remarks he mentioned that the representation commissioner would not be attending all the meetings of each provincial commission, but he would be a co-ordinator. Now, what does this mean? Is this the man to whom the provincial commissioners refer their problems when they are trying to make a decision? I am not expressing any lack of confidence in the representation commissioner; I know him quite well. Nevertheless, is it the representation commissioner who is going to be the chief adviser to each one of these provincial commissions?
He has knowledge of the constituencies. Obviously, he must be working in advance on the maps of the constituencies. Is his mind set along one particular line or another? We

do not know. Yet, if he is to be the co-ordinator his views are going to carry a great deal of weight with the provincial commissions. I just wonder whether this is perhaps the wisest method. If he is in doubt himself, is he going to come to the Minister of Transport for advice because he has no means of consulting with all of us here?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, sir.


Gordon Minto Churchill: If the reports I have heard are correct, for example, and some people have mentioned them in the house, the maps are already prepared for every constituency in Canada and every constituency is going to be altered, or nearly every one. I suggest immediately that is the wrong approach. If commissioners coming fresh to the job are going to be presented with maps showing the divisions within their province based strictly on the representation by population principle, which is the only one upon which maps could be drawn, the commission will start off on a wrong tangent.
Perhaps there is another approach. I do not know what is in the mind of the commissioner who is going to be the co-ordinator.
I think the approach should be from the known to the related unknown; that is, to take the constituencies as they are, you see how closely they come to the quotient that is set and you leave unchanged just as many as you can because of the historic associations with so many of our constituencies. Then, you gradually work your way to the point where you approach the quotient for your province, but at the same time taking into account whatever tolerance is permitted. Of course, my view of that is that there should be a wide discretion in the hands of the commission.
It is a little disturbing if the representation commissioner is to be the co-ordinator, and perhaps if this is so the representation commissioner should meet with some committee of this house so that we know what is in his mind before he starts on his travels.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think the hon. gentleman asked me a question at the beginning of his remarks, and I should like to answer it. I seem to have created a misapprehension in his mind. I suggest that he look at clause 7 of the bill which indicates quite clearly that all four commissioners have an equal voice at any meeting. If there should be a draw it would not be the representation commissioner but the chairman of the commission who would be the judge who would have to decide on the vote. In using the word "co-ordinator", I had in mind that it would be possible for the representation commissioner to suggest what one commission was doing with a view
16, 1964
Electoral Boundaries Commission to keeping the uniformity which the hon. member for Bow River and others suggested would be desirable. As I understand it, if we enact the bill setting up these independent commissions, none of us is going to try to tell the commission what to do, beyond the rules we lay down in the bill itself. I am sure they will all read these debates, at least I hope they will. Beyond that, none of us is going to try and tell them how to do this job. We are going to try and establish a procedure in this bill for getting the best possible commissioners and then trust them to do what parliament intends them to do within the limits parliament has laid down.


Stanley Howard Knowles: As the Minister of Transport indicated a few moments ago, Mr. Chairman, there is some attractiveness to the proposition advanced by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, namely that it would be desirable to have only one commission. There is something that looks rather tidy about that, and I think we all understand the motives of the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre in advancing this proposition. However, this is a subject upon which there has been a good deal of thought by all of us, and we, in the New Democratic party feel that it would be preferable to have a separate commission to do the job in each province.
I am not going to take the time to go over all the arguments. They have been made and they have been answered. It seems to me that the argument that one commission would be more economical than ten is countered by the fact that one commission would have to do much more work and therefore require much more staff. Any suggestion that it would be simpler is also offset by the obligation of having a staff that would have to work in the various provinces.
It seems to me that the overriding argument is this. After we have established this commission we want the job of redistribution to be as satisfactory as it can be to the people of Canada, and that means to the people of the areas affected. I am sure the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre and I would be met with some strong feelings on the part of the Manitoba people if the boundaries in Manitoba were drawn by a commission, based at Ottawa, that would not have on it people who belong to Manitoba. I think in the case of Manitoba, and this applies to all the rest of the provinces, we will get a more satisfactory job done. We will get recognition of the local conditions, geographical, topographical, sociological and all the rest, much better if we have a commission for each province. Therefore this is simply to reaffirm the position we have taken in the past and to say, having thought the matter over, that

