1964-04-23

Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, while the rules may not allow me to rise at this time I hope that the house as a whole will permit me on behalf, I am sure, of all hon. members to extend to the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) warmest good wishes on the occasion of his sixty seventh birthday.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: With it I couple the hope that he will have many more years of health and happiness.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I may add to the words of the right hon. Leader of the Opposition by saying that the members of this party join with him and his party and with all members of the house in extending to the right hon. Prime Minister our best wishes on his birthday. We hope he will have the good health to enjoy many more such days. May I say that this occasion is rather significant because today is also the birthday of Shakespeare, St. George and the Governor General of Canada, which ought to make it a very auspicious day for Canada.


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: It is a pleasure for me on behalf of this party to offer our very best wishes to the Prime Minister on this, his birthday. I suppose many of us remember the day more specifically because it is St. George's day, when goodness traditionally triumphed over evil.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Norman Thompson: I think in the events that are taking place today my birthday list has become mixed. Thus my gift has gone to the leader of the official opposition instead.


Mr. Real Caouette (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of our group I should like to extend to the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) our best wishes on the occasion of his birthday.
I want to take this opportunity to underline the important achievements of the Prime Minister as far as recognition of the groups which make up our country is concerned. Never in the history of Canada, in my opinion, has a Prime Minister so efficiently and effectively taken a stand on the recognition of the two main ethnic groups of our country, the French Canadians and the English Canadians.
Our opinion may differ from that of the Prime Minister on many occasions, Mr. Speaker, but that does not prevent us from seeing in him a great Canadian. I hope he will be with us for a long time.


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: I should like very sincerely to acknowledge with gratitude the kind words of the Leader of the Opposition and the leaders of the other parties. Those words remind us that there are personal friendships and personal good will which know no party boundaries. I am, as I believe each of us is, a beneficiary of this spirit of parliament. Political life is difficult, but it would be infinitely more difficult if we did not have these amenities, and I am grateful for the kind words which have been said to me on my birthday. But, Mr. Speaker,
I confess that the last birthday seems an awfully long time back.



PRIVILEGE


Mr. Gerard Girouard (Labelle):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege which will, I am sure, interest the entire house.
Following some pressures by the organizers and electors of my constituency who, as I did, had put their faith in the Social Credit party which has fallen to pieces on account of its internal quarrels and its hopeless strife; following the hesitations, the reversal of policies, the weakness of the Liberal party in the face of vital problems such as the survival of confederation, unemployment and agriculture; following the Lesage-Pearson deal which clearly proves that the provincial claims have been pushed aside for a political bargaining meant to save the Grits in Ottawa and in Quebec; following the trust put by his party in the hon. member for Three Rivers

Question of Privilege (Mr. Balcer) whom I have learned to respect tor a long time for his courage as well as for his restraint, I have offered my services and my co-operation to the Conservative party-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gérard Girouard: -and I ask Your Honour for permission to change seats in this house as soon as possible.


Mr. Gerard Ouellei (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.
I find myself in the same political situation as the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Girouard) and, for the same reasons put forth by my colleague, I am asking for the same privilege.


Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Eric Alfred Winkler: -but before I go into the detailed subject matter I too should like to extend to the Prime Minister my sincere felicitations on his birthday. I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that the following members be recognized in accordance with the changes that have been made today: Mr. Danforth, M.P. for Kent, Ontario, at desk No. 180; Mr. Slogan, M.P. for Springfield, at desk No. 235; Mr. Webb, M.P. for Hastings-Frontenac, at desk No. 236; Mr. Girouard, M.P. for La-belle, at desk No. 237 and Mr. Ouellet, M.P. for Rimouski, at desk No. 238.


Mr. Speaker:: In accordance with the request of the hon. member I would ask the Clerk to take note of the seat changes. [Translation]


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order concerning the two questions of privilege raised.
I would ask that the statement made by both members be referred to the committee on privileges and elections. Following the assertions made by the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Girouard) at the time of the split within the Social Credit party, he had stated that a member cannot cast off his allegiance to a political party unless has has been elected as such in an election. I am asking therefore that the subject of the two questions of privilege be referred to the committee on privileges and elections.


Mr. Gerard Chapdelaine (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a very important personal question of privilege. For the same reasons 

given by the hon. members for Labelle (Mr. Girouard) and Rimouski (Mr. Ouellet), I should like to ask Your Honour for the privilege of not joining the ranks of the Conservative party.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Naturally I have only been advised very recently of the suggested changes, but I have had an opportunity of looking into the precedents very quickly. There are two precedents which I need not discuss but simply mention the names. Mr. Argue was one and Mr. Thatcher was another. In both cases no discussion took place after the announcement of the change of venue, so to speak. Therefore in the present case I suggest that the point of order raised by the hon. member for Lapointe is not a point of order, and consent has already been given to the suggested changes in the seating.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, under standing order 26 I move the adjournment of the house for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely the extension of the winter works program in designated areas.
Mr. Speaker, standing order 26 states that in order to move the adjournment of the house, a definite matter of urgent public importance must be involved. The matter I wish to have discussed today is extremely definite and restricted, namely the extension of the winter works program in designated areas.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) in his budget speech, which is the most important speech of the year, stated-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It is very difficult for the Chair to hear the arguments. Could we have a little more order?


Gilles Grégoire: The Minister of Finance stated in his budget speech-that is the most important speech-as reported in Hansard, at page 970, left hand column:
Our first goal is high level employment.
And at page 972, left hand column, at the top of the page:
Our plans and policies are designed to meet the special needs of areas of the country or groups of the population confronted with special difficulties and problems.
The situation itself proves that the matter is important, since the Minister of Finance

himself recognizes that this is the primary objective of the Canadian government, and duty of the opposition is to help the government achieve this objective.
Third, the matter is national in scope and of general interest, since it concerns 35 designated areas and will also help to balance the situation for the areas and for the people, along the lines advocated by the Prime Minister and the present government, who have always hoped for it and who have devoted their energies toward a greater unity and a better national understanding. In addition, that will put an end to the discrimination that prevails in various regions of the country because weather conditions differ. The most beautiful regions, with the best weather conditions have the highest employment rate, whereas the regions where the weather conditions are harsher in winter have the highest unemployment rate. Those are the regions where unemployment is most severe and they are precisely the areas designated by the Minister of Labour (Mr. MacEachen).
Moreover, Mr. Speaker, it is a very urgent matter since today is the 23rd of April and the winter works period is supposed to end on April 30, which means that there are only seven days left to solve that problem.
Furthermore, we will have no other opportunity to discuss the matter prior to April 30, and after that date it will be too late.
Mr. Speaker, I submit that this motion meets all the requirements of standing order 26, for it deals with a definite matter, the most important we have to discuss. Furthermore, and the Minister of Finance admitted it in his budget speech, it is of general interest, national in scope and extremely urgent, since the winter works period will expire soon and we will have no other opportunity of discussing this matter.
This motion also meets all the requirements of paragraph 6 of standing order 26. Therefore, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette), that the proceedings of the house be adjourned in order to discuss a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely the extension of the winter works period beyond April 30 in designated areas.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to decide whether the general proceedings of the house should be adjourned in order that an urgent matter may be discussed under standing order 26. I may say right at the beginning that the hon. member has presented a very interesting case, but what was contemplated by standing order 26 was the occurrence of a sudden emergency. In this connection I would refer
Labour Conditions
the hon. member to Beauchesne's fourth edition, paragraph 8, citation 100 at page 91.
This is a problem which was existing last Monday and Tuesday, when a supply motion was before the house, and it seems to me an opportunity was given then to discuss the matter at length.


Gilles Grégoire: No.


Mr. Speaker:: In any event, I must decide according to my best judgment that the house should not be adjourned under standing order 26 at this time, and that in consequence the motion moved by the hon. member for Lapointe and seconded by the hon. member for Villeneuve should not be received.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, we are most respectful of the ruling you have just made; nevertheless, we consider that the situation is urgent, and as you have stated, it has been in existence for the last week, during the present week and it will still exist in a year or two. Hence, the hon. member for Lapointe introduced a resolution that you declared out of order, and it is my duty to appeal against Your Honour's ruling because I consider the situation is an absolutely urgent one since the winter works program will be terminated within a week in sections that have been designated as underdeveloped areas throughout Canada.
I, therefore, appeal against Your Honour's ruling.


Mr. Speaker:: In answer to the hon. member I must recall the following to his attention, and I shall read it very slowly so that all hon. members, I hope, will agree.
Hon. members will recall that on April 7, 1964, at page 1845 of Hansard, the house sustained a ruling of the Chair to the effect that there was no appeal from a decision made by the Speaker under standing order 26. The house having already taken a decision on this matter, it is my view that it cannot be questioned again during the current session and must stand as the judgment of the house. In this regard I wish to refer hon. members to May's sixteenth edition at page 400, Bourinot's fourth edition at page 328 and Beauchesne's fourth edition citation 200(1). For the above reason I cannot permit this appeal.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I want to refer to another precedent and bring in several other quotations in support of my right to appeal against your ruling.

Labour Conditions


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Under the standing orders given to me by all hon. members of the house, I must exercise my jurisdiction and say there is no appeal from that decision.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, we appeal on the right to appeal against Your Honour's ruling. Such a right has always been recognized, since Your Honour has even taken the vote of those who-


Mr. Speaker:: I would like to call to the hon. member's attention Beauchesne's fourth edition, citation 200, paragraph (1).
An old rule of parliament reads: "That a question being once made and carried in the affirmative or negative, cannot be questioned again but must stand as the judgment of the house".
It seems to me that the Chair has given a full and detailed explanation, and I must ask the hon. member to accept the decision of the Chair.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, we cannot accept that. If the unanimous consent of the house is required for this, such consent does not exist. I appeal against your ruling on the ruling you have just made, no matter what the parliamentary jurisprudence may have been in the past.
The winter works problem is urgent and we want the question to be put to the vote. We appeal against your ruling on this specific point.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is not appealing my decision, as stated in that way; he is appealing the decision rendered by all members in this house on a matter which has been put to the vo' e and decided by the members in the house. That decision I am applying this afternoon, and that decision I am not going to change.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege concerning our right to appeal against your rulings. In this regard I should like to quote the remarks of the hon. member for Essex East, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin)-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has heard the reasons given, which are good, logical reasons adopted and accepted by members in this house. That is the decision of the house. I am sure the hon. member is not going to force me to take 
action which I do not want to take. I am going to call orders of the day. The hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher).



U.S. EXPORT CONTROLS ON TECHNICAL DATA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce a question. It is based upon the fact that the United States government, through the department of commerce, has issued an order adding specifications and drawings to their export control list. I want to ask the minister whether he has had any indication that this is going to cause concern to Canadian subsidiaries of United States companies; and if so, what action is his department taking in the matter?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. gentleman has said, there has recently been a change in the United States regulations with respect to export controls on technical data. We are concerned about this matter. We have not had any representations from industry as such, but we are concerned as a government and we intend to discuss this with the United States cabinet secretaries when we meet them next week.



REDISTRIBUTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State. Is the minister prepared to table any maps prepared by the representation commissioner under section 8 of the Representation Commissioner Act, for reference during the debate on the redistribution bill?


Hon. Maurice Lamonlagne (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Minister of Transport, who has been responsible for the legislation which is now before the house, to deal with this question.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to give some consideration to the question raised before making an answer. I am sure the hon. gentleman would consider that reasonable.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, if the minister has time to consider this matter before ten o'clock tonight, I would give notice that I intend to raise this question at that time.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. When the minister answers that question, would he be kind enough to disclose how many maps are in existence and whether the maps under this act are actually maps drawn of constituency boundaries?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, since this act was passed I have studiously refrained from discussing this question of the existence of maps with the representation commissioner. I have seen none, but I will inquire of him during the day-I am sure there is no secret about it-and I will be glad also to answer that question at ten o'clock.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the minister suggest that there has been no communication, in reference to a number of maps drawing constituency boundaries in this country, between himself and the chief electoral officer of Canada?


John Whitney Pickersgill: There has been none, because unhappily that office is vacant. The hon. gentleman means the representation commissioner.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Yes, the representation commissioner.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I will answer the question the hon. gentleman intended to ask. I am quite well aware-so is the hon. member and so are a great many other hon. members on the other side of the house-that the representation commissioner has been diligently doing what under section 8 of the act passed by this parliament he was charged to do, and the representation commissioner told me that he was making progress with these matters. But since the day that act was passed I have made no inquiries on my own as to what maps there were. I have seen none of them. I thought it was none of my business; it was the business of the representation commissioner, and I have had plenty of other things to concern myself with, without trying to do other people's work.


Mr. W. H. A. Thomas (Middlesex West):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the Minister of Transport agree that the production of such maps, if they exist, would be of great assistance to hon. members in debating this redistribution matter?


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is a matter, sir, on which I do not think I have to agree or disagree. Each hon. member has his own intelligence and is capable of making up his own mind as to what assistance he needs in debate.
Inquiries of the Ministry [Translation]


Hon. Theogene Ricard (St. Hyacinlhe-Bagot):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Could the Secretary of State tell the house whether he has seen the cards in question?


Maurice Lamontagne: No, Mr. Speaker.



PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Jolieile-L'Assompiion-Montcalm):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister.
Can he assure the house that the new national pension plan will be brought forward during this session?


Lester Bowles Pearson: We expect that to be the case, Mr. Speaker. As soon as we can get the constitutional amendment through-and we are going to proceed with that matter without delay-and the changes that will be required in the bill as it is drafted at present, we will go ahead with that matter.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the Prime Minister whether the government is consulting with civil service organizations concerning the integration of the Canada pension plan with civil service pensions in such a way as to prevent civil servants from getting the full benefits of the Canada pension plan?


Lester Bowles Pearson: There have been discussions with representatives of the civil service. [Translation]


David Réal Caouette: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the Prime Minister tell us whether the agreement reached between Ottawa and Quebec respecting the Canada pension plan contains a provision allowing a province to change the contributions or the benefits without obtaining beforehand the consent of Ottawa and the other provinces?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The agreement is that there will be a universal pension scheme the provisions of which will be applicable to all Canadians.

Inquiries of the Ministry


John George Diefenbaker: By way of a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, may I ask whether there has been any consultation with other pension plan holders with a view to integrating the pension plans that they have. Take, for instance, the railway employees; they are quite seriously aroused over this plan, and they and the holders of pensions under many private plans are very anxious to know what is the position with regard to integration, and generally whether the new plan will in any way place them in an invidious position.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I can give my right hon. friend the assurance that the new plan will not place the private pension plans in an invidious position; and there will be discussions with private plan organizations, with a view to integration, as soon as that can be done.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Prime Minister what he has in mind in that connection to assure the fullest discussion and consultation with those who are in receipt of or who expect to receive pensions under private plans.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I can give the right hon. gentleman the assurance that there will be full discussion, and also that this matter can be discussed by the parliamentary committee. Those who are worried about the relationship of private plans to the federal legislation can appear before the committee, and will, I hope, receive assurances from that committee.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. I would ask the Prime Minister whether, in view of the provisions of section 94(a) of the British North America Act, which emphasize the dominant position of the provinces in the field of old age pensions, the constitutional amendment referred to last Monday by the Prime Minister will include a provision to shift supremacy to the federal government so as to prevent any province or provinces from legislating their people out of any national pension plan at any time in the future.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I cannot give a reply to that specific constitutional question, except to say that the amendment will be made after consultation with the provinces, and I think will meet all the points required.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask a supplementary question of the Prime Minister. Has he had sufficient replies from the provinces to indicate that there will be unanimous support for the plan which he outlined to the house last Monday?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, we have not had replies from all provinces. I am not sure whether we have had one from Saskatchewan, as well as one or two other provinces; but so far as the replies have been received, they have all been favourable to the arrangement and we are continuing discussions with the provinces on the details.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Fisheries a question relating to the third meeting of the north Pacific fisheries commission which is scheduled to take place here in Ottawa among Canada, the United States and Japan. I wonder whether the minister will tell us when this meeting will be taking place.


Hon. H. J. Robichaud (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, no final date has been set but the matter is under discussion now, and has been for some time, with the two countries involved, the United States and Japan, with a view to having this meeting at the earliest possible date.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Labour. I wonder if the minister could advise the house when those who are entitled to the $500 winter house building bonus may expect to receive their cheques.


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, these persons are eligible to receive their cheques just as soon as the certification inspections have been completed and application forms have been sent to the Department of Labour following that certification.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. I should even say it is a question of privilege since it concerns Quebec wives and mothers.

Have our soldiers been sent to Cyprus for a determined period of three months, ten months or a year, or will they remain on the island for an indefinite period of time?
In their letters, mothers and wives want to know exactly how long their husbands or sons, as the case may be, will remain in Cyprus.

Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National
Defence): Mr. Speaker, the stand-by force which was sent to Cyprus consisted of members of the regular armed forces of Canada. They were sent there for an initial three month period with the clear understanding from the government that they will remain there and serve as long as required during the emergency.


Mr. Marcel Lessard (Lake St. John):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could the Minister of National Defence tell us whether he intends to replace the men presently stationed in Cyprus after a period of three months?


Mr. Hellyer:: No, Mr. Speaker, I do not think that is a practical suggestion. Besides, I have infinite confidence in the Royal 22nd regiment and in the excellent job they are doing there.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question to the Minister of National Defence.
When our Canadian soldiers were sent to Cyprus, was it understood that they were going for a three month period or did they know whether, following a decision made subsequently, they would stay there as long as necessary?
Could the minister advise us on this matter?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: In that sense, Mr. Speaker, there was no definite period. It was well understood that they would remain as long as they were required to be there for the emergency.


David Réal Caouette: Before they left Canada?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Yes.



INTERFERENCE WITH CANADIAN


[Stage Direction]
, On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: The Leader of the Opposition inquired yesterday whether a report had been received from the United Nations on an incident in Cyprus
Inquiries of the Ministry to which he referred. I may say that the secretary general's office has now received a brief interim report on the situation; it confirms only that some shots were fired but that no casualties or damage was suffered. The secretary general's office anticipates receiving within 24 hours a full report after the investigation has been completed, and I will give that information to the house as soon as it is received.


John George Diefenbaker: As we now have an acting high commissioner in Cyprus in the person of the ambassador to Israel, has any direction been given to him to communicate with President Makarios in this regard so that assurances may be obtained from the president?


Lester Bowles Pearson: This is, of course, a somewhat complicated question in that the Canadian contingent is a part, and only a part, of the United Nations force, and for this reason we make our communications concerning our part in that force to the United Nations and through the United Nations to the commander of the force, and through the commander of the force to the government of the country in which the force is operating. That is the correct procedure. We do have a diplomatic representative in Cyprus, however, and on appropriate occasions I agree that we should not hesitate to use that channel of communication with the government of Cyprus, subject to our obligation to the force and to the United Nations and its channels of communication.


John George Diefenbaker: Subject to our obligation to the United Nations, does the Prime Minister not agree, in the circumstances, Cyprus being a commonwealth country, that our high commissioner there should be in a position to communicate, and should communicate, with President Makarios; because after all it is Canadians who have been subjected to injustice, if not worse.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I would not like to accept that suggestion without evidence, that Canadians in the force are subject to any other kind of treatment than are other members of the United Nations force on the island. But I do agree that as Cyprus is a country within the commonwealth, and its government is a commonwealth government, our representative there should keep in close touch with that government.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the

Inquiries of the Ministry appropriate minister in connection with ARDA, but I am a little foggy as to which minister I should address the question. My question is: As a result of the administrative seesawing with respect to ARDA, has there been any delay in the development of programs and the study of proposals presented to the government, or in the processing of agreements?


Lester Bowles Pearson: 


Mr.   Speaker-Mr. Speaker@: I suggest that this question be put on the order paper for a detailed reply.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that this question will be taken up at ten o'clock.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask this question of the Minister of National Defence; I have given him notice. Will the minister assure this house that the Grey and Simcoe Foresters will continue as a militia unit in Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: I do not know whether the minister is prepared to answer that question.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, it would be impossible to give any specific assurance until after the Suttie commission has reported its findings and we have had an opportunity to study its report.



ROYAL CANADIAN AIR FORCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. Can he inform the house when he intends to announce the details of pension settlement benefits with respect to the 500 officers in the air force who are being laid off?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Just as soon as they are agreed upon, Mr. Speaker.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Douglas Mason Fisher: I should like to ask the Minister of Labour a question

concerning the great lakes trusteeship. In view of the interviews given yesterday by Mr. Millard to newspapermen, I wonder whether the minister would consider approaching the trustees again to see whether they would be willing to give the same kind of access to their views to the House of Commons committee on labour relations.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to raise the question again with the trustees.



AIRPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Réal Caouette: I am putting my question to the Minister of Transport -Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, but the minister did not hear me at all and yet he understands French well.
Could the minister tell us if private aircraft will have access to St. Hubert airport and if talks are going on in this connection between the Department of National Defence and the Department of Transport?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This question is surely one for the order paper.



COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister? Is the Canadian government being consulted concerning the request by Southern Rhodesia for an invitation to attend the commonwealth prime ministers' conference, and can the right hon. gentleman give us the government's view on this matter?


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: I regret that I did not hear the whole of that question; therefore I must leave it to the Prime Minister whether he wishes to answer or not.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Did the Prime Minister hear it, or would he like me to ask the question again?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, I heard it. We have not been approached by the government of the United Kingdom in connection with this matter as yet.


Stanley Howard Knowles: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is it the general practice for

other members of the commonwealth to be consulted on matters of this kind?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, and I assume they will be consulted in connection with this matter.



TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY MONTREAL-INQUIRY AS TO CHANGE OF ROUTE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Public Works, who is responsible for the trans-Canada highway construction.
Could he tell the house whether the trans-Canada highway route will be changed in eastern Montreal to satisfy more particularly the people of Maisonneuve-Hochelaga?


Gilles Grégoire: Order paper.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that my question be transferred for debate at ten o'clock tonight.

It is a very urgent question, Mr. Speaker.



WHEAT, OATS AND BARLEY    INQUIRY AS TO OPEN QUOTAS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. R. Southam (Moose Mountain):: have a question to direct to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Could the minister advise the house whether the Canadian wheat board will be able to provide an open quota for wheat, oats and barley by the end of the present crop year?


Mitchell William Sharp: I should think the wheat board will not be in a position yet to answer that question, but I will make inquiries.



EARTHQUAKE DAMAGE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: I should like to ask the Minister of Northern Affairs and National P.esources whether he has yet received any further information with respect to the intentions of the government of British Columbia in connection with the tidal wave disaster on the west coast of that province.


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: We have received no request from the government of the province of British Columbia, but I am informed that Mr. Wallace, who is the deputy
Electoral Boundaries Commission minister of welfare, is now on the way to Ottawa with some figures, though I believe they will be incomplete.



REDISTRIBUTION


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, April 22, 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. Lamou-reux in the chair.
On clause 6-Appointment of chairman, etc.
Gordon Harvey Aiken: Yesterday, when the committee rose, I was pointing out that redistribution has definite political results and that no one can prevent such results occurring.
Since Governor Elbridge Gerry became famous for it some 150 years ago, the only real danger in redistribution has been the danger of favouritism toward the government in power. I think that so-called gerrymandering over the years has always been the case of a government in power facing accusations, often well founded, of adjusting the boundaries of a riding for its own benefit. I think the danger we have to face is this danger, and I believe that is why the government in the present bill has attempted, as did the previous government in the course of a somewhat similar proposal, to remove the question of redistribution from politics.
I ask why it is that having proposed a method of appointing commissioners which seemed fair at the time, and which was acceptable to the official opposition, the government should now favour another method. Is it simply because the official opposition favours it, or is it because the government has discovered an advantage in the new proposal? With all due credit to the Minister of Transport, who accepts paternity for drawing up this bill, I do not believe he would have drawn up one of the most basic clauses in this measure without consulting with the Prime Minister and his colleagues. I ask him-and this is a rhetorical question-why the change? It certainly is enough to make an opposition party very suspicious.
The object of the bill is to have a fair and equitable redistribution without favouring the government party. Furthermore, we want to accomplish this political task, which parliament apparently finds too difficult to handle
2492	HOUSE OF
Electoral Boundaries Commission itself, without leaving the smear of partisanship on those who do it. This is the whole point of my argument today, and this is the whole reason I support the original draft. I hope I can express my reasons clearly.
Every boundary change has political results due to traditional voting patterns. To say otherwise, of course, is incorrect. This is more than merely changing the geography; it is political. It is just so much nonsense to say that the commission can be or ought to be insensitive to the political results of their decisions. In my view the whole point is that they must not be insensitive to the results of their decisions.
If the commissions were given clear directions, a precise formula or tolerance they were bound to follow in changing riding boundaries, perhaps they could operate within this pure vacuum of a mathematical or similar formula that we might create for them. We do not give them this formula, and I do not know how we could. We give them very broad directions that they are to take into account geographical locations and so forth. They will have to do the best they can, and they have an outside tolerance beyond which they should not go. How can they avoid trouble? I do not believe they can. The very first thing that a commission has to decide, for example, is how many seats the province they are concerned with is entitled to under the British North America Act.


John Whitney Pickersgill: They do not decide that.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: The Minister of Transport says they do not decide that. I should like to know who does.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If the hon. gentleman will read the act passed at the last session of parliament he will see it is set out right in that act.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Chairman, I cannot accept that statement, because the B.N.A. Act is capable of interpretation in several ways. I am advised that one or two cases it is capable of different interpretations. However, I am not making this a point. I am just saying this is an example. Suppose the commissions in each of the 10 provinces decide on a somewhat different basis as to what should be the total number of seats in the particular province. Where are we then? I think this is a difficulty, but it is not the main difficulty on which I base my argument.
It is logical that we must do three things. First, we must remove any lingering suspicion that the fine hand of the government is behind decisions on boundaries. We must remove this suspicion regardless of whether or not any such fine hand is involved. Second, 

we must remove any suspicion that the commissions will be mere rubber stamps for plans prepared under government supervision or at least under supervision of an official. We must remove suspicion that there will be a closed door behind which these commissions will work, and we should require that a member be admitted who is adverse to the interests of the government with respect to redistribution in order to see what is going on in these commissions.
I am not raising any question about the propriety of the actions these commissions will take. I know they will start out to do a good job. But we must not only see that redistribution is fair; it must appear to be fair, and it must be accepted as such or we will put these public officials, particularly the judges, in a difficult position.
I should like to look for a moment at the two proposals before us regarding the composition of the commissions. In both cases the chairman will be a superior court judge and the second member will be the representation commissioner. With this I entirely agree, but I ask this question. Why do we all agree on the choice of a judge? The answer is that judges are accustomed to hearing evidence and coming to a logical and fair conclusion after hearing the various views. Second, we favour a judge because he, being appointed for life, has no political interest to serve. He is able and trained to act without fear or favour in the result. But how can a judge decide without having opposing views to consider or any views to consider?
The representation commissioner, like the judge, is going to be objective and impartial. This has to be his job. Is it up to the representation commissioner to point out to the judge chairing the commission the political consequences of every riding change and the political consequences of the whole plan? Surely this is not the job of the representation commissioner. He is not political, and surely it should not be the representation commissioner who should go to the chairman of the commission and say "If you move this one over, there is a big group of Conservatives there and they will benefit; or if you move that line farther north there is a group of Liberals there who will benefit". Surely this is not the job of the representation commissioner. Certainly it is not the job of the judge.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Or of anybody else.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: He is supposed to be impartial and I am sure he will be. So I say that the representation commissioner cannot put forward any political views to the commission. The Minister of Transport has just said that

nobody should consider the political consequences of these changes. I agree with him that nobody should, but it is impossible to do this job without considering the political consequences. It is impossible to do so. They are tied as closely to the job of redistribution as the peel is to the orange, and cannot be separated from it. That is why we are divesting ourselves of the job. Anybody with a mathematical mind could draw lines on a map. Anybody with a mathematical mind could take the riding boundaries and say "We will take a little off here and make the riding square; it will look better square". This would be the result. Therefore we cannot accept that no politics are involved. We cannot accept that redistribution must be done in a vacuum. We are giving the job to a judge, the representation commissioner and two other people. When we give it to them we expect them to consider the facts and they have got to consider the political consequences.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder whether the hon. gentleman would permit a question.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Yes.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Is the hon. gentleman saying that the other two commissioners should not be just as non-partisan and independent as the judge and the representation commissioner?


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Chairman, I am saying that one of them must represent a political viewpoint opposed to that of the government.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the hon. gentleman-


Gordon Harvey Aiken: May I finish this point. I hear a great chorus of objections. I cannot believe and I do not know of anyone here who can believe that this job can be done in a vacuum, who can say that political consequences have nothing to do with the matter and they must not be considered. The commissioners are going to be made aware of the political factor surreptitiously. Let us be honest about it. Somebody is going to whisper. The judge, the representation commissioner and the other two members are going to wonder about it themselves. They are going to wonder what the result is going to be of changing a boundary. They will say to themselves "Somebody has told us it would be a good idea to move this boundary this way. Now, we know it is going to take in 1,000 more people and it is going to bring that constituency up to the limit. What is the result going to be? Will it scuttle a Conservative member or a Liberal member?"


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.
23, 1964
Electoral Boundaries Commission


Gordon Harvey Aiken: It is impossible to deal with it otherwise.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Will the hon. gentleman permit me to ask him a question?


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Yes.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The Conservative government of Ontario has established a commission, which is in existence now, consisting of a high court judge, the chief electoral officer of that province and a professor from Queen's University. It was established under the aegis of Mr. Frost who I thought, at one time, was rather admired over there. I should like to ask the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka which one of these three commissioners represented the Tories and which one represented the Liberals, if I follow his argument correctly.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: The answer is none. There is quite a difference between provincial redistribution and federal redistribution. Let us not be naive, Mr. Chairman. Perhaps the hon. member who is asking all the questions is one of the principal reasons we are concerned.
I come to another point, and that is the method of appointment of the two other commissioners. We have a judge and the representation commissioner. Under the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre the judge appoints the other two from a specific group of persons. Now, what is the judge supposed to do? Is he supposed to pick members with different political views? Is he supposed to pick one with a right wing view and one with a left wing view? I do not believe this is his job. He is not supposed to know. He is not supposed to be concerned with the political views of the other commissioners.
Is he supposed to pick members with no political views? If you can find a university person who is interested in redistribution and who has no political views or political ties, I will be very surprised. You cannot find them. If they are at all interested in politics, then they have views and we have heard many of them on radio and television. They are the greatest proponents of political views, and I have no objection to this. If people with no political views were appointed to serve with the judge, what help would they be in assisting him in deciding upon the political consequences of redistribution on an individual riding or on the whole plan? They would be of no help to him, if such people could be found.
Surely, Mr. Chairman, the answer is to have the leaders of the two principal parties in the house nominate people who could represent the opposing political views. I refuse to believe that this is not the reason
2494	HOUSE OF
Electoral Boundaries Commission we have an impartial member on the commission, an impartial judge as chairman. If there is a division, two and two, what is the impartial chairman there for if not to make the decision? However, he has to be told what the political consequences are. I am sure of this. I do not believe anyone would suggest they could operate in a vacuum. If the commissioners do not know, they will find out. For example, are they going to blindly cast a map of the province of Ontario favouring the Liberal party all across the board? I would not think so. I do not think they would do that if they knew. Are they going to cast a map rewriting the boundaries favouring the Conservative party, the New Democrats or the Social Credit party in Ontario, purposely giving them an advantage? I do not think so.
I believe the desire is that the members have the whole picture, have all the facts and know what they are doing before they redraw the electoral boundaries of the provinces concerned. They must know all the facts. They must have the political facts openly. There must be members on the commission who will open the door and prevent secrecy. As I said in the beginning, this suspicion must be removed that there is a behind the doors transaction, that there is a closed door deal and that nobody can look into it. We must remove the suspicion that no one will know exactly what is happening until the plans are laid on the table of the House of Commons. At that time we know it is valueless to object because the house has no authority to change those plans. I personally do not agree with that particular provision in the bill, but I am prepared to accept it. We have no power to change the plan here.
I say therefore, Mr. Chairman, that the best proposition for handling this gigantic job across Canada is to have two political persons, not political figures but political appointments to the commission. I want to echo what was said by the hon. member for Edmonton West yesterday. I do not believe, myself, that being a politician is anything very terrible. I do not believe that the Prime Minister of Canada and the Leader of the Opposition cannot make reasonable and fair nominations for this job. I do not believe there is any question but that these nominations could be made openly and aboveboard, so that everyone could see. Do not hide politics under the rug.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if the hon. gentleman would permit a question.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Just a minute; we hear various people around the country, and some members in the press gallery, saying we are doing a good job or the members are not doing


a job and parliament is going to pieces. Whether or not this is true, I am not going to apologize for myself or any other member of the house who has expressed an opinion; I am not saying for one minute that we should be modest or embarrassed about having political appointments. These political appointments will not have the decision, but they will be able to round out the full commission so that all the facts will be known.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if the hon.
gentleman would permit me to ask one question.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Yes.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. gentleman talked about these appointments being open and aboveboard. He talked in general terms about that. Would he then tell us, so that we will know, what kind of appointments he thinks should be made; what kind of persons he believes should be appointed by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition if the original clause were approved?


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Well, I will be glad to do that. I think the appointees should be persons who have knowledge of the general political situation in their own area, who have a general knowledge of representation and who have a good measure of intelligence and judgment.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Those qualifications are rather general in character. Does the hon. gentleman exclude the chief electoral officer? To put it bluntly, does the hon. gentleman mean that the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition should appoint party politicians or party organizers? Is that what he means?


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I would not go that far; I would not like the hon. member to put words in my mouth. I said nothing of the kind. I said university people in general who had political ideas were allied to, connected with, or favourable toward a political party, and I did not think it was the job of a chief justice to pick out these people. Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition or the Prime Minister would select such persons. In that case I think they are excellent, but this should not be the responsibility of a chief justice.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Chairman, we had hoped we would not have to make any more contributions to this debate, but some contributions have been made with which we disagree. One might almost come to the conclusion that we should go back and take second reading again because, as I understand second reading, it was to give approval in principle to a bill that would create an impartial means of handling redistribution.