Electoral Boundaries Commission we feel the clause should carry in the form in which it now appears in the bill.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I think the minister somewhat misinterpreted the remarks of the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre in reference to the question of a co-ordinator. May I just ask one simple question. This is one Canada, although it is true it is made up of ten provinces, but by the provision of this bill you have ten distinct commissions. You have ten bosses, and if it comes to a question of principle, of interpretation of the bill, who is the boss?


An hon. Member:: You.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: That is a good answer. It certainly should not be any individual member of parliament because we are only going to be safeguarded-putting the words back into the mouth of the minister-if it is the rule of law that governs and not a person in an administrative capacity on the front benches.
On the question of co-ordination, you say it will be the chief electoral officer, but it must not be forgotten that he is a member of every commission, and there may be one interpretation of the law in one province and another interpretation in another province. The only safeguard we have is the fact that it does come back to parliament and somebody can complain, but that does not seem sufficient.
What the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre had in mind was that if there were one commission that does not mean it would do all the detailed work. It would be the top boss, with subcommittees under it. It is something like the judiciary. Each province has a supreme court, but if there is a national question to be decided it is the Supreme Court of Canada which decides, and that decision is final. You often have the supreme court of one province making a decision one way and the supreme court of another province making a decision another way, but once the matter is raised on a national scale there is only the one decision of the Supreme Court of Canada.
Again I ask, who is the co-ordinator? The chief electoral officer is only one man and he cannot attend all these commissions when they are sitting simultaneously. What you are really setting up are ten distinct bodies and ten distinct bosses, and they may interpret the law in different ways. That is what I gathered from the argument put forward by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, and I think that was behind the thinking of the previous government.
The minister says his government has been thinking about this thing for a year, but the previous government had a bill on the tracing board which I am sure he studied,

and it provided for one commission. We do not want to balkanize this country. I know we have problems of overlapping in federal and provincial rights, but surely in this matter there should be one distinct boss.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would just like to say a word about that, because I think the hon. gentleman has forgotten what he said earlier this afternoon in praise of the judiciary. The chairman of each of these commissions is going to be a high court judge, who is accustomed to interpreting the law, who is paid a salary to interpret the law and, after all, this law will not be a very complicated one. The job to be done is very complicated, heaven knows, but the law is not very complicated. Further, as the hon. member rightly pointed out, all these reports do come back here and if any one of these commissions has seriously misinterpreted the law, no doubt exception will be taken to that decision and, if you like, the final court of appeal is right here.
I can say, as I said in replying to the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, his argument has many attractive features. I do not think it is a case of black and white at all. It is just a question of which one is preferable and for my part, balancing the advantages and disadvantages of the two, I think what we have recommended is preferable.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: May I ask this one question. Suppose an argument did arise in reference to the question I posed this afternoon, regarding the interpretation of section 51(5) of the British North America Act, and the commission in Saskatchewan takes a different point of view to what the minister has said has been the point of view over the years, who would decide that question-the commission sitting in Saskatchewan or the nine other commissions? Who would have the final authority on that? You have ten distinct commissions, nine differing with Saskatchewan, and you would have an uproar. There should be one Canadian boss.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That point is not for the commissions to decide at all. That point is decided by the constitution, and the bill does provide that the commissions will be informed how many members, according to the provisions of the law, there are for each province, just as parliament has been informed when this has been done by parliament. If the interpretation that is made of section 51 is questioned by anyone competent to question it then, of course like any other question of interpretation of the law, I think I am right in saying this would possibly have to be decided by the courts.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: That may be the point, but what court? Say it is the chief justice of the province of Alberta or Saskatchewan. To interpret the law he must understand the framework of the law under which he is operating. If he interprets the law differently from another commissioner in another province, then you have confusion. I do not think that question is properly answered. The minister says go before the courts. What court would that go before?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not think the hon. gentleman understood what I said. I said possibly it might be taken before the courts, and he raised the question with respect to Saskatchewan, and said there might be more than one interpretation of section 51 of the British North America Act. Well, under the legislation section 51 of the British North America Act is not going to be interpreted by this commission from Saskatchewan.
The commission from Saskatchewan will be given what I might call the accepted interpretation, and if anyone wants to challenge that in the courts, and say it is not the proper interpretation, it would be challenged by the ordinary processes of law. I would remind the hon. gentleman that the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre quite rightly regarded the practice in England as a model in many of these things, and they do not have one commission for the whole country. They have four, one for each of the divisions of the country.