Now it seems that in effect we are getting a very strong argument from the official opposition, which approved second reading, that we should have a partisan approach to this particular subject.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Douglas Mason Fisher: No. I will give the hon. member an opportunity to ask questions later, but now I would like to make the point to him that there are other people to be considered. I want to touch on one nonsensical point-


Gordon Harvey Aiken: But this is the original bill. This is what we approved in principle.


The Chairman:: Order. The hon. member for Port Arthur has the floor.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I want to deal with this nonsensical argument about university professors. I do not know where hon. members have got their information that somehow the university professors of this country are all lined up in political camps, and you can press a button and so many will line up in each individual camp. I have taken a particular interest in this and I would say to hon. members who put forward this argument that knowing university faculties as I do, you could not identify on any university, by any kind of political activity of a partisan nature, more than 25 per cent of the professors.
I am quite willing to concede that very few of those who are out in the open are Conservative party supporters, but that happens to be occasioned by something completely different, something inherent in the philosophies and attitudes of that party. To get up and suggest that the university professors of this country are a partisan group is nonsensical. I know the hon. member for Carleton could possibly say a lot on this subject.
I can remember speaking to a group of professors at Carleton University a few years ago, when all the professors were gathered together, and at this particular consultation I made the argument, which was supported by one other hon. member of the house, that university professors should take a more active part in party politics, but the response of the meeting was overwhelmingly against that. Repeatedly the professors got up and said they would much sooner deal directly with civil servants than with politicians. Therefore this particular argument that university professors are politically partisan is silly. One can go to Queen's University and look at the social science faculties there. Aside from four or five people, I think you would find some 25 have no connection with any political party and have never taken part in partisan activity. It is a nonsense argument.
Electoral Boundaries Commission
Now I want to touch on another phase of this argument. We are concerned in any kind or manner of redistribution with what the Americans call malapportionment. We want to get one vote equalling another vote in another part of the country, and the traditional fear of politicians is gerrymandering when redistribution takes place. That is the thing about which I am so much worried. I want to give a hypothetical case in connection with the constituency of Port Arthur. It is going to be chopped severely in the coming redistribution.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: How do you know until the commission is set up? Would you answer that?


Douglas Mason Fisher: Yes, I can answer that question because we are away above the median in terms of population, even if we have a 30 per cent tolerance, so obviously the constituency is going to be altered. On one side there is Fort William, and adjacent to Fort William there is a section of the constituency that traditionally has voted overwhelmingly C.C.F. or N.D.P. Down at the other end of the constituency there is a section which has traditionally more overwhelmingly voted Liberal, and in another corner there is an area that has consistently voted Conservative.
The obvious fear in all members' minds is about what redistribution will do. We are going to be worried about the decisions as to where cuts and changes will be made, and I as an individual member will feel much more confident if I have the knowledge that the appointments to the commission will come out of the categories specified in the amendment and will be made by the chief justice of a province. I shall have much more confidence in that than if, for example, the leader of the government appointed Keith Davey to be his representative on the commission in Ontario, or if the Leader of the Opposition appointed somebody like Dick Thrasher.
I wonder if the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka can see the logic of this argument. He says it is all political. Of course it is all political as far as members of the house are concerned. I see the hon. member for Renfrew South in the chamber, and I can just imagine the worries that enter his mind about the boundaries of his constituency with Renfrew North and the adjoining constituencies. He is probably lying awake nights concerned about the way in which the splits and adjustments are to be made.
The hon. member for Northumberland almost destroyed our faith in her academic detachment when she sort of turned her back on an academic approach to this problem and came out in favour of good old rural voters

Electoral Boundaries Commission and the sturdy yeomen of the county of Northumberland. My point is that every member of the house will be concerned and worried. Even the Prime Minister can be expected to worry, because there is a chunk of his constituency which is not so favourable to him.
I see he shakes his head. I am glad to note he is so confident or else so detached, perhaps more detached than the hon. member for Northumberland, but each member of the house has a fear of gerrymandering. My hon. friend from Timmins represents a constituency that is small geographically and has a population well below the median. Obviously there will be some great changes in that constituency, and anybody looking at the voting patterns of that area, from the Quebec boundary over to Kapuskasing and down to the nickel belt, must know it would be quite possible for the hon. member for Timmins to be hived, to use Sir John A. Macdonald's term, if there was an element of the political consideration which the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka is advocating.
I believe that a chief justice will make good appointments. With the fact that on each of these commissions we will have the representation commissioner, and with the fact that choices will be made from categories of men who have some knowledge in various fields, we will get the kind of detachment that will destroy, or gradually cause to fall away, the fears I am sure almost every one of us has.
I spent a couple of hours yesterday going over the constituencies that will be affected because their population differences are above or below the median that is to be applied. It is very apparent that there is not a constituency in Canada that is likely to escape some change. Almost every seat, for example, in metropolitan Toronto is going to have an adjustment of its boundaries; it is just inescapable.


An hon. Member:: Yes.


Douglas Mason Fisher: The hon. member says "Yes". He will be one of those whose riding will be adjusted and changed considerably; and the constituency of the hon. member for Bow River falls into the same category.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Why do you say that?


Douglas Mason Fisher: Because of the population
change.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: What is the population of Bow River?


Douglas Mason Fisher: I haven't the exact figure.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Then how can you make that statement? You know why you are making that statement; you have seen maps.


Douglas Mason Fisher: That is the funniest thing I have heard, Mr. Chairman. If the hon. member thinks I have seen maps, would he also not think I would be holding them right up here? If we want to get a fair and honest approach that all the parties and all the people in this country can trust, we should be putting our faith in the approach embodied in this amendment. When I say this I do not mean to knock, or to suggest that the appointments that might be made by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition would necessarily be bad; but the very fact that they would be making the appointments would lead to some doubts and some fears. I want to be perfectly frank.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: You have been.


Douglas Mason Fisher: In my own constituency I have always found that if you set a Grit to watch a Tory they will watch each other pretty closely, and as someone else is involved I never worry about having a scrutineer in a poll as long as I know I have a good, suspicious Conservative watching a good, suspicious Liberal.
I have thought of this in connection with the proposal originally embodied in the bill, but the whole point of the matter is that I know from experience you can never arrange to have that suspicious Grit watching the suspicious Tory. I would much sooner go for the possibility of someone who is much more detached in his political affiliations and sympathies, someone who will deliberately take an objective and non-partisan approach.
I am sure every hon. member will want to make some appeals or suggestions or representations to this commission, when it gets going on the constituencies. I would suggest to hon. members that if they stop and think about it, it will be much easier for each one of us to approach that commission if we are not looking at it as having a sort of Tory or Grit side. I think this is a point all hon. members should remember. Almost every one of us is going to be approaching the commissioners to find out more about the thing and, if possible, to give them some advice or suggestions. I think we will find it a great deal easier to do this if we can be sure that the people on the board are as non-partisan as possible, as will be the case if they are appointed under this amendment.
It is for this reason that I hope, in view of all the discussion we have had, we can move to a consideration of this amendment. I think my hon. friends who have objected to it realize that this is going to be settled by a vote, that there have been no strings put on the particular vote, and I think it is about time they took their chances on the will of the house in committee.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the hon. member would answer a question?


Douglas Mason Fisher: Yes, gladly.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The hon. member said, as I understood him, that he had absolute confidence in the chief justice of the province. With that I have no argument. If that is his argument, why does he then, in support of the amendment, categorize the kind and class of person that the chief justice can appoint? Why does he not make it wide open and say that the chief justice shall appoint these people? Why do they have to be of a certain class? I think I might tell him that I have some suspicion of something very unusual getting into the act.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I like it as it is, but if any change is suggested I would still prefer to go back to the original proposal. But I think by opening up the categories suggested we are going to get some men on the boards who have a knowledge that is relevant, in the field of demography or geography, to the problem being considered. For example, the chief electoral officer of Ontario is Mr. Lewis. He is also the clerk of the legislative assembly. I do not think anyone here who knows Mr. Lewis and knows his association with the Frost government and the Robarts government will have any doubt about his political sympathies. But I want to make this point clear: Mr. Lewis has proven in the work he has done on the redistribution in Ontario, that has been carried out in the last couple of years, that because of his background of knowledge and work in this field he can approach it, and knows he must approach it, with detachment. I think he would be an ideal person to have on this commission, despite the fact that I happen to know he is an Ontario Conservative. I make that point in rebuttal of what the hon. member said. He would make a valuable member of this commission.
I would also point out that a surveyor general, or someone familiar with the geography of a province, is a particularly useful person to have when you are drawing up boundaries, at least in a province like Ontario or in the northern portions of it. He has some idea of the various hinterlands, of influence, of the traffic flow, the roads, and all the rest of it. I think he can bring to this problem, again, a knowledge. I heard someone ridicule the other day-


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. member permit a question? It is germane to the question he is answering now, although he has not finished. If he has that confidence in the amendment that he expresses-and
23, 1964
Electoral Boundaries Commission my hon. friend from Bow River has drawn to his attention the first two categories-and if he has that confidence in the choice of these judges, does he not agree that the third part of the amendment, which after exhausting the first two categories makes the judge's choice subject to the approval of the representation commissioner, is not necessary? If he says he has confidence in the judge's choice, why should the choice be made subject to the approval of the representation commissioner?


Douglas Mason Fisher: I have not any complaint with the third category. I assume that the reason, or the explanation, as to why this particular provision has been put in there is as an escape provision in case there are difficulties, in an ad hoc situation, of getting people to do the job. That is what I look upon the provision as being required for. But I would certainly assume that a serious attempt would be made to select from these other people. In a province like Ontario-and I would not want to speak for the other provinces-where you have now somewhere around 12 or 15 universities, you have for example a magnificent geographer at the University of Western Ontario. I know nothing about his politics, but it is a good department. He would be an excellent man to do something like this. I know from the books he has produced that he has an intimate knowledge of the geography, resources, character and make-up of the towns and cities of Ontario. There would be no difficulty in finding people, at least in the province I know best; and there is a great range of people to choose from whose party affiliations would not mean anything.
I may be going beyond the questions that have been put to me, but I just want to say that I hope we can have the question put so we can settle the question now. We are prepared to accept the will of the house-we have to, anyway-and we do think the official opposition has certainly had time and opportunity to parade its objections and criticisms to the amendment before the committee.


Mr. McIntosh:: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the hon. member would permit a question? It may appear to be facetious, but it is not. I was very interested in his argument. I did not arrive at the same conclusion, although I agree with what he said in some respects. I think the hon. member said he was quite content to have a suspicious Grit and a suspicious Tory sitting across the table acting as scrutineers; he would be quite prepared to accept the decision they arrived at because he was not a follower of either party and would therefore get a square deal. But the hon. member said he would look for

Electoral Boundaries Commission someone without any partisan influence or leaning at all. I wonder how many such people he could find to act as scrutineers?
I think the answer would be none. Therefore the hon. member must accept the decision of the suspicious Grit or the suspicious Tory-and that is the very thing we are arguing about today.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Chairman-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. Does the hon. member wish to ask a question of the hon. member who has just resumed his seat?


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I can do it by way of a question, Mr. Chairman.


Lucien Lamoureux: Because there are other hon. members who wish to participate in the debate.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: May I ask the hon. member for Port Arthur this question. He stated when he commenced his remarks that he thought we had settled this matter when we voted on the principle of the bill. Would he not agree that what we are now proposing is what we agreed to in principle on second reading of the bill; and what is now proposed by his colleague from Winnipeg North Centre is a change from the original principle?


Douglas Mason Fisher: The hon. member knows that on second reading we were debating the general principle of the bill rather than the details. It seems to me that the hon. member is now suggesting that the official opposition had its eye on clause 6-


Gordon Harvey Aiken: No.


Douglas Mason Fisher: -and that this determined their particular view. I assumed, in accepting and voting for the bill on second reading, which as far as I know we all did, that we were going to set up an impartial method to handle redistribution. All I was putting as an argument was that the very length and detail of the case being put by the official opposition would lead one to believe that they feel this would be impossible, and that therefore you have to have some kind of political entry into the whole set-up. That is my whole point.


Mr. McMillan:: Mr. Chairman, this debate on Bill C-V2 leads me to think that clause 6 should remain as it is, with the addition of a certain minor amendment proposed by the Minister of Justice. I think that the Minister of Transport has drafted a bill which is better than he thought. I know that over the years the politicians have made the decisions on redistribution and there has been much criticism of this. But no matter who makes these decisions on boundaries I think there will always be a lot of criticism.

The amendment proposed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre gives the major decision to our chief justices and their appointees. Following redistribution I am sure there would be much criticism directed towards them, and I do not think we should put our chief justices in that position on a matter so highly political as this.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


William Hector McMillan: Following the reports of the ten commissions a bill will have to be presented to this house. If I know this house correctly, and I think I do, there will be a lot of debate and wrangling here, and there will be criticism directed against our chief justices by hon. members-there is bound to be. If my own riding, for example, was unduly cut up, and I thought it was unduly severe, I would have to rise in this house and say that I thought the chief justice of Ontario and his appointees had made stupid decisions. I would rather be in the position of blaming some political appointees whose job would be to see that this did not happen, or did not happen to any marked degree.
I think this is a political question and that it should be settled in a political fashion. I think the final bill will have smoother sailing through this house if the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition make these appointments. Then I would say that the two major parties would have less reason for complaint when the final bill is presented to the house. If these two appointees are going to look after the two senior parties, I think the other three parties will also be looked after as well.
If these ten commissions were to pay attention only to mathematical numbers it would not be difficult to draw the lines between the different ridings consistent with the tolerance allowance. I think all hon. members in this committee have agreed that we should pay attention to municipal boundaries, to traditional boundaries between ridings, etc. I know of no one better qualified than a political appointee to undertake this duty; I think he would be more aware of these things than anybody else. Such people would bring about a better redistribution bill which I think would meet the desires of most hon. members in this house.
I think the chief justices should act more as referees. This amendment is putting the whole onus of redistribution on the chief justices, which I think should not be the case because there will be much criticism not only from members of this house but from many outside the house. This will not add anything to the prestige and dignity of our judiciary.


Mr. Starr:: Mr. Chairman, I wish to make some remarks regarding this bill. I do not want to go into the technical aspects; rather I wish to deal with what I might term the logical side. As a matter of fact, it was not my intention to make any remarks with respect to this bill because I believe in the principle upon which it is launched, which is to take redistribution out of the hands of the House of Commons, from which it has had previous experience, resulting in charges of gerrymandering being made. I would rather put it into an area wherein it would be handled by other than members of the House of Commons.
With this happy thought I read Bill No. C-72 when it was first drafted, and on reading the clauses in that bill I must say that I felt it was very fair; so much so that I could not see much wrong with the bill except for one point, and that was with regard to the provision of tolerance. The reason I took exception to that matter and thought it should be higher in percentage points was because I felt that the low percentage points of tolerance would create a parochial type of member of parliament.
At the moment we have members of parliament who represent urban constituencies and portions of agricultural areas. As a result they have a broader view and feel inclined as a matter of responsibility to take into consideration the agricultural side of life in Canada as well as the urban side. A smaller tolerance would have a tendency to create, as I say, parochial members of parliament in that a member will be representing an urban area only while another will be representing an agricultural area only. I am taking exception to this and I hope that when we reach this clause the government will see the light and see fit to make some adjustments in this connection.
The hon. member for Port Arthur said a few moments ago that we gave second reading to this bill, but we are now disagreeing with it. We gave this bill second reading based on the way it was drafted originally, and then when we went into committee on the bill we found that a major alteration was contemplated in the form of the amendment now before us. This is now a bill to which we did not give second reading.
That is an amendment. It was new. We had no idea that it would be included. Charges have been made that the proposal which first appeared would be political. What is wrong with politics. I have heard so much to the effect that there should not be partisanship in parliament. I must say I am in accord with the Minister of Transport, because he is one of those realistic persons who has said that this is the place for politics.
23. 1364	2499
Electoral Boundaries Commission


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. gentleman would not wish to misrepresent my position. I say the House of Commons is the place for partisanship. I say also that an independent redistribution commission is not the place for partisanship.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Address the Chair.


Michael Starr: I ran for parliament on a political platform representing a political party and I believe my duty in the House of Commons as a member of the opposition is to provide an alternative to the present government. That is the way in which to conduct the business of this house. Too many people say we should be non-partisan here and that we should all work for the good of the country. We are all working for the good of the country. I had experience, during the setting up of a committee this morning, of the lip service that is given to non-partisanship. A chairman was elected from the government side, as is right, and after election he proceeded to thank the committee and to express the hope that the committee would carry on its work in a nonpartisan way for the good of Canada. Very good. Then the name of the vice-chairman came up for nomination, and he was a member from the Liberal side, too. That is a good example of a non-partisan attitude. They say: Let us be non-partisan but we are all going to be Liberals on this committee.
Today we have writers who are naive enough to suggest that there should be no partisanship even in the House of Commons. What are they proposing-a one party system which would eventually end in a dictatorship? No. Parliament is a place of politics and partisanship. We have a tendency, in paying lip service to the non-partisan idea, to create the same atmosphere outside, and people then look on parliament as an institution which has downgraded itself. Well, parliament is not downgraded. It is the same now as it was in 1952 when I came here. There was partisanship and politics then. That is the way I like it. That is the way it should be. That is why the democratic system works, and when we end this system we will be on the road to dictatorship in this country.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Attaboy.


An hon. Member:: What about the amendment?


Michael Starr: This is all part of the amendment. I looked this bill over, and the longer I listened to the debate in this committee the more I felt there was some sort of set-up. The minister, introducing this bill, said this work would not be completed for one year.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The bill says it.

Electoral Boundaries Commission


Michael Starr: I understand that this whole redistribution will be completed after six months ready for an election in this country? Is that right?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. member is speaking on a particular clause of this bill, but I assume he has read the whole bill. If he has done so he will know that it is altogether impossible for the provisions in it to be completed in six months or, for that matter, in a year.


Michael Starr: We will go into that and see whether it will be possible or not.
The act which we passed last December provides that the representation commissioner shall draw up maps with boundary lines in accordance with the census of 1961. These maps are already drawn up. But here is the sticker: They are drawn up on the basis of a tolerance of 20 per cent above or below. Where is that figure contained? It is contained in a provision of the present bill which has not yet been passed, namely clause 13 (b).


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. I am wondering whether the hon. member is not getting away from clause 6. He has referred to clause 13.


Michael Starr: I submit that when discussing this clause we are considering arrangements for setting up a commission which would carry out the provisions of every one of these clauses. What authority was given for drawing up the boundary lines on these maps with a tolerance of 20 per cent? The clause making provision for that figure has not yet been passed by parliament.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if I might ask the hon. gentleman a question. He has made a serious assertion that he knows about some maps which are drawn up on the basis of the tolerance of 20 per cent. I should like to ask him how he knows.


Michael Starr: Certain members of the house have seen these maps.


An hon. Member:: Have you?


Michael Starr: I have not, and many of the hon. members on the other side have not. But I do not think it is right, and before I am through I intend to ask some questions about it. I intend to ask the minister whether he is prepared to table these maps so that we may study them.


John Whitney Pickersgill: On a point of order, a decision of the house was made on this point. Perhaps the hon. member for Ontario was not here on orders of the day.


Michael Starr: I was here.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka asked this question. I said

I thought I should like to consider the matter, and he put it down for debate at ten o'clock. And tonight, at ten o'clock, I intend to make an answer.


An hon. Member:: That is not a decision of the house.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I rose on a point of order, and I have not yet-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. The Minister of Transport is on a point of order and I think we should hear him out.


John Whitney Pickersgill: My point of order is that there was a decision of the house made one day this week with respect to questions and with respect to debate after questions had been raised. This was an inquiry which, in accordance with that order of the house, I undertook to answer tonight in the adjournment debate after ten o'clock. I intend, of course, to keep my promise to do that. But it does not seem to me that it has anything at all to do with the clause which is now before us, and I suggest that after the kind of debate we have had for the last couple of days we might enforce the ordinary rules and discuss the clause itself.


Michael Starr: I have pointed out in the past, Mr. Chairman, and you have agreed with me, that it is permissible to discuss other aspects of this bill because of the fact that we are now considering the formation of the commissions. These are the people who would be called on to make all these decisions. I maintain that the decisions have already been made and the question which arises in my mind is this: Why in the world are we discussing the setting up of commissions if they are to be given nothing to do, because the work is all done? It seems most unlikely to us that the commissions are going to take these maps, which have already been drawn up, and make new lines on them. That is nonsense. These maps have been prepared, and I think that is wrong. I believe the minister should table the maps so that we can look at them to ascertain whether the work has been done on the basis upon which I have said it has been done, or whether lines have been drawn on a population basis only. I think it would be only fair to members of this committee if we were to have an opportunity of studying these maps. I am therefore about to give the minister that opportunity by moving, at this time:
That this committee rise and report progress.


Lucien Lamoureux: Will the hon. member submit his motion in writing?


Some hon. Members:: Question.
Motion (Mr. Starr) negatived: Yeas, 42; nays, 43.


Lucien Lamoureux: I declare the motion lost.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I want to deal with certain points. If hon. members are not interested in carrying on the debate and would rather have the vote I would be quite happy to have the vote right now.


Michael Starr: We want to see the maps. Show us the maps.


An hon. Member:: Vote on what?


John Whitney Pickersgill: You know what we will be voting on. Surely you have read the amendment by this time.


Michael Starr: Show us the maps.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If hon. members do not want to have the vote right now I hope I may have a certain amount of reasonable attention while I deal with one or two of the points raised by the hon. member for Ontario. In the first place, the hon. member for Ontario made an argument which I thought was extraordinary and which certainly indicated that he had not paid any attention to the debate on second reading. At the very end of my speech in closing the debate on second reading I used certain words and I want to put them on the record again. They will be found on page 2216 of Hansard for April 15. I pointed out there that I would not be prepared to vote for an amendment to the bill to establish one single commission for the whole country but, and I went on to say:
Apart from that, any other suggestions for amendment to any other section of the bill will be considered on their merits. I am speaking for myself, as sponsor of the bill, and I do not feel X should attempt to speak for anyone else in the house.
At no time at any stage of the debate have I attempted to speak for anyone else in the house except with regard to one point, the principle of the bill itself. On that I said, and I was authorized to speak for my colleagues, that the government was committed to a non-partisan redistribution by a commission. That is the only point of principle that there is in the bill and when we voted on second reading that was the only point on which we voted. On that occasion I went on to say:
I intend to look at these things dispassionately and if I think any amendment is an improvement I am going to say I would vote for the amendment.
That is the position I have taken. I have never sought at any stage of the debate, except by the arguments I have made publicly in the house, to influence any hon. member in his vote, and I do not intend to.
I should like to think that there was one member in the official opposition with-I was 20220-1594
Electoral Boundaries Commission going to use the word "guts" and I will use it-the guts of the hon. member for Welland to get up and express himself honestly as to the way he really feels, because I simply do not believe that every member of the official opposition agrees with the stand that was taken-


Mr. Churchill:: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. The minister has suggested that members of this house are not honest in the expression of their opinions or in their actions and he must withdraw that statement.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Please.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -having quarrelled with nearly everyone in the house, is now seeking to quarrel with me but he is not going to succeed. I should have said "Winnipeg South Centre". I beg the hon. member's pardon. I have no intention of quarrelling with him. I made no imputation against any member of the house. I put my proposition in the negative. I said I could not believe there was that degree of unanimity in the official opposition that has appeared so far in this debate. I am proud to say that I belong to a party in which, when we say there is going to be a free vote on a matter, our members are not afraid to express their views, even if they disagree with those on the front benches.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, I raised a point of order and the minister is now evading the entire issue. I ask for the Chair's ruling.


Lucien Lamoureux: To my mind the minister is not evading the issue. I believe the minister has the right to explain the words he has used and I understood that was what he was doing. I am prepared to accept the minister's explanation of his words. He said he was not imputing motives. Certainly I am in agreement with the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre that no one can impute motives. The minister said he was not doing that, but posing a theoretical question.


Gordon Minto Churchill: It was not motives; it was honesty.


Lucien Lamoureux: Since the minister is not imputing motives I do not think there is anything he has said specifically that he should be required to withdraw.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman-


Lucien Lamoureux: Perhaps I could interrupt again if I may be allowed to do so. I should like to remind the committee that according to the standing orders discussion in committee must be specifically relevant to the

Electoral Boundaries Commission clause before the committee. We are on clause 6 and I would invite all hon. members to limit their speeches to that clause.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I will endeavour to do that to the best of my ability but I am sure that Your Honour, having permitted the hon. member for Ontario to make certain statements on which he invited me to comment, would not preclude me from making a specific reply. I do not intend to introduce any new or extraneous matter and I will try to keep my reply as brief as possible, but I feel I should reply to these specific points. On the question of the imputation of motives, I am not so sensitive as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre perhaps because I have no-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Please.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps I am flattering the hon. member. I am not so sensitive perhaps as the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre because I have no feeling of guilt whatsoever in this matter.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I haven't. Are you suggesting we have?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Not at all.


Gordon Minto Churchill: You are treading on dangerous ground. Let us have no accusations of dishonesty on this side of the house. I am protecting every member of the house.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. gentleman has a great sword and buckler, and I am sure they are all well protected. What I do rather resent a little, sir, in a mild sort of way, is the fact that while I sit here listening politely to hon. gentlemen on the other side of the house, when I attempt to debate, even with half the warmth they do, I am constantly interrupted in the fashion we have just seen. I remember the right hon. gentleman, who now sits over there, when he was over here was very sensitive about this denial to members on the treasury benches of the right to speak in the house without interruption. I hope that is not going to happen on this occasion.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. Surely, this has nothing to do with the bill before us at the present time. The minister has made a complaint, so let him now answer the arguments that have been raised by the hon. member for Ontario.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If you let me do it.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: He is wandering all over the place and I suggest, with the greatest respect, Mr. Chairman, that you bring the minister to order.
[The Chairman.]


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think, sir, you will not have to do that; I will do it myself. The hon. member for Ontario made a very serious imputation. I believe the phrase he used was that there was some sort of set-up. I do not know precisely what he meant by "some sort of set-up". I hope before this debate is completed he will say, in plain unvarnished language, what he does mean. If there has been any imputation made, it was precisely in that particular phrase.


Michael Starr: If the minister would permit, I will explain what I meant.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Can the hon. gentleman do it in one sentence? Otherwise it is quite obvious I will not be able to complete my remarks this afternoon.


Michael Starr: I meant to say that the lines have been drawn marking out the new constituencies based, I believe, on the 20 per cent tolerance. The whole thing is set up and the commission has not anything to perform.


An hon. Member:: That is what you say.


Michael Starr: What have they to perform?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps the hon. member for Ontario would allow me to complete my speech, instead of continuing to make remarks while he is seated.
The hon. gentleman says that redistribution has already been completed because some maps have been drawn. Everybody must realize that no map can have any validity whatever, it can be nothing but an exercise, until such time as this bill or some other bill has been passed and the rules have been laid down. It is quite obvious, therefore, that any maps which may have been prepared- I know there have been maps prepared because I have been told so-have no validity. I have not sought in any way to look at these maps because I knew they could not be anything except tentative and I did not want to have anything to do with redistribution-


An hon. Member:: Oh, no.


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, and any hon. member who did and voted for this bill would not be giving a sincere and honest vote because the purpose of this bill is to keep politicians out of this redistribution. If that is not its purpose, then it has no purpose at all. I took the trouble to read some of the things that were said by the right hon. gentleman over there when he was speaking about this matter from this side of the house. There was no one more eloquent about keeping politicians out of it and yet now the hon. member

for Parry Sound-Muskoka seeks to bring them in by the back door.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I never mentioned anything about politicians being involved in this redistribution. If he wants to categorize the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition in this way as making such appointments, I accept that. I made no suggestion that any politician would be on these commissions.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I asked him to give the categories. After he had spent a long time saying you must have people who understand politics and know all about these things, am I to take it from what he says that they would not be politicians?
The plain fact is that if it had ever occurred to me for one minute that clause 6 would be interpreted in the way the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka has interpreted it, I would never have introduced it into this house. I assumed that the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition would appoint the kind of people that Mr. Douglas Campbell appointed in Manitoba with the approval of the whole legislature, namely the chief justice, the chief electoral officer and the president of the university of that province. I expected the Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition would appoint people of that type. If I had thought they were going to appoint party hacks, party organizers or politicians of any sort-if that thought had ever entered my mind I would have never made such a proposal. I assumed, and I still assume, that the two right hon. gentlemen would not make appointments of people who would be too concerned about whether in the last election people voted Liberal, Conservative, C.C.F. or whatever.
This is not what the commission should do. It should see that Canadians are represented fairly. It should see that municipal boundaries are recognized; that historical factors are recognized and that we take account of geographical and topographical factors so that it will be possible for a member to represent a constituency reasonably. This is the reason we have to have a tolerance. If it were not for that, if this country were homogeneous, if it were all like Scarborough, for example, we could just divide it up mathematically and have no tolerance at all, or virtually none. It is precisely because of the vast geographical differences between the various parts of Canada, because of the topographical differences, that there has to be a tolerance.
As I understand it, and obviously a good many hon. members are much better informed about this than I am, the representation commissioner has carried out such of his duties as he could carry out under section 8
Electoral Boundaries Commission of the act that we all passed unanimously in this parliament. These maps that may have been drawn are merely exercises until such time as we lay down the rules.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Would the minister permit a question? If these maps are drawn under the act, is there anything in that act that mentions any tolerance? If there is not, why is the tolerance being looked at in drafting the maps in question?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I assume the representation commissioner can read. I assume that he has read the bill that is before us.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Well, all right; that is the point.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It would not appear to me that it would be time lost at all. I do not know; the hon. member for Bow River may never have drawn any maps. However, it would not appear to me that it would be time lost to have drawn maps with a tolerance of 20 per cent, 30 per cent or even 10 per cent. One would at any rate have some of the basic work done. The maps could not have any validity in respect of redistribution itself until this bill is passed. This is one of the reasons it does seem to me we should compose our differences here. If we cannot compose them, then we should vote and let the majority decide which way it should be done.
As I have said before in the house, and I say again, I have a preference for the amendment submitted by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. However, I do not believe my original draft is a bad one at all. I do not think quite so well of it as I did before the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka spoke. He raised doubts in my mind that were not there before. I still believe that whichever way we do it, I would be quite satisfied that we would have a workable act. I say let us stop having these rather childish suspicions. Let us get on with it. The very people over there who are so sensitive about the imputation of motives in their case, are constantly imputing motives to others. Does anyone think that the chief justice of Ontario and the chief justice of Quebec, both of whom were appointed on the recommendation of the right hon. gentleman opposite-and that embraces two thirds of the country-think they are going to appoint C.C.F.'ers or C.C.F. professors.


An hon. Member:: Why not?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well, why would they? I would think those chief justices would be just as careful to make the kind of appointments that we would regard as proper as would the Prime Minister or the Leader of the Opposition. Hon. gentlemen opposite seem

Electoral Boundaries Commission to be terribly afraid of a few C.C.F.'ers who are professors. Personally I do not think they have a ghost of a chance of getting on any of these commissions. If I did, perhaps I would not be so enthusiastic about the amendment of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre; but there is not a chief justice in any province who was appointed by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, and I would think we are unduly sensitive about this.
The serious point that several members have raised is that giving the right of appointment to these judges we would be dragging them into politics. Personally I do not think it would. I think there would be more charges of political partisanship from people who are neither Liberals nor Conservatives if appointments were made by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, and if I were foolish enough to belong to the N.D.P. I am not sure if I might have a little suspicion of that kind.
To come back to the serious point in this clause, so far as I am concerned I believe that no commission which will be appointed in either manner, by the chief justices of the ten provinces or by the Prime Minister or Leader of the Opposition, will be pushed around by any official and will have to do what he says. I do not think so little of them. I am sure the kind of people who will be appointed by either method will be independent people, with prestige in their communities, people who will be concerned about their own reputations and about doing this job properly as parliament intended it to be done.
So far as I am concerned, I repeat what I said last night, that I would like to get the verdict of the committee on this amendment and, whichever way it went, I would be perfectly happy to move on to the next clause.


Mr. Nugent:: I think, Mr. Chairman, that the speech just made by the minister has been the best argument we have heard against the amendment. The minister has advised us before that he was not stuck on one idea or the other, that he was wavering, and that he could move easily back and forth. I am sure it has become apparent, following the debate in the committee, that there are some of us who feel very strongly that accepting this amendment is a slap in the face to the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, and that it is an insult to parliament.
The Minister of Transport says that he does not feel very strongly about that. He has emphasized that the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition are not going to appoint political hacks. I do not think any member of the house will seriously suggest that either of those right hon. gentlemen [Mr. Pickersgill.l
will do anything other than what the chief justices would do, in other words that they will pick the best men possible to see that the job is done right.
If the Minister of Transport reflects on this I am sure he will realize that the right hon. gentlemen, as suggested originally in the clause, are certainly better qualified, are in closer touch with affairs across the nation, have a little more awareness of the problems and have more ability to pick those people to do the job right. If that is not the kernel of the matter, then I do not know what is.
Instead of relying on these two right hon. gentlemen, as he proposed originally, the Minister of Transport wants to make a change to the chief justices, and then tries to hobble the chief justices by defining the categories of people from which they must choose and, second, providing that their choices must be subject to the approval of the commissioner. To me his argument is redundant. He has answered himself, and I wonder whether he would not like to take a few minutes for quiet reflection on this.
He has indicated that he is not firm in his resolve, that he is quite flexible, and I am sure if he would just pause to consider the few points he himself has made he will realize why the original clause is better than the amendment.
I would like to answer some of the questions raised by the hon. member for Port Arthur, who said he failed to appreciate the advantages of the adversary system. He apparently has something in his mind to the effect that if a person is appointed by a political party and if there is a belief that that person might have a bias-and he probably would have-then in this manner it is impossible to get fairness, and he believes there is a better chance of getting fairness through adoption of the amendment.
The hon. member apparently does not understand our legal system, and the purpose of the adversary system to make sure that you have neutral ground. Through this system you make sure you have an argument on one side and an argument on the other, that each would point out any political advantages that might be gained, and then the chief justice in this manner would be warned, would be able to be guided by political considerations and, because he is aware of them, would make sure that any decision arrived at was truly fair.
Mr. Chairman, may I call it five o'clock?