Gordon Minto Churchill: But in that connection the chairman of each of the commissions-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. The hon. member for Lake St. John.


Mr. Lessard (Lake St. John):: Mr. Chairman, I thank you for recognizing us, for I realize several members of the official opposition had a chance to put forward their point of view, and I would like to state mine very briefly. Whatever the decision taken tonight or tomorrow, as to whether it is appropriate to establish one commission or ten commissions, I believe it will be extremely difficult to create a perfect commission, as the commissioners will certainly experience difficulties or face certain problems.
Nevertheless, to echo, at it were, the remarks of the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Patterson) in this connection, I may say we unanimously recognize that with ten commissions, we shall have a better chance to do justice to the provinces.
Like other hon. members, we have fought to a certain extent in order that the provinces may have a fair representation and may express their views. I feel that the proposal
16, 1964
Electoral Boundaries Commission placed before us tonight, namely to establish a commission for each province, is entirely in line with the aim of confederation which is that each province should be able to express its own views.
Some hon. members have said that this procedure would be much more expensive. Personally, I do not think so, for if the commission, for instance, sitting to establish the boundaries of electoral ridings in Prince Edward Island-the smallest province in the country-worked only one week to complete the job, it certainly would only be paid on that basis for its work. On the other hand, if the Ontario commission had to work two or three months to complete its job, it would also be paid on that basis.
This way, I think we would avoid all the travelling that would go on if we had a single commission which would have to move about, from Vancouver to Halifax, to hear representations or claims from the various groups concerned.
Mr. Chairman, I think that the ten commission formula is probably the best we could consider at this time, even if it has some disadvantages. That is why I think we should accept that clause as it is and carry on our discussion of this bill.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 4 and 5 agreed to.
On clause 6-Appointment of chairman, etc.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Clause 6 is the clause which provides for the manner in which the members of the various commissions are to be appointed. We have now established, by the clauses we have passed, that there will be ten commissions and that each commission shall consist of four members. The wording of clause 6 as it now appears in the bill, provides for the chairman of the commission to be appointed by the chief justice of the province from among the judges of the court over which he presides. It also provides for the fourth member of the commission in each province to be the representation commissioner. The other two members are to be appointed on the nomination, in one case of the Prime Minister, and in the other of the Leader of the Opposition.
As we indicated in the debate on the second reading of this bill, we think an improvement could be made with respect to the naming of those two commissioners. We can understand the motivation which led to the wording of the clause as we now have it, but we feel that if we are to get this business of redistribution completely away from partisan considerations, or at least as far away as it is humanly possible to do so, we should not have two of the commissioners