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. So that the house may proceed to the consideration of private members' business, it is my duty to leave the chair.


Mr. Depuly Speaker:: Order. It being five o'clock the house will now proceed to consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely notices of motions (papers).



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Douglas Mason Fisher: That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this house a copy of all correspondence exchanged between the Department of National Revenue and the American authorities under the tax agreement between Canada and the United States with regard to the Eaton-Kaye case and any opinions which may have been obtained from the American authorities on the position of the securities and investment involved in the estate of the late Mrs. Eaton-Kaye since January 1, 1961.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I shall endeavour to show the house that this request for papers is a fair and legitimate one despite the point made by the President of the Privy Council a week ago yesterday, when he invoked section 55 of the Succession Duties Act to indicate that this required secrecy. This section does require secrecy on the part of any servant of Her Majesty in connection with the details of anything to do with the Succession Duties Act.
I wanted first of all, Mr. Speaker, in order to put this matter in context, to put on the record a letter I received from the minister's office on April 17, 1964. It is not marked "Personal and confidential" and I know the minister will not mind my putting it on the record:
Dear Mr. Fisher:
Mr. Mcllraith has asked me to bring to your attention the following information regarding the Eaton-Kaye estate, further to his conversation with you of yesterday.
Representations were made by Mr. Cyrus Eaton to the successive ministers of national revenue in an attempt to enlist their support and the active support of the Canadian government in resisting the claim for income tax registered against him personally by the United States tax authorities. The successive ministers-
I suppose he is here referring to the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings (Mr. Nowlan) and the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton (Mr. Flemming):
-were sympathetic to Mr. Eaton but it was concluded that the Canadian government could not interfere in the action taken by the United States tax authorities applying the United States income tax law to a citizen and resident of the United States. The tax conventions were not applicable in these circumstances.
Being vested with the responsibility of collecting the taxes imposed by the Dominion Succession Duty Act. the taxation divison could no longer permit the postponement of the payment of the duties owed in connection with this estate when
Motions for Papers
they became five years overdue and a writ was placed in the hands of the sheriff in the latter part of 1963.
It should be noted that the value of the estate of Mrs. Eaton-Kaye would permit the payment of the duties and still leave more than sufficient to pay the amount which is said to be pledged to the Pugwash park commissioners. The minister has been advised that there is nothing in the laws of Canada or the United States which would prevent the orderly settlement of this estate, including the payment of the duties to the Canadian government and the contribution to the Pugwash park commissioners.
Yours sincerely,
The letter is signed by Robert H. Belanger.
First of all, Mr. Speaker, I want to make the point that if you look at the notice of motion it says:
*-a copy of all correspondence exchanged between the Department of National Revenue and the American authorities under the tax agreement between Canada and the United States with regard to the Eaton-Kaye case and any opinions which may have been obtained from the American authorities on the position of the securities and investment involved in the estate of the late Mrs. Eaton-Kaye since January 1, 1961.
My first point is that I am requesting the information and exchange of correspondence that has taken place between the Canadian government, particularly a department of the Canadian government, and the United States authorities in connection with this matter, and this letter that I read into the record indicates that indeed some kind of exchange almost certainly did take place, because the letter says:
The successive ministers were sympathetic to Mr. Eaton but it was concluded that the Canadian government could not interfere in the action taken by the United States tax authorities applying the United States income tax law-
Then the letter says that the tax conventions were not applicable in the circumstances. Obviously in determining that the tax conventions were not applicable it was necessary for the Canadian government to have some kind of interchange of information, of which I assume they would have a written record, with the United States government.
I wanted to refer at this time to something that I think is a bit of a precedent, in that the House of Commons records of 1959 show that sessional papers Nos. 189a and 189 were produced; 189 was produced on Thursday, February 5, 1959, and on Thursday, March 12, 1959, 189a was added. At that time what I had asked for-and it was requested in a motion of mine-was a copy of all correspondence and other documents exchanged by the federal government and officials of the United States concerning the Consolidated Premium Iron Ore Company, the Premium Iron Ore Company, Cyrus Eaton, and F. Daley, from June 1, 1958.

Motions for Papers
I am not arguing that this is on all fours with the present motion, but what I am arguing is that there was no hesitation on the part of the minister at that time, who is now the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings, in providing me with the information in connection with correspondence between J. Gear McEntyre, deputy minister, taxation, and the acting commissioner of internal revenue in the United States. I wanted to suggest that what I had been asking for in connection with these papers is really only secondary or ancillary to any question of succession duties, and the fact that successive ministers gave a hearing to Mr. Eaton when he made representations that this particular matter be held over or postponed until the whole question of the ownership of the securities involved in the estate of Mrs. Eaton-Kaye were cleared up.
Mr. Cyrus Eaton is well known to most Canadians. He is one of our more famed expatriates and is well known as a patron and sponsor of the Pugwash park commission and the whole idea of the Pugwash conferences. Mrs. Eaton-Kaye was his sister and, as the point is made in the letter which I put on the record, she died some years ago. In her bequeathing, as I understand it, she made a pledge of some $100,000 to the Pugwash park commission and some $35,000 to McGill University. Obviously when someone dies that many years ago the action in so far as the succession duties is concerned drags out over this period of years, there has been a view within the Department of National Revenue that it is prepared to accept the contention of the executor of the estate, Mr. Cyrus Eaton. Then the question arises as to why in the fall of last year this contention, whatever it was, was changed or altered. Of course, it was this change that brought me to place on the order paper my motion for the production of papers, in order to get this situation opened up so that I could understand it.
I have had representations from Mr. Eaton, as I know other members of this house have. I make no bones about the fact that I have always been an admirer of Mr. Eaton, not least for his courage in expressing in the United States some views on world and international affairs that cannot help but bring him a certain kind of unpopularity and yet reflect a certain courage in outlook. I wanted to indicate, in order to put the situation as fairly as possible to the minister, that the executor in this case, Mr. Eaton, made an offer in writing last October, as I understand it, and it was made before that either orally or in writing by his solicitor. He made this offer to the department that he was prepared to provide government securities or any other

type of security that would be required or asked for by the Department of National Revenue and was prepared to put these, I think the technical term is "in escrow", or in some kind of place where they would be a perfect cover, including interest, for the obligations in connection with the estate, if the government would be prepared to delay action on the particular succession duties until this case in the United States was cleared up.


Mr. Mcllraiih:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to raise a point of order. The matter before the house is the motion for the production of certain papers. What the hon. member is now discussing is the detail of some tax matters of a particular individual, who happens to be involved indirectly in the case for which he is asking for papers. The hon. member is discussing the merits of that tax position, and the two matters are not related at all. What is at issue now and what should be debated is the question of whether the papers indicated in the notice of motion on the order paper should be produced. The wider question as to the merit of Mr. Eaton's philanthropies or lack of philanthropies, or the question of certain gifts which he has given or is proposing to give, is surely irrelevant to the point.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I was not trying to gild the lily: I just wanted to identify the matter and I will give the minister an undertaking that I will not go off on to any other point of that kind. However, I do want an opportunity of presenting the reason why I am interested in this case and the information I request.
According to the information which I have from the executor, the largest holding in the estate is a block of Investors Trust Limited common stock. When the U.S. internal revenue service made known its intention to attempt to establish Mrs. Eaton-Kaye's brother, Cyrus Eaton, a Canadian-born American citizen, as the owner of these shares, the problem of double taxation by Canada and the United States [DOT] arose. The argument, Mr. Speaker, is simply this. If the shares which are supposedly in this estate belonged to Mr. Eaton and they are being taxed by United States authorities, obviously the question arises as to double taxation or even as to the ownership or validity of the shares which are held in the Eaton-Kaye estate.
The hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings, then minister of national revenue, thereupon agreed that Canada would withhold collection of succession duties on the Eaton-Kaye estate until the conflicting legal question between Canada and the United States could be resolved. The hon. member for Victoria- Carleton (Mr. Flemming), when he succeeded to the office of minister, naturally honoured the agreement that had been made by

his predecessor, and also undertook to initiate a conference between the appropriate Canadian and American tax authorities as provided by the tax treaty between the two countries.
Subsequently, in 1963, the Department of National Revenue instituted proceedings in the probate court in Halifax to force settlement of the estate and, failing that, to remove Cyrus Eaton as executor. A hearing in the probate court is scheduled for April 24, 1964. Meanwhile the United States internal revenue service is in full swing in its attack on Investors Trust Limited with the intention not only of collecting taxes from Cyrus Eaton on the shares owned by his late sister, but also from American minority shareholders not in any way related to the Eaton family. The minority shareholder phase is in an advanced stage in the United States tax court in Indianapolis, Indiana, in a case involving the Irwin Miller family, prominent Indianians whose principal interests are with two companies, both with important operations in Canada. The Miller case raises questions of violation of both the United States constitution and the Canadian-American tax treaty.
For the purposes of the Miller case, the United States internal revenue service temporarily bypasses its attempt to establish Cyrus Eaton as the owner of Mrs. Eaton-Kaye's Investors Trust shares, and tries to develop a new interpretation of "attribution". Even if majority ownership of Investors Trust was lodged in the late Mrs. Eaton-Kaye and her sister Mrs. Eva R. Webb, a Canadian citizen and resident, the internal revenue service contends that because their brother is an American citizen and resident, Investors Trust becomes a foreign personal holding company under American tax law, and unrelated American minority stockholders are therefore to be subjected to punitive taxation on undistributed earnings and capital gains of Investors Trust, in addition to customary taxation on dividends actually received.
Counsel for the Millers has pointed out that, if this "unreasonable, unjust and absurd" contention should be sustained, every United States citizen who happens to have made an investment in a foreign corporation that is controlled by foreign citizens with United States relatives will nevertheless be subjected to taxation upon undistributed earnings of the foreign corporation, even though the United States citizens who are subjected to the tax would have no control whatsoever over the distribution of such earnings. Compounding the absurdity and injustice of such a result is the fact that the United States minority shareholders would in virtually every case be wholly unaware whether such 20220-160
Motions /or Papers
foreign owners had relatives who were citizens or residents of the United States. It would follow that any United States citizen investing in a bona fide Canadian enterprise would do so at great peril, and this would undoubtedly go a long way toward foreclosing American investment in Canadian enterprises.
This highlights the fact that there is a case before the United States courts brought by the United States internal revenue service dealing with this whole question of the ownership, control and status of this holding company, Investors Trust Limited. As I understand it, the contention of Mr. Eaton, the executor of the estate of Mrs. Eaton-Kaye which falls within the ambit of the Department of National Revenue, is that he has offered to cover the amount which will be levied against the estate if it stands until the time that the United States court case is settled. When the United States case is settled and the whole question of ownership is cleared up, then Eaton is prepared to proceed on the whole matter with the Department of National Revenue, and as an example of his good faith is prepared to cover the obligation which has been assigned by the Department of National Revenue.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that in asking for the information contained in this motion I am asking for something that is relevant to this whole question of the tax agreement between Canada and the United States. This is not a simple, clearcut matter of succession duties or of something under the Succession Duty Act. Something much larger is involved. In my previous experience as a member of this house I have been able to obtain information from the interchange of information between the Canadian and United States tax authorities. It is only fair to put fairly bluntly the reasons why I think this information is relevant to me and other members who may be interested.
It seems to me unusual that a person having died some six years ago and some kind of arrangement-I do not know how definite or how tentative it was-is made, in light of what was developing in the United States whereby the case would not be proceeded with, and then suddenly last year, while the case was still going forward, and an offer being made to cover the amount of tax which has been levied and to place it in the form of a bond, or an escrow, or whatever the term is, that this was not accepted or taken up by the government.
I realize that it is not the real purpose of debate on motions such as this to ask the minister for a whole range of answers to everything in connection with such a complicated matter, but the reason I wish to persist with my motion and to ask for this

Motions for Papers
information is because I think that if someone Who does business in this country and is executor for an estate which affects a couple of institutions in this country of a very worthwhile kind has made some kind of request, which is usually honoured or agreed to, and has been turned down, and the government is proceeding with its action despite these representations or the previous consideration which had been given, then the government should be called upon to explain.
I know there are one or two other members in the house who wish to make some comments on this matter, and I see that I have exhausted my time, but I would plead with the minister to give us this information, and if he cannot to explain, in view of the information he has given me in this letter, why the particular material for which I ask would not be relevant to section 55 of the Succession Duty Act.


Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland):: I
rather regret we have reached this point in debate on this question because I feel that had the government been willing to co-operate with Mr. Eaton in the proposals he has made about this matter-a very serious matter for my constituents in particular- we would not be forced into this debate and into the difficult decision which the government must make when involved in personal taxation and the divulgence of information associated with it.
At the same time, when I read the notice of motion proposed by the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) I find that it would be quite possible for the government to provide the type of information he desires without at the same time divulging any personal details about the tax position of the individual concerned. What the hon. member for Port Arthur appears to be concerned with is what happened all of a sudden between the government of Canada and the government of the United States in relation to this subject. For many years there had been an indication of co-operation between the Department of National Revenue in Canada and the bureau of internal revenue in the United States. One of the results of action taken in both Canada and the United States in connection with the Eaton estate is that very large sums of money presently in the estate will be swallowed up by legal fees and costs.
In this regard I should like to put on record a few comments from the chairman of the Pugwash park commission who informed me in a letter dated November 4, 1963, as follows:
As presently constituted, the park commission is playing an important part in local development, much of the money being channelled toward

educational endeavours, and I know that this sum, if made available, would be of tremendous value locally. We are fearful that the estate may be absorbed by the tax collectors in Ottawa and Washington.
I can well appreciate the concern of the Pugwash park commission in this regard. There is $100,000 involved here which would go to this commission, and though the estate is substantially larger than that, succession duties, which, I understand amount to about $111,000 on a $356,000 estate, will make considerable inroads on this money. Associated with this we must face the fact that there is no way of knowing what the net result of the court action in the United States is likely to be or what amounts the revenue bureau of the United States intends to demand. In addition, there are the court costs and the legal fees involved as a result of actions taken in the courts in the United States and in Canada.
I feel that the proposal put forward by Mr. Eaton that he would, in effect, guarantee the succession duties involved to the Canadian government if it did transpire that the Canadian government was entitled to them was one which should have been given very serious consideration. Indeed, I believe it should have been acted upon by the present government when the proposal was made. It seems to me that the correspondence which the hon. member for Port Arthur desired might well provide us with the information we need in this regard. Unless we are given access to this correspondence we are obliged to make an assumption of some sort-an assumption which comes to my mind and which I should like to have removed. That is, it may well be, if one goes back a short time in history to the Premium Iron Ore case and the many developments related to it, that officials in the Department of National Revenue in Canada and their counterparts in the United States might well have reached the point of persecuting this man because he was successful in proving that the contentions he made in the Premium Iron Ore case were correct. Here again we see this man being badgered by tax collectors both in Canada and in the United States, and should it develop that once again the position he takes is proven to be correct, then indeed the type of motion which the hon. member has brought forward will bring the facts to light and provide us with information by which we can judge what action should be taken in this regard.
As I say, I regret we have to reach the point at which the government must undertake some soul searching as to whether or not certain information should be made public. At the same time, the hon. member for Port Arthur has indicated that a former

minister of national revenue, now the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings (Mr. Nowlan) was willing to set a precedent in this respect and make information available to the public in the Premium Iron Ore case. I hope the government will take the same attitude in this case and make available the information which is now requested, or at least that portion of the information desired which will in no way involve the personal aspect of an individual's tax submissions.
I do not know what more I can say to the Acting Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Mcllraith). I hope he will agree to the request of the hon. member for Port Arthur and try to do something which will eliminate the very heavy legal burden which is now being imposed on this estate. I should like to reiterate what the hon. member for Port Arthur has said about the man who is involved in this matter. Although he is presently a citizen of the United States, Cyrus Eaton, as I think the minister is aware, has a close association with Canada and especially with my constituency and with the village of Pugwash.
His efforts, while debatable in the minds of many, have been very significant from an international peace keeping point of view. The attention he has brought to Nova Scotia through the Pugwash conferences and his interest in agriculture in our province has been most significant. As the minister is considering this matter I hope he will consider it from the point of view of Mr. Eaton not being a citizen of the United States alone but rather a citizen of the world, a particular type of individual who has made a most significant contribution to the present state of world peace and an individual who has been very generous in his efforts to promote peace and an interest in Pugwash that will be lasting and of value to the people of my constituency.
We have a high regard for Cyrus Eaton in Cumberland county. We do not take kindly to the fact that while a former government agreed to co-operate with him to bring about the least amount of damage possible this estate is now faced with the particularly heavy burden of a lawsuit in the Canadian courts that does not need to be there. It would not be there if the government had been willing to go along with the proposal made by Mr. Eaton, but it is there because of some reason about which we have not been informed.
We would like to know why the government is taking this action. If the request for information that the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) has made will provide this knowledge then I as a member of parliament am most anxious to see the informa-20220- 160i
Motions for Papers
tion tabled. I am pleased that the hon. member for Port Arthur has brought this motion forward, although I regret that it was necessary for him to have to do so. I also appreciate the problem that the minister faces in reaching a decision whether or not this information should be made public. But I must indicate to him that in view of the surrounding circumstances I have no alternative but to support the hon. member for Port Arthur in his efforts to have this information tabled and I hope the minister will also support the hon. member in this regard.


Hon. H. J. Flemming (Vicioria-Carlefon):: Mr. Speaker, I have only a few comments to make on this motion and they are brought about because of the fact that I had some connection with the Department of National Revenue at a time when the gentleman who is indirectly referred to in the motion had some difficulty, with which I became familiar. At that time, and in view of the circumstances which he related to me, I had no hesitation whatsoever in carrying out the suggestion made to my predecessor that the Canadian tax authorities might very properly use their influence with the American authorities with a view to implementing the very thing for which tax conventions are supposed to provide, the avoidance of double taxation. So the opinion which I expressed to the officials of the department was that an effort should be made to settle the matter with their American counterparts so that it might be settled once and for all.
I was assured by Dr. Eaton that as far as the succession duties owing to Canada were concerned they would be absolutely guaranteed, and it was on that basis that I became convinced that we should use our good offices to bring about a settlement of this matter.
With regard to the production of papers, I have some quite strong views on the production of papers relating to taxation with respect to an individual and as between countries. I think that such correspondence should be very carefully guarded. At the same time I suggest to the minister that I believe he should use his influence with the American authorities to bring about a settlement so as to avoid double taxation. I think it is possible to get this matter settled.
It is unfortunate that the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) had to bring the matter before the house. I think it should have been settled without a motion for papers being necessary, but it has not been settled. I cannot vote for the production of such papers but I strongly urge the minister to use his influence and the good offices of his

Motions for Papers
department with their American counterparts to bring about a settlement of this difficulty.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I must say 1 am somewhat surprised at the tenor of the discussion on this motion. I want to read the motion before the house. It is in these words:
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this house a copy of all correspondence exchanged between the Department of National Revenue and the American authorities under the tax agreement between Canada and the United States with regard to the Eaton-Kaye case and any opinions which may have been obtained from the American authorities on the position of the securities and investment involved in the estate of the late Mrs. Eaton-Kaye since January 1, 1961.
It will be seen that the motion is so drafted as to ask for information with relation to a particular tax return, and is specifically limited to a particular tax return and the information in connection therewith. The discussion has ranged much wider and covered a very much broader field.
The hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) read a section of a brief pertaining to a certain subject. I do not know who prepared it or whence it came but in any event it dealt with a much wider area than the motion does. Then the hon. member proceeded to make certain statements of fact with regard to particular things having been done in respect of this tax matter.
The hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Coates) said some things in his remarks about Pugwash park and so on with which I found myself in agreement, but the point I am seeking to make here, with deference, is that those remarks, however much we may agree with them, are irrelevant to the motion before the house.
Then, the former minister started to say what he had recommended in this particular case, and then he drew back from that and went on to deal with the larger question of the problems that arise in the double taxation field under the tax agreements between the two countries. This of course is a subject of great concern and very much open for discussion, but any discussion of it is not related to the particular case. I understood his remarks to indicate that that was what was involved in this case. Whether it is or is not, I find myself not in a position to say.
Here is the difficulty, as I see it. As a matter of public policy, surely the answer to this motion must be that since compliance with the motion would involve a disclosure with regard to the affairs of a particular person or a particular tax return, then surely we must adhere to the position that such information cannot be disclosed. In a moment I

am going to read the relevant sections of the act that seem to support that general doctrine. This doctrine has been asserted for years by succeeding governments in connection with all questions of this kind requesting information about particular returns-


Douglas Mason Fisher: Will the minister let me ask a question?


George James McIlraith: In a minute-or whether the information is requested in a notice of motion for the production of papers.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Since the minister has narrowed this down to the particular Eaton-Kaye case, would he give me his opinion on a request for information exchanged between, let us say the government of the United States and the tax authorities on the question of the ownership of shares in Investors Trust Limited? I know that is not an easy question to answer, but I am trying to find out if it would be possible for me to so adjust or alter the motion as to obtain what I want and also meet the minister's objections.


George James McIlraith: I do not want to answer that question offhand. If the hon. member wants to deal with another question on behalf of the particular person who seems to have become the subject matter of this debate, although for the life of me I do not know why, if he wants to ask any questions of the other government, then that may be looked at. I would want to consider that rather carefully because that is quite a different thing from what is before us today.
In his remarks the hon. member made reference to sessional paper No. 189A dated March 12, 1959. I took the trouble to send to the Journal's office to get that return, but I find it does not in any way vary what I have just said. It does not violate, in any way, the position taken by myself as to giving the information asked for in this connection, nor the position stated by the former minister of national revenue on this same point. I do not want to read the return into the record because that would eat into the time available. However I invite hon. members to look at that return, and they will see it does not give any information relating to a particular tax return.
In support of the principle I have outlined, about its being contrary to public policy to give information about a particular return, I would draw the attention of hon. members to the succession duty act, which has since been repealed, but which governed the returns made in the earlier years in this particular case. Section 55 imposes an obligation of secrecy, and it reads as follows:
No person employed In the service of Her Majesty shall communicate or allow to be communicated to any person not legally entitled there-

to, any information obtained under the provisions of this act, or allow any such person to inspect or have access to any written statement furnished under the provisions of this act.
This was the provision contained in the old succession duty act. The provision in the Estates Tax Act is in slightly different form and says that, except as authorized by this section, no official or authorized person shall knowingly communicate or knowingly allow to be communicated to any person any information obtained for or on behalf of the minister for the purpose of this act. I merely cite these sections in support of the principle I have asserted.
It seems to me that the best case that could have been made from the remarks of the hon. member for Port Arthur in putting forward this motion is that he is seeking papers in a particular case in order to make a general argument concerning Canadian-United States tax relations. I am sorry to have expressed it this way, but that is the best I can take out of his case. However desirable it may be, surely that general proposition cannot be used as an argument for disclosing the information in a particular case and to get the returns made in a particular case. It seems to me that is something nobody would question. Otherwise, any member in this House of Commons could come forward, and if he were skilled as the hon. member in making his argument on a general proposition that he wanted to discuss, obtain any tax return or any information on any tax return by relating it to a general proposition which is, properly the subject of the House of Commons. There is a method by which persons who are concerned with particular tax returns can get information, but it is very strict and very difficult and they must assume certain responsibilities when they obtain it in that way. Surely, they should not be able to come into the House of Commons and obtain not only the returns of taxpayers-


Douglas Mason Fisher: I wonder if I could ask the minister if he would define "tax returns" in the sense he is using the term? I had not thought that what I was asking for was a tax return in any sense. I thought it was material relevant to a particular question in connection with a tax case.


Mr, Mcllrailh:: Perhaps I used the words loosely, but I have been accustomed to using them that way for many years. In estate work, you file the return on the prescribed form and it is invariably followed by a great deal of supplementary information by way of correspondence, company statements and other supplementary material. I have always used the term "tax return", when referring to that kind of correspondence, including all
Motions for Papers
the documentation because, except in very small estates, the information is rarely embodied in the first document filed.
In income tax cases that would not be true; but that is the practice in estate tax work, and I had used the income tax term rather in the sense of embracing all the information that is obtained in order to enable the tax authorities to make the assessment and to determine the amount of tax payable.
Now, there was one other assumption and I hope the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Coates) will not mind my checking him on it. It was his assertion of his assumption of officials persecuting the taxpayers. In discussing a motion for the production of papers I definitely suggest it is going pretty far to make such assertions about what was done or not done in the particular case, because I am not in a position where I can come forward and agree or disagree. I am not going to agree with the figures he has given because that would be giving the information about the taxpayers returns by one device or another, and I do not propose to do that. I would hope it would not become the practice to make that kind of charge on these motions.
He referred to the generosity proposed by a former minister to Mr. Eaton. Surely that is not the basis of our handling of tax cases. To me it is absolutely essential that there be great strictness in applying the tax laws equally under the statutes, and I would hope there was nothing implied by any deviation from that policy, however worthy or unworthy the individual person concerned may be.
The point I want to make is that his worthiness or unworthiness is surely irrelevant, and reference to generosity of a taxpayer cannot be the basis of dealing with these matters. The obligation of a government must be to apply the taxes equally to all persons in precise accordance with the law, and I would take it that it was not intended to deviate from that.
I see it is getting on and my time has almost expired, but I would like to get a determination of this motion. For the reasons that I have given I have no alternative but to refuse the motion because I believe it means giving tax return information about an individual taxpayer's affairs.


Douglas Mason Fisher: May I ask one question before the minister sits down?


George James McIlraith: Yes.


Douglas Mason Fisher: In the communication which the minister was kind enough to send me, and I appreciate the fact that he did give me

Motions for Papers
some information, he indicated that representations were made by Mr. Eaton to successive ministers, and one minister in the previous administration agrees with this. That has raised the possibility that there is another element involved in this, apart merely from the succession duties aspect of it.
I would ask the minister whether in view of the, let us say, very high wall which he has now built up against giving any information of any kind, could I or any other member get information on this other question which is related to the estate but involves another principle?


George James McIlraith: I must say, about the letter, that it was not written by me. I had not seen it until this afternoon, but I must take responsibility for it. However, had it been seen by me I can assure you it would not have been sent out. In any event, coming to the narrow point raised by the hon. member, I would be willing to look at the possibility of examining what he has now raised in debate, to see if there is any information that could properly be given without violating the principle I have asserted. I cannot give a categorical answer on it now, as I should like to study it pretty carefully.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I would be prepared to withdraw the motion if the minister would give me the assurance that he is willing to sit down with the hon. member for Cumberland and myself, and just talk over the possibilities of giving us information on the general questions we have raised in connection with this other aspect of the estate.


George James McIlraith: If that is limited to the public part, the general question, I would be very glad to discuss it with the hon. member to see if there is anything that can be given.


Mr. J. E. Lloyd (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to urge upon the minister, if it is at all feasible, that he accept the proposal of the hon. member who has just offered to withdraw his motion. In view of the things said today I think we would be derelict in our duty if such a conference was not held before we proceed with any other technical procedures that may be involved.


George James McIlraith: I want to make it clear that I would not give any information about the individual return.


John Edward Lloyd: It has been suggested that an offer has been made by a taxpayer to lodge securities in settlement of an obligation to the crown. In the light of what assets are available for the crown to attach, which so far as I know are limited, if anything, I would suggest this matter is of great urgency for such a discussion.


Douglas Mason Fisher: If I understand the minister correctly, then I am prepared to withdraw the motion. I then look forward to having the opportunity to discuss with him, together with the hon. members who have taken an interest in this, what information it may be possible to give us, always having regard to the fact that under the rights of the house I can come back and frame my motion in another way to get more properly at what I have been asking.


Mr.   Baiien@Acting Speaker: Order. Does the house give unanimous consent for the hon. member for Port Arthur to withdraw his motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
*
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.


Mr. Speaker:: The hour appointed for the consideration of private members' business is now expired.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to provisional standing order 39A to inform the house that the questions to be raised at ten o'clock p.m. this day are as follows: First: the hon. member for Kootenay West:
As a result of the administrative seesawing with respect to ARDA, has there been any delay in the development of programs and the study of proposals presented to the government, or in the processing of agreements?

Then, question No. 2:
In view of the fact that in 1962 an act was passed by parliament making provision for the building of a railway in Gaspe peninsula, does the government intend to renew this act before it expires on December 31, 1964?

Question No. 3: the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka:
Is the minister prepared to table any maps prepared by the representation commissioner under section 8 of the Representation Commissioners Act, for reference during the debate on the redistribution bill?
The house will now revert to the business which was interrupted at five p.m.



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 (for Mr. Pearson)-Mr. Batten in the chair.
The Deputy Chairman:: It being six o'clock I do now leave the chair.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
On clause 6-Appointment of chairman, etc.
Lucien Lamoureux: Order. House in committee of the whole on Bill No. C-72, an act to provide for the establishment of electoral boundaries commissions. When the committee rose at five o'clock we were considering clause 6 of the bill and an amendment thereto by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. Is the committee ready for the question?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Chairman, we heard before the supper adjournment a few innuendoes cast at members of the opposition for taking what I conceive to be a proper stand and being critical of the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, particularly with regard to the composition of the commissions which must be set up. I noticed that when we were debating this question for a good portion of the afternoon the Prime Minister was in his seat. This to me indicates a proper interest in the amendment that was proposed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. I am sure he was here to hear the remarks of hon. members in so far as they concerned the integrity of the leaders of the two main political parties in this country with respect to the appointment of members who would be comprising the commission that is to be set up.
I want to say a word or two about the comments of the hon. member for Port Arthur, when he was being so vehement about the integrity of the judges and the impartiality of the judges who would appoint the other two members of the committee. There were questions that we put to the hon. member which I do not think he answered satisfactorily and which I do not think the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has yet answered in any satisfactory fashion. I am therefore going to put them again. Questions that occur to my mind are these. Here we have a member of the party to which the hon. member who proposed the amendment belongs saying that we should trust implicitly the judgment of the judges who are to appoint the other two members. They say this on the one hand, and yet on the other hand they say: We are not going to trust them absolutely, because we are going to subject them, in the third classification of these
23. 1964
Electoral Boundaries Commission selections which they may make, to the approval of the representation commissioner. It seems to me, sir, that you either have implicit confidence in the choice of the judges, or you do not have that implicit confidence. The very words of the third section of the amendment suggest that the member who proposed the amendment does not have that confidence which he says he has.
If you subject the selection of the judges to the approval of the representation commissioner, surely this erodes at the very foundation of the confidence of those members who support the member for Winnipeg North Centre in the amendment he proposes. It seems to me that if the hon. member asks the members of this committee to appear to be pure, he must also go the full circle and be pure himself. We have heard many words spoken in committee this afternoon about the lip service that is paid to impartiality and purity in the commission that is to deal with the selection of the members who are to serve on these commissions. I cannot think of any better provision than that which now appears in the bill to assure the impartiality that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre desires to be present in the commission which is to be considering the boundaries that are to be revised.
We have heard of the existence of certain maps. I have not seen any maps that have been drawn by the representation commissioner or his staff, but I think if such maps have been prepared we, as members who are vitally concerned with the composition of the commission, are entitled to see them; for surely if the representation commissioner and his staff have gone so far as to prepare these maps, I submit it suggests, sir, that a decision has already been made. I think the hon. member for Ontario raised a very important point. The point he raised was that the maps that have been prepared, have been prepared on the basis of a 20 per cent tolerance. If this is so, there surely has been a bypassing of the very responsibility that this committee is charged with, namely whether the tolerance is going to be 20 per cent; because if the maps as they exist have been prepared on the basis of a 20 per cent tolerance, it seems to suggest that the assumption has been made by those in power that this is going to be the tolerance regardless of the views of this committee and regardless of the views of parliament, and whether or not parliament passes this provision in the bill, the maps have been produced and these are to be presented to the representation commissioners.
This places the commission in the position of being a rubber stamp. This suggestion has been made before and it is one that has not

Electoral Boundaries Commission yet been answered by the Minister of Transport or by the member who has proposed the amendment. Many innuendoes have been made by the Minister of Transport as to the motives of this committee in advancing criticism of the various provisions of this bill. Every hon. member who has risen so far to speak on the bill has, I am sure, advanced constructive criticism on clause 6 and on the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. I have said before, and I say again, that there can be no question about the Prime Minister of this country and the right hon. leader of the official opposition making selections on a basis that will be acceptable to all Canadians wherever they may be. In this amendment we have the proposal that we are going to take away from those gentlemen, who are most familiar with and most experienced in the problems involved, the matter of reconstructing the constituency boundaries of this country and place it in the hands of people who know nothing about it. Surely we must have consideration of the fact that the Prime Minister and the right hon. Leader of the Opposition have some small knowledge of the political considerations that should go into the reconstruction of constituency boundaries. It seems to me that we are degrading the very foundation of our parliamentary institution in the country by even suggesting that anybody other than the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition would be most capable and most suited to make the selections of those who are to serve on the commission.
The Minister of Transport also suggested that there was some question as to the honesty of the motivation of hon. members on this side of the house when they were advancing criticism of this bill. He made mention to the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre strapping on his sword and buckler in order to defend the virtues of the criticisms of members of the opposition. I suggest to him that we on this side have every reason to be suspicious in view of the obvious deal which has been made between the Liberal party and the New Democratic party with respect to this particular amendment, of anything that is advanced by the Minister of Transport or members of the treasury benches.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: You mean, they are married.


Erik Nielsen: I think, as the hon. member for Bow River has suggested before, there has been an obvious bundling under the bedclothes here with respect to this amendment-and if the minister were honest with himself, he would agree.