Electoral Boundaries Commission in each, province appointed by persons who, though they can be named as Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition are, in fact, the heads of two of the political parties in this country.
We have paid some attention to the debates on this matter in the past. As I recall, the present Minister of Transport when he was on the opposition side of the house took a stand for the naming of the commissioners in the former legislation in a way which seemed to call for the naming of these persons by parliament either by their actual names or by the offices they held. We feel this is what should be done. Instead of having these two commissioners named by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition they should be named in a manner which would involve the setting up of categories or positions from which they would be chosen. We have drawn attention on several occasions to the situation in Manitoba where for a number of years we have had an independent commission. That commission consists of the chief justice of the province, the president of the University of Manitoba and the chief electoral officer. My thinking with regard to what might be done in terms of setting up a commission of four members stems from the experience of Manitoba. We have a provincial boundaries commission of three in Manitoba consisting of those I have named. I think a desirable commission for redistributing the federal constituencies in Manitoba would be the chief justice, the president of the university, the chief electoral officer and the representation commissioner.
I suggested earlier that this might be a pattern to be followed across Canada. However, several difficulties were raised when we were considering second reading. One was that there was not a president of a provincial university, just one person holding such a position, in all the provinces. That does present a difficulty and one we have to meet. There was also the question of whether or not persons outside the employ of the federal government would accept a position on the commission. How, it was asked, could we by legislation name the chief electoral officer of a province or a president of a provincial university to a commission which comes under the federal parliament. These objections were raised in the debate and they were real objections which had to be met.
As a result, my colleagues and I did a little thinking about it. We did some work on it and I produced, a few weeks ago, an amendment to this clause-an amendment which was actually in two parts. One was an amendment to the clause itself and the other was a

schedule to the act. The gist of this amendment was that these two commissioners should be named by the chief justice of the province, if there was someone in that position, from among persons in categories set out in the schedule. And in the schedule which I drafted I submitted several categories such as chief electoral officer, surveyor-general, registrar of vital statistics, president of the university, and so on. At one time I had quite a lengthy schedule. I might say I showed this amendment to colleagues in my own party and to members of other parties and it got around that I had this proposal. I was very pleased and complimented when I learned it had come to the attention of the representation commissioner himself. He discussed the matter with me and he asked me if I would like to show him my proposed amendment. I was happy to do so. He then rendered me a service which I think we all welcome when it is done. He had a law officer look at it and come up with an alternative draft of the proposal I had made. So the amendment I am now about to offer is an amendment incorporating an idea produced in this corner of the house, though the language which, as hon. members will recognize in a moment as somewhat legalistic, is the language of the law officers of the crown. I may say I am hopeful that this amendment may be acceptable. Indeed, I am so hopeful that I have had it mimeographed, and it can be distributed among the hon. members in the chamber. I must apologize for the fact that my French is not good enough to enable me to translate this lengthy document, but that will be done.
As I say, the purpose of this amendment is to alter the way in which these other two commissioners are to be appointed. My proposal is that one of them should be chosen from among the chief electoral officer, the surveyor-general or the registrar of vital statistics of the province or the holder of any similar office in the province, and that the other one be chosen from among the president or other similar officer of, or a member of the faculty of, a university, college or other educational institution providing courses at a post-secondary school level in the province. If hon. members will reflect for a moment they will see that the net result of the subamendment would be that we would have for each province a commission of four, consisting of a person appointed to be chairman by the chief justice from the court over which he presides; the representation commissioner, and two others, one of them a person such as the chief electoral officer and the other the president of the university or someone in a comparable position.
When one sets out to make a provision of this kind he also makes arrangements for