There is one other matter for which the Minister of Transport must be brought to task, and that is that, according to page 741 of Hansard, he led us to believe that this bill would advance through the committee stage -and this was the reason it was passed with such facility on second reading-without any question of an amendment to clause 6. Then all of a sudden we are confronted with an amendment which has been the product of the deal which has been arranged between the Liberal party and the New Democratic party.


Mr. Macaluso:: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. I find the remarks of the hon. member very repugnant, as I am sure do all hon. members on this side of the house.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Hugh John Flemming: What is the point of order?


Joseph Angelo Macaluso: Perhaps hon. members will allow me to get to it. The hon. member for Yukon referred to members on this side of the house making deals with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. Many hon. members on this side of the house have expressed their disagreement-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order.


Joseph Angelo Macaluso: Perhaps I am wrong and there should be a point of privilege. The hon. member for Yukon made remarks directed against members on this side of the house; he said that they were making deals. Many of the members on this side have spoken against the amendment offered by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, so I do not think there has been any deal or bundling under the bed clothes. The hon. member is making remarks in his usual manner, not based on the facts at all. I think that before the hon. member says that there have been any deals or bundling he should give us his facts for that statement. As far as I am concerned and as far as many other hon. members are concerned on this side of the house, we know of no such deals, and the hon. member, in his usual, ineffectual-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order, please. I am sure the hon. member agrees that no question of privilege arises there. This is a matter for debate.


Erik Nielsen: I have used the words of the Minister of Transport himself. I have heard only three speakers on the opposite side who have had the guts to get up and say what they think of this bill. They are the hon. member for Welland, the hon. member for Vancouver

Quadra and the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard, and I should also include the hon. member for York-Scarborough.


Mr. Hahn:: Mr. Chairman, does the hon. member not realize that there are many members on this side of the house who were prepared to support the original bill until hon. members on the other side of the house started speaking?


Erik Nielsen: First of all, Mr. Chairman, may I welcome the hon. member back to the house. Second, may I say to him that we are not included in these deals which are made between the N.D.P. and the Liberals, so how are we to know whether hon. members opposite are prepared to support the original bill? However, I am glad to hear it because I think the Minister of Transport led hon. members on the government side to believe that they should support the original bill, and it was not until the Minister of Justice, with that way he has of often contradicting the Minister of Transport, came into the house and intimated the opposite that there seemed to be some difference of opinion among the government members. If that support that the hon. member who raised a question of privilege indicated exists does in fact exist, then I am exceedingly happy because I for one have faith in the judgment of the Prime Minister of this country and the Leader of the Opposition to make these selections.


Mr. Kindt:: Mr. Chairman, I am amazed at the Minister of Transport and at the way he is trying to pilot through the house this particular piece of legislation. I want to say to him that if he, in turn, would stick to his original thinking, which was sound-and often times first thoughts are a lot better than second thoughts; not always, but in this case they are-then this house could get on with the business in front of it.
Just think what it would mean if we had a commission appointed by the chief justice of a province who, in turn, would appoint a member of the bench of that province as chairman, and who had the task of appointing two other people to the commission. These appointees would sit down with the commissioner and they would make the decisions. They in turn would owe allegiance to the people who made the appointments. One might try to comfort his mind by thinking that it was something which would be far above partisan politics, but other elements enter into the making of these appointments which throw the whole thing into the wrong perspective. The hon. member for Welland put his finger on the point when he said that he would not want to criticize the judge who made those appointments. Neither would I,
23, 1964
Electoral Boundaries Commission nor would any other hon. member of this house. Therefore, let us think twice about passing any legislation which draws the judiciary into, and makes them part of, political controversy.
I think such a step as that would be a mistake, and that the Minister of Transport is not helping to get this legislation through by sitting there in his pilot's position, smiling, but doing nothing about it. He is just sitting there. If he wants this legislation to go through he had better start thinking.
Some hon. members have suggested that the commissioner should make these appointments or that they should be submitted to the commissioner for approval. If my guess is right there are plenty of functions and headaches in front of the commissioner without loading him up with this particular problem, and I hope that we in this house will have some sense and make the work of the commissioner possible instead of submitting him to any such task as this.
That brings me back to the question how the job should be done. The original suggestion was that the Prime Minister would make one appointment and that the Leader of the Opposition would make the other. I have talked about this to a great many members. We have thought about it and discussed it from every angle, but there is no way that I see to improve the wording of the original bill.
I have nothing to say against appointing other officials to this commission, university professors, for example. There are many fine, upstanding and intelligent university professors. But I think it would be an imposition on them to ask them to do this work. Their minds are attuned to a particular field which is not a political field, and in order to think intelligently about constituency boundaries one is immediately brought into a political arena. Why should we expect a professor of history or a lecturer in law to sit with a judge and produce a wise final decision with regard to constituency boundaries? Even with the help of the commissioner, how could these people put their minds to it and come up with the right answer? This is purely a political matter. The suggestion which was originally made might be open to criticism, but I can assure the minister that the amendment, if it were to be accepted, would be subjected to even stronger criticism. The original proposal put forward by this government has the greatest merit of any which have so far been placed before the committee.
When it comes to the question of confidence, I believe the men appointed to these committees must be good men, sound men, men not placed on those commissions because of any political feeling. Lord knows, there are

Electoral Boundaries Commission plenty of those. If the Leader of the Opposition had the power of appointment there would be no problem in the Conservative party about getting good men appointed and I believe just as strongly that with all the men he has to choose from in the Liberal party the Prime Minister would be able to appoint men who would do a good job, men who would work with others on the commissions and produce results which would be acceptable to all.
I am interested in how these commissions would carry out the work assigned to them. It is true they will get guidance literature. Some of this has already been published in various articles and released to the public. Much of the information I have comes from these sources. I have done some study and research in connection with the system in Australia as well as with the system followed in Britain. I have had the benefit of talks with others interested in this subject and the big problem concerns the tolerance; is there to be a 20 per cent or a 30 per cent tolerance? Or is the figure to be still greater?


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. May I remind the hon. member that we are trying to consider clause 6 which has to do with the appointment of the chairman and other members of the committee. By agreement some time ago it was decided that the question of tolerance be left until we reach clause 13.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: I was trying to establish the fact that these commissions will have to do a certain amount of work with figures in order to decide what the boundaries should be. I am concerned with how this work will be done. These are details about which the minister knows but with which, apparently, he is not concerned. This is where the fly in the ointment is. This is where the nigger in the woodpile is. The minister has this information, but he will not tell us how it is being figured. What is happening is this: They start with the cities and then work out to the country, and in making their calculations what is left over from the country is the residual. The commission then decides what the tolerance is to be and how much is to be given to the country. The percentage may range from 1 per cent to 20 per cent or from 1 per cent to 30 per cent, depending on whether you start with the rural areas and go into the cities or whether you start with the cities and go out into the country. There is a feeling that there should be representation by population. There is all too much of that thinking in the minds of those who may be doing this figuring and I think we should consider the matter carefully before we pass this legislation.


As to what may have already been done, I do not think that any maps which have been worked out or printed should necessarily be spread on the table where they could be published in the newspapers or elsewhere. I think it would be altogether premature to do that. I do not think any of these maps are final. But if they could be examined behind the scenes in some way so that everyone could see the method which is being followed I think it would be of advantage to this committee. That could be done as long as the information was not published in newspapers across Canada-and as long as the Minister of Justice, who is smiling, would not see his constituency on the map at the present time, because these maps are bound to be only tentative and no one would want copies of half a dozen tentative maps published all over Canada.
The commissioner was appointed under an act of parliament to do the job he is now doing, and undoubtedly he has been working on it for six or eight months, following a process of trial and error, and comparing different systems to find out whether this or that particular method would work or not. I imagine he has these things pretty well worked out, or at least I have heard this suggestion by other hon. members. I still think a committee of the house might go and examine these maps and then come back and report to the house if it wishes. However I do not think the information should be published in the newspapers far and wide at this stage. I do not think anybody would want that done. But since this is public information I think it should be made available in some way to members of this house or to a committee representing members of this house.


An hon. Member:: What about clause 6?


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: I want to say something about how these commissions are going to do their work. Therefore I am on clause 6; I am right on the bill. I am just about through. There is another factor about the way these commissions are going to do their work. They are going to be faced with the problem of making decisions on things about which they do not know anything. They will have to be arbitrary and operate in the dark unless somebody is invited to give them suggestions. Therefore I think there has got to be some sort of mandatory public hearing to give members and others a chance to offer suggestions. In my view this should be embedded in the legislation for the guidance of the commissioners so they can properly discharge their function, in order that when the job is done everyone will feel that he has had something to say about the moulding of the decisions. Then you would

have agreement. You will never get 100 per cent agreement but you will come closer to it by proceeding in that way than by leaving the matter to arbitrary decision.
I do not see how any commission that is set up is going to be able to operate and do this job without some opportunity being provided for members to offer suggestions as to what changes should be made when the new boundaries of their constituencies are being drawn.


Mr. Carter:: Mr. Chairman-


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: A real filibuster.


Chesley William Carter: -I should like to take a few minutes to say why I think we should adopt this amendment. My first reason is that in my opinion it is more in keeping with the general principle of the bill than the present clause. I say that because the general principle of the bill, which was adopted by the house, is that we should have some impartial method of revising the electoral boundaries. The more impartial we can be the more we will be keeping to the general principle of the bill.
The reason we are taking this step is that in the past we have been criticized for following the old method of redistribution. That method was to set up a parliamentary committee whose members were chosen, if you like, by the prime minister, the leader of the opposition and the leaders of the other parties. The present clause in the bill retains part of that principle. It is not quite as fair as the amendment because it retains the principle for only two political parties and not for the others. The amendment takes care of that, and I think that is all to the good. Either we want to get away from the old method of redistribution or we do not; and if we do not, let us be honest about it. But if we do want to get away from it and be as impartial as we can be, then I think the amendment offers a better way of doing it.
I should like to say a few words in reply to the arguments that have been presented by way of objecting to judges appointing the commissioners. To my mind these arguments overlook several very important factors. Perhaps the most important factor of all is that a judge has a reputation for impartiality to maintain.


Mr. Clancy:: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Chesley William Carter: I will answer when I am finished, but I do not want to be interrupted now. I do not think any man who has the prestige and integrity to be appointed to the high office of judge is going to jeopardize his reputation by making political appointments to a commission of this kind.
Electoral Boundaries Commission
The arguments we have been listening to overlook another very important point. They seem to create the impression that once a judge appoints the members of a commission he in some way controls the commission. Nothing could be further from the truth. That argument overlooks the very important fact that whoever the members of the commission may be, they do not have a free hand. They are bound by certain rules that are laid down in the legislation and they must conform to those rules.
Another important fact which has been overlooked is that in addition there will be a third party on each commission, the representation commissioner, who is to oversee and supervise the work of the commissions and to make sure that the rules are observed. The fourth point that has been overlooked is that if any member is not satisfied with the recommendations of the commission there is a remedy provided in clause 20 whereby he can object. I do not see very much room to criticize the giving to judges of the power to appoint the members of these commissions, but I must say I do not like the idea, once a judge has been selected, of restricting the group from which he may make appointments. In some respects I think this is a contradiction in that it reflects on our confidence in the judge. If we have so much confidence in him that we are prepared to give him the authority to make appointments I think we should have sufficient confidence to believe that he will select the best and most competent people. I should like to see that done.


Erik Nielsen: How about confidence in the Prime Minister?


Chesley William Carter: With regard to the general principle, I do not think there is any reflection implied with respect either to the office of prime minister or the office of leader of the opposition by taking these appointments out of their hands, and I think this is what the majority of the people of Canada would prefer. That is why I support the amendment.


Mr. Dinsdale:: Mr. Chairman, I have not taken part in the discussion since last fall when this matter was first before the house at the last session. I enter the debate at this time in the hope that I can be of some assistance to the Minister of Transport who, in the several interventions he has made in this debate, has indicated that he is uncertain and undecided as to the merits of the provisions in clause 6 of the bill, or the amendment.
As I listened to him speak this afternoon I thought there was still a possibility that if we could emphasize some of the important points that have been brought out in the discussion the minister would go back to his

Electoral Boundaries Commission original decision and withdraw his support of the amendment before the house. I am sure that before the government presented the bill to the house it received long and careful consideration. As a matter of fact, at the resolution stage there was an indication on the part of the Minister of Transport that he was openminded and flexible, and was searching for the right answers. I am sure that the advice he received at the resolution stage-


John Whitney Pickersgill: There was no resolution stage of this bill.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I am referring to the bill that preceded this and is very closely related to the bill that is under discussion. On top of that, Mr. Chairman, this subject is one that has been discussed in the house almost from time immemorial. As a result of the obvious abuses of the old system-


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if I could ask the hon. gentleman a question?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Certainly.


John Whitney Pickersgill: To whom does he attribute what he is pleased to call the abuses of the old system?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: As a member of parliament with the background of the minister, I am sure he is asking a rhetorical question. He is an historian, and if he is typical of Canadian historians, in discussing our political and parliamentary processes he must have been one of those who has described the partisan-ism and the raw and brutal one-party gerrymandering that has gone on in this process of redistribution since the beginning of this country as a nation as something which has applied to all generations and to all governments.


John Whitney Pickersgill: And does he not place the blame, in each case, on the government of the day?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Yes; this is precisely my point.


John Whitney Pickersgill: And upon the prime minister who would be the head of the government, each time?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I am coming to this point in a minute. Since I sit opposite the Minister of Transport, I am subjected to his bad influence in this house when he is constantly breaking the rules, but I do not believe he can point to one instance where I have ever interrupted him. He is deliberately interrupting me at this stage and trying to get me oil my stride as I begin my comments. I think from the standpoint of fair play he should let me follow the line of argument that I shall endeavour to pursue, and I will deal with the


particular he has raised in due course. I am not going to rush into it without my preliminary observations because it is my conviction, having followed this subject over the years and having listened very carefully to the discussion, that he is confused. He admitted this himself yesterday. He said he was in an awkward position, that he was embarrassed, because of the obvious about-face he is making with regard to clause 6 of the bill.
Before this bill was introduced, it had been very carefully considered by the cabinet. Certainly, a provision such as is contained in clause 6 must have been considered with great care because as the minister has indicated, and as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has indicated in moving his amendment, it seems there is a violation of the principle of non-partisanism that we are trying to avoid in bringing this legislation before the house. A great deal of attention has been given to this matter. This subject was not presented to this house without a detailed examination at various times, and particularly in recent months.
What is the purpose of the bill? Here is the point I want to make, as the major point in my argument tonight. We are trying to do away with the raw, brutal process of gerrymandering by one party, which is the government of the day, the party in power, which has always been the process whereby redistribution in this country has been carried out. In other words, we are trying to get this procedure out of partisan politics. Now, I take very violent exception to the statement of several members that they are trying to get this matter out of politics. This point has been made on several occasions. How can you get the important item of redistribution of the electoral districts of this country out of politics, since it is one of the vital aspects of political life in this nation? As the Minister of Transport has asked, who was responsible for the raw, brutal partisan gerrymandering that has occurred in the past? It has been the government of the day, and the prime minister who has been the head of the government.
The purpose of the bill is to remove this process from partisan politics and make it possible for all members of the house, as well as disinterested and qualified Canadians outside the house, to have a role in carrying out this procedure. I am surprised also that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, in moving this amendment, has indicated he wants to get this matter of redistribution out of politics. As the hon. member for Edmonton West said last night, politics is the science of government. I was especially surprised at the remarks of the hon. member for Port Arthur this afternoon because he was rather

critical of politicians participating in this process. When the hon. member first came into the House of Commons, he was critical of politicians. He thought they were a rather dull, stupid group of people.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I never said that, and I do not want it left on the record without challenge.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I think the hon. member will agree that when he first came into this chamber he was rather critical of the level of performance of members.


Douglas Mason Fisher: And I still am.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I have seen comments made by the hon. gentleman in the newspaper, particularly in discussion with another distinguished journalist who writes for the Toronto Telegram, and has stoutly defended the quality of the performance of the members of this house.
Let us be absolutely certain what we are trying to do. We are not trying to get this out of politics: We are trying to get this out of partisan politics. I believe the bill we have before us is designed for just that purpose. I am sure after listening to the Minister of Transport, the sponsor of the bill in this house, that he himself feels the provisions of the bill as they stand adequately serve this purpose. We all recognize, of course, that as well as politics being a science, it is an art. I think one of the reasons among many that it is desirable for the officials of this house at the highest level, the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, to have a role in designating the personnel who shall make up the membership of these redistribution commissions, is the fact they have demonstrated in their long careers in public life and in their many services to Canada in various capacities, that they have the necessary artistic talents and qualifications to carry out this responsibility in the redistribution of the boundaries in a way that will take into consideration the political considerations.
How can anyone, who has not the insight of long experience in the political life of this nation, carry out these responsibilities? I do not see anyone who is better qualified; yet the members of the government are supporting an amendment which would remove this function entirely from the realm of politics. I am afraid this is something that could not be realized, no matter who chooses the personnel and no matter how scientific the choices might be. There has to be a sense of artistry about this matter that only the experienced and skilled politician is capable of giving.
23, 1964	2519
Electoral Boundaries Commission


Mr. Teillei:: May I ask a question?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Certainly.