these appointments to be made. He also has to make the necessary arrangements in case the desired persons are not available. The wording of my amendment, which is a bit lengthy, therefore tries to take care of these contingencies. With that explanation, Mr. Chairman, I shall in a moment read and present the amendment. As I say, this is based on the idea that we think these commissions should be completely independent and that there is still a little suggestion of partisanship in the present arrangement whereby two of them are named, one by the leader of the largest political party in the country and the other by the leader of the second largest political party in the country, even though their titles in the bill are those of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition.
I therefore move, Mr. Chairman:
That clause 6 of Bill C-72 be amended by striking out subclauses (1), (2) and (3) thereof, and by substituting therefor the following:
" (1) The chairman of the commission for a province shall be appointed by the chief justice of the province from among the judges of the court over which he presides, and the two other members other than the representation commissioner shall be appointed by the chief justice of the province from among such persons coming within any of the following classes as the chief justice deems suitable, that is to say:
(a)	the chief electoral officer, the surveyor-general or the registrar of vital statistics of the province or the holder of any similar office in the province: or
(b)	the president or other similar officer of or a member of the faculty of, a university, college or other educational institution providing courses at a post-secondary school level in the province: except that not more than one member shall be appointed from among persons coming within the class described in paragraph (a) and not more than one member shall be appointed from among persons coming within the class described in paragraph (b), and in the event that within either or both of those classes there is no such person able to act as a member of the commission the chief justice of the province, with the approval of the representation commissioner, shall appoint such member or both of such members, as the case may be, from among such persons resident in the province as the chief justice deems suitable.
(2) In the event that there is no judge of the court over which the chief justice of the province presides able to act as chairman of the commission, or where for any reason no appointment of a chairman or of either or both of the two other members other than the representation commissioner is made within the time provided therefor by this act, the Chief Justice of Canada or in the event of his absence or incapacity the senior puisne judge of the Supreme Court of Canada shall make the appointment or appointments from among such persons resident in the province as he deems suitable.''; and by renumbering subclause (4) as subclause (3).
If hon. members have an opportunity to look at this and compare it with clause 6 as we now have it, they will see that this proposed amendment strikes out the first three subclauses and puts in the two new
16, 1964
Electoral Boundaries Commission ones that the amendment outlines. Then it retains the present subclause (4) but renumbers it as subclause (3). The total effect of the amendment is to leave intact the provision for the appointment of the chairman of each commission, and to leave intact the fact that the representation commissioner is a member of the commission, but to make this alteration that we propose, namely that the other two, instead of being appointed on the nomination of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, will be appointed in the manner indicated from among the categories set out in this amendment.
I dare to believe, Mr. Chairman, from the discussion that we had on this matter on second reading, the discussions we have had on this matter in the past and the general desire that this whole business of redistribution shall be as far away from partisan politics as it is possible to make it, that this amendment will commend itself generally to hon. members of the house.


Lucien Lamoureux: Is the committee ready for the question?


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Chairman, I am sure we all agree with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that the unanimous desire of this whole house is to avoid any semblance of partisanship whatsoever, although none of us had time to master the long, involved and detailed amendment which he has brought forward. I know the hon. member would think it an insult if we accepted this amendment at such short notice, because it certainly is worthy of much more careful consideration than we can give it between 9.57 and ten o'clock.
The hon. member says he wishes to avoid partisanship, and of course he does. He refers to a wide category of people. I can think, for instance, in this connection of one university in the province of which I have some knowledge where the head of one of the departments happens to be the president of the political party for which the hon. member is now speaking. I am not sure whether that diminishes the partisanship, or whether it would not be better to let the nomination be in the hands of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. Also in the same university the president happens to have been a former leader of one of the major political parties of this country and a premier of a province. I am sure he is entirely divorced from any political suggestions whatsoever, but I would just as soon accept the nomination of a politician, the Prime Minister or the Leader of the Opposition, as I would one who due to circumstances over which he unfortunately,

Electoral Boundaries Commission from his own standpoint, had no control, finds himself in the position where he is now a university president.
I think there are many factors in this matter which deserve very careful consideration. My own feeling offhand, in agreeing that we must avoid partisanship, is that perhaps the best way to avoid partisanship is to recognize the fact that there is partisanship and we are going to accept responsibility by having the best appointments made by political officers who have a responsibility to the country as a whole. However, Mr. Chairman, that matter can be discussed much better, I think, tomorrow morning. May I call it ten o'clock, Mr. Chairman?
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker may I ask the
acting house leader whether he intends to go ahead with this bill tomorrow or let public opinion have something to say about it and switch to some other subject.


John Watson MacNaught: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we will continue with the committee stage of this bill. When that is completed we will go ahead with the resolution preceding the amendment to the Post Office Act, and then the budget resolutions.


Gordon Minto Churchill: We have not given the press gallery a chance to do objective reporting on this bill. They need more time.


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


[Stage Direction]
Under this co-operative agreement the government of Canada, other co-operating governments and the government of the United Kingdom declare their agreed objectives with respect to world trade in cereals. These are, first, that the world market for cereals should be improved through the establishment of a better and more economic balance between world supplies and commercial demand and that to this end there should be the provision of acceptable conditions of access into world markets for cereals in the furtherance of a significant development and expansion of world trade in cereals. Second, that there should be the assurance of supplies of cereals and cereal products at equitable and stable prices and the creation of greater stability in the levels of international prices for them. We have agreed that these objectives should be sought in such ways as would take into account the interests of both producers and consumers and of importing and exporting countries.
As the house is aware, negotiations are now going forward under GATT auspices, and in the context of the forthcoming Kennedy round of trade negotiations, for a comprehensive world grains agreement. In these negotiations we shall be co-operating closely with the United Kingdom, cereals exporting countries and other countries in pursuit of these broad objectives. Pending the conclusion of long term international cereals arrangements the government of the United Kingdom declares in this agreement its intention of introducing adaptations into its existing cereals policy with the objectives of permitting greater stability in the United Kingdom market and of maintaining a fair and reasonable balance between home production and imports. This balance would be broadly based on the present supplies to the United Kingdom market from domestic production on the one hand and cereals imports on the other and would provide the opportunity for domestic producers and overseas suppliers to share in the future growth of the United Kingdom market In a fair and reasonable way.
The new British cereals arrangements are to be introduced on July 1. Under this arrangement the British will seek to discourage the growth of domestic cereals production above a level consistent with their stated objectives by disincentives limiting financial assistance to producers in relation to specified volumes
of production. In addition a system of minimum import prices is to be applied designed to prevent prices in the United Kingdom from falling to very low levels and so to limit the amount of the deficiency payment which would otherwise be payable to producers. A list of the products involved and of the minimum import prices to be applied to them have been tabled with the exchange of letters. There has also been made available to the house a comparative table showing the dollar per bushel equivalent of the minimum import prices, basis c.i.f. United Kingdom, for items of direct interest to Canada and the current market prices for these items. The minimum import prices for Canadian wheat are well below current market prices. Accordingly, trade will proceed in the normal way without a levy.
The proposed minimum import price for screenings of a fibre content of 15 per cent or less could give rise to a levy on Canadian exports. There was insufficient time to clear up this point before the United Kingdom government considered it necessary to issue its minimum import price order. However, the United Kingdom government has given the assurance that it will consult with the Canadian government and other co-operating governments with the object of working out a mutually satisfactory solution which would avoid possible damage to Canadian trade in this product. In the meantime no levy would be imposed on Canadian screenings. Finally, special arrangements have been made for wheat flour which will fully safeguard Canada's preferential position in the British market. Paragraph 13 of the United Kingdom letter sets forth the general British assurances concerning the maintenance of the benefits enjoyed by Canada as a preferential supplier to Britain.
Under the exchange of letters procedures are established for making any necessary changes in the products covered by the minimum import price system and in the minimum prices to apply. Such changes are to be worked out in consultation or agreement with the co-operating governments concerned.
The government of the United Kingdom will take action to maintain the levels of the prescribed minimum prices by such levies as may be necessary for this purpose. The government of Canada has undertaken to cooperate so far as practicable in the operation and observance of the prescribed minimum
[Stage Direction]
import prices. On this basis Canadian sales of the products concerned will be exempt from any levy except in the circumstances stated in paragraph 8 of the British letter.
Under the arrangements which have been made with the United Kingdom government the minimum import price arrangements are to be reviewed in consultation with co-operating governments before the beginning of each crop year or on request during a crop year. In addition not later than the beginning of December in each year the co-operating governments will review with the United Kingdom government the extent to which the objectives set forth in the British letter are being achieved. Amongst other things this review will be concerned with the maintenance of a fair and reasonable balance in subsequent years between domestic production and imports in the light of supply and marketing conditions, including the relative efficiency of suppliers and changes therein. In this connection the United Kingdom government have stated their intention that changes in their domestic guarantee arrangements should be made as necessary to this end.