Roger-Joseph Teillet: Just following his recent remark, perhaps I did not hear the hon. member properly, but I thought there was an implication in his remarks that non-partisanship had not been achieved in the province of Manitoba in the method used there.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Chairman, I have not mentioned Manitoba but I will, in just a few moments. The hon. gentleman opposite is anticipating my speech. Both the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Veterans Affairs are Manitobans, and no doubt all Manitobans think alike on these matters. Perhaps that is the explanation for their anticipation.
Why should we downgrade and publicly criticize the Prime Minister of Canada and the leader of Her Majesty's loyal opposition? We can go back in history, and I would say without exception, regardless of the party stripe, the successive prime ministers we have had with responsibility for the government of the nation, and the successive leaders of the opposition have been men of outstanding capabilities. Indeed people do not come to these positions without being men of character and integrity. For the government publicly to downgrade their qualifications for participating indirectly in this innovation, in this pioneering effort in the political life of the nation, is certainly not in the best interests of parliament.
There is another strange anomaly that appears to me. The government and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre are quite happy to cast the responsibility for the selection of personnel on to the chief justices and the representation commissioner. Now both these gentlemen, a group in the case of the justices, and a single gentleman in the case of the representation commissioner, are appointees of the governor in council. And who is the governor in council?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am sure the hon. member would like to keep the record straight. The representation commissioner is not an appointee of the governor in council; he is an appointee of the House of Commons.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: That is fine. If that is the case, and if the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre approves of this principle of the house appointing officials of this kind, why not extend it to the appointment of the other personnel who will be serving on these commissions?


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask another question?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Just let me finish my sentence.

Electoral Boundaries Commission


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask a question?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I am in the middle of a sentence.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Fine.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: The hon. member has almost interrupted my train of thought. Perhaps that is what he wanted to do. You ask the question, and I will come back to my argument in a moment.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Does the hon. member not realize that if there were any way in the bill itself to name the actual persons or the actual offices of the persons to fill these positions, we would do so? We have suggested this from time to time, and it was because it was not possible that we produced this formula.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Chairman, the thought has returned to me. One of the complaints we have heard from hon. members was to the effect that members of parliament, who are most concerned and most knowledgeable in constituency redistribution, were not going to have the opportunity to have any say. This is one of the weaknesses of the legislation as it stands. I would now like to ask a question of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. Does he not think that during the process of debates here-and we all have free access to these discussions-it is possible to get recommendations placed before the Prime Minister and the government which would have a strong influence on determining the choice of personnel that he would select for these commissions? This is one of the ways in which members of parliament can participate more directly.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the hon. member like me to answer that question?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My answer is that I do not think members of parliament should have any say in the matter of the persons who will be on these commissions if we believe, as we agreed in our vote on second reading, that we want them to be completely impartial and independent.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Impartiality from a human being is impossible, and the hon. member knows that. The Minister of Justice holds up his hands in horror.


Mr. Favreau:: Yes I do.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: The only man alive today who is completely impartial is the man suffering from a mental vacuum.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Does that hold for the judges throughout the country?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Surely, as members of parliament, we have convictions? Surely we know the position we take? I am sure you will agree that impartiality is not a part of the substance of human relations. Now, let me carry this one step further.


Mitchell William Sharp: What about judges?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: The Minister of Trade and Commerce asks what about judges?


Mitchell William Sharp: That is what they are appointed for-impartiality.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Well, it all depends what you mean by impartiality. Justices have viewpoints. They have opinions. They do not operate in a vacuum, any more than do members of parliament.
Clause 6 as it stands is the only way to overcome another major objection that has been raised regarding this legislation. There are strong suggestions that it would be much more desirable to have a single commission rather than ten, one for each province. The Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition represent the national viewpoint, and it is only through these men, who are the leaders of parties of national perspective, that we have any hope of bringing about some degree of uniformity between the regional areas and between the provincial areas of the country. I am sure this is one of the reasons why the Minister of Transport included this clause in the bill.
It is significant that it is a member of the N.D.P. who has put forward the initial amendment. That group is suspicious of members of other parties; and well they might be, because we all, as I have indicated, have a partisan frame of reference. But if the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre hopes to overcome any disability in this regard, he had those hopes rudely shattered this afternoon. I think he was in the house when the Minister of Transport said quite specifically that there was no hope of any N.D.P.'er being appointed to these commissions. If that is not political bias, I do not know what is. I do not know on what grounds the Minister of Transport said this, but he said there was absolutely no possibility of an N.D.P.'er being appointed to these commissions. I do not know why he said it, but it does indicate the bias that is present in the minds-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I know that the hon. member does not want to denature my remarks. I said I did not really think the chief justice of Ontario, the chief justice of Quebec, or indeed the chief justice of any Canadian province would be likely to appoint a professor who was a notorious member of

the N.D.P., and I do not think the chief justices would appoint anyone who was a notorious member or organizer of the Tory party or the Liberal party either; and if I thought they would, I would not want to trust them with these appointments.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: That doesn't make it right.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I did not intend to denature the minister's remarks at all, but as I recall it he went even further than that, now that he brings the subject to my mind; he said that anybody who was foolish enough to belong to the New Democratic movement would expect such a situation to prevail, and I do not think I am misquoting him in that respect. He referred to the N.D.P. members being foolish. They are putting forward this amendment.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, on a question of privilege, I think I am entitled to have my words quoted by the hon. gentleman, and not misquoted. I said I would not be so foolish as to be a member of the N.D.P. I never said that anybody was foolish in being a member of the N.D.P. And as a matter of fact, if I had to choose between the N.D.P. and the kind of exhibition we have had from immediately opposite today, it would not be hard to choose.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Chairman, speaking to the point of privilege, my answer to the minister would be that I have never heard anything so foolish since I came to the House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Let me move along in this discussion, Mr. Chairman. Particular categories are referred to in the amendment, and especially representatives of the educational community. Some reference has been made to the qualifications of the commission that has been operating in the province of Manitoba. Largely because the president of the University of Manitoba is one of the members of that commission, I would say that Dr. Saunderson is the exception rather than the rule in these matters.


An hon. Member:: Is he impartial?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: He is as impartial as it is possible for any human being to be.


An hon. Member:: Then that is your
answer.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I come from the ivory tower myself and I know that the essential qualification for anyone engaged in education is to be rigidly disciplined in a certain specialized field of knowledge. In fact, the stereotype of the absent-minded professor is
23, 1364	2521
Electoral Boundaries Commission universally recognized; the man who is so preoccupied in one field of study that he is not aware of what is going on around and about him. It would be the exceptional academician who would function adequately, from the standpoint of experience, on a commission of this nature.


Roger-Joseph Teillet: Mr. Chairman, I think for the clarity of the record my hon. friend-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. The hon. member has the floor and should not be interrupted unless he accepts a question. Would the hon. minister kindly resume his seat. The hon. member for Brandon-Souris has the floor, and I do not think he should be interrupted unless he accepts a question.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Thank you very kindly, Mr. Chairman. It is obvious that these remarks are disturbing the ministry in particular. The ministry are having pangs of conscience, because they were the men who brought this legislation before the house and they are now disavowing this important point, this clause 6, to which they must have given great consideration. I can understand that they are disturbed and agitated. I think I can bring these remarks to a conclusion without any further interruption, Mr. Chairman.
Let me make this fundamental point. I know there are some who will say that this matter is being filibustered, that there has been unusual delay. This is the vicious propaganda that is being purveyed across the country by members of this house as well as people outside the house.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Members of the Liberal party.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: The Minister of Transport made a speech in Quebec in which he downgraded this parliament in these terms. I do not think it is in the best interests of parliamentary democracy for people in positions of responsibility to do this to parliament. Let me say that clause 6 is designed to protect and preserve the integrity of the members of this house, particularly the position of responsibility that devolves upon the chief officials of this house, the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. If they had never been put in the legislation, the matter would not have become such an urgent issue; but to remove them deliberately by accepting the suggestion from the N.D.P. that these men are not responsible leaders of the nation is, I think, doing a great disservice to parliamentary democracy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: We have to hammer this point home. They said we were delaying the Canada pension plan. Thank goodness

Electoral Boundaries Commission we did, because it was an awful mess when it first came into the house. We will continue to discuss this matter until the Minister of Transport returns to his original position and decides to protect the reputation of the chief officials of this house and of this parliament.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. gentleman a question with regard to the last sentence he uttered? Is the hon. gentleman saying that he is not going to allow the members of the house to decide this question; he is going to have it decided by one member of the house? Is that his conception of democracy?


Mr. Mandziuk:: He never said that.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Chairman, that is a slightly Machiavellian twist of what I said, and I would say in reply that I want this House of Commons to decide.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Exactly, so do I.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: And I want this House of Commons to preserve the reputation of its chief officials, and I am sure there are sufficient members in this house who will do just that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Roger-Joseph Teillet: Mr. Chairman, I wonder
whether the hon. gentleman would permit this question? I think this matter should be clarified, for the record. I am sure the hon. gentleman did not intend to say what he actually said with regard to Dr. Saunderson. I am sure the hon. member knows that he was not appointed to this commission. Actually it was the office of president of the university, and I thought the hon. member would want that made clear.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: If I might reply to the minister, Dr. Saunderson is serving on the Manitoba committee, and I did make the point that he was exceptionally capable. Most academicians are narrow men and have little practical experience; but he was a very broad person. He was associated for a while with the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, and I am sure that that was a broadening experience.


Mr. Deachman:: Mr. Chairman, I entered this debate opposed to the amendment.


Gordon Drummond Clancy: Are you for it now?


Grant Deachman: No, I am going to continue to oppose it, but I want to say that that is not because of anything hon. gentlemen opposite have said but, indeed, in spite of anything they have said. We have been whooping it up around this single clause for three days, and like the little boy in "Good King Wenceslas"


I am finding the snow pretty deep; so I hope this matter will soon be brought to a vote.


Mr. Fairweaiher:: Mr. Chairman, after that moving contribution to the debate I should like to make one or two remarks.


Mr. Roxborough:: It is better than anything you could say.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Let us hear something from you then.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: The asses can bray all they like but I am going to have the floor. A study of this subject is really a study of the great members who have occupied either the treasury benches or the benches on this side of the house back to the time this country was founded. I am not surprised by the fact that a fair amount of emotion is attached to representation in parliament. I am also not surprised that some people here are making a genuine effort to be objective. I do not think that we should be ashamed that we wish to discuss a proposal which was first made in this parliament, as far as I am aware, in 1952 by a distinguished member of the treasury benches, the Hon. C. G. Power. I think I will cite Mr. Power because of the distinction he has brought to this house and the objectivity with which he has considered all aspects of redistribution.
In the 1952 volume of the House of Commons bills appears Bill No. 144, which was an act respecting the constitution and duties of the redistribution commission, a private member's bill by a very distinguished private member. Clause 3 of that bill might well have been adopted by the government, and if it had perhaps we would not be in the mess we are tonight. Clause 3 says:
For the purpose of preparing and reporting a plan for the division of the provinces of Canada into electoral districts in accordance with the provisions of section 51 of the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1951, as enacted by the British North America Act, 1946, there shall be appointed a redistribution commission to consist of three members, one of whom shall be the surveyor general of Canada who shall be the chairman of the commission, another the person appointed on the recommendation of the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Commons after consultation-
I think the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre might be interested in this phrase-
-with the various groups normally considered to be in opposition to the government at the date, and the third person to be recommended to counsel by the Leader of the party for the time being holding the majority in the House of Commons.
If I had no other reason for thinking that clause 6 was a good clause I would be persuaded by that extract from a bill presented by a man of the distinction of Hon. Mr. Power.

The second aspect I should like to discuss shortly is the matter of the appointment of judges. I should have thought that, long since, the Minister of Justice would have spoken to this point, and perhaps the bill would not have included the judiciary had he made the point clearly. I am going to cite Mr. Hackett, the former member for Stanstead, in a speech he made in 1947 as reported at page 5652 of Hansard. Mr. Hackett said:
I have understood from the prime minister that it is not the intention of the government to yield to the suggestion that has been made to it that redistribution be done over by what it pleases some to call an impartial body. That being the case, it is probably futile to discuss the constitution of any such body.
May I say that apparently it is futile to discuss the constitution of any such body because we are not getting much helpful assistance from the treasury benches. He continues: If that discussion ever becomes pertinent I shall place before the house my own reasons against the appointment of judges to such a commission. The right hon. gentleman who leads the house has indicated in no uncertain terms that he does not share my views as to the impropriety of appointing judges for the solution of quasi-political problems.
Surely this is a political problem and cannot be anything else but a political problem.
I think he must concede that the appointment of judges to draw an electoral map of Canada, especially where three of the judges would be of one political stripe and three of another, would be a great misfortune and a great folly. It would be dragging these gentlemen back into the dust of an arena which they had long since escaped, and it would be possibly a reason-a reason at least in the minds of some evil minded people- for appointing a man to the bench, that he might at some later time be used for a task of this description.
I will satisfy myself by saying that if such a proposal ever comes before the house and I happen to be a member I shall resist it, as I know all lawyers and judges will resist it, and as I believe everyone who thinks well of our legal institutions, especially of our judiciary, will be bound to resist it.
By the way, in 1952 much more time was taken than the three days we have been occupying. I have not gone through the debates on each redistribution, but this is a matter that occurs only once in ten years and I think that three or four days of debate on a matter of such fundamental importance automatically justifies the time devoted to it.
In my catalogue of greats I want to include Right Hon. Mr. St. Laurent, who in the 1952 debate on redistribution said that redistribution is not a matter of executive policy but a matter and a responsibility for the house as a whole.
Then there is an interpolation from Dr. Norman Ward, who wrote a fairly interesting article on redistribution in 1952, and also included a chapter on the matter in his volume
23, 1964
Electoral Boundaries Commission called "The Canadian House of Commons", published I think, in 1948. Dr. Ward said that the government pays lip service to this dictum, and to that I say "hear, hear". Then Dr. Ward goes on to say this:
This doctrine, resting as it does on the premise that ministers can forget they are ministers whenever redistribution comes up, and that their supporters can forget it too, put an increasing strain on the credulity of opposition members as the debates wore on.
I could not agree with Dr. Ward more. I would hope, first of all, that the minister might be persuaded to revert to the existing clause 6. I would hope, too, that he would see fit to prepare an amendment of his own which would omit the employment of the judges of this country in, as was said by Mr. John Hackett, M.P., a quasi-political job.


Guy Favreau: I am impressed by the remarks made by the hon. member who has just resumed his seat with regard to the respect one should have for the judiciary and the feeling that they should not be called upon to act concerning political matters. He spoke in a tone which most hon. members opposite have been using in their speeches. One might think it was almost scandalous for one even to think of dragging judges into activities of this type.
I think the highest authority which the learned and hon. member must have is his leader. I think now that the highest authority I can find in support of the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is the author of the bill proposed when he was, not leader of the opposition, but prime minister-the bill which received first reading on April 17, 1962. The right hon. gentleman then proposed a bill the short title of which was to be "The Electoral Boundaries Commission Act". This was intended to create a commission to determine electoral boundaries. Under clause 5, the commission was to be composed of five members, the head of whom was to be the person for the time being holding the office of chief electoral officer of Canada. The remainder- and I am quoting now- "will be named in the proclamation establishing the commission". I wish to quote now from the second subparagraph of clause 5 of that bill introduced by the present Leader of the Opposition:
The proclamation establishing the commission shall name as members of that commission at least two persons who are judges of a superior court.
If the function of those who are to appoint members of the commission is so political that a judge should not be called upon to appoint members in the objective use of his discretion, how could one even think of placing those same judges on the commission

Electoral Boundaries Commission itself? I think the very fact that the Leader of the Opposition when he was prime minister should have suggested to the House of Commons the appointment of judges of the superior court as members of his commission, is proof of the soundness of the principle embodied in the amendment, to the effect that a judge should at least be able to appoint members to the now proposed commission.


Erik Nielsen: I wonder if the minister would permit a question. I see he is sitting beside the Minister of Transport. Is he aware that when that particular clause was being discussed the Minister of Transport was so leery of the provision that he wanted those judges named before he would give his consent to it?


Guy Favreau: As a citizen of Canada who in the course of the last election proudly became a member of this house I am aware of one thing-that in clause 5 of that public document which was Bill C-87 the then prime minister presently leader of Her Majesty's loyal opposition, made such a proposal.


Erik Nielsen: The Minister of Transport could, surely, rise and assist his colleague. The fact remains that when that provision was under discussion the hon. gentleman took the clearest objection to any such proposal. This suggests that the Minister of Transport was very leery about accepting the political unbias of judges.


Eric Alfred Winkler: I rise on this particular amendment for the purpose of making a brief interjection. I do not think the point just raised by the Minister of Justice has as much bearing on this clause as have the words used by the Minister of Transport on a previous occasion -words which, I believe, have been repeated since. I quote from Hansard of March 10, page 741. The minister uttered these words:
After various other possibilities were considered the government finally agreed to put in the hill the suggestion that the chief justice of the province should nominate the chairman from a member of his court; that the leader of the government, the Prime Minister, should nominate one of the members of the commission; and that the Leader of the Opposition, who is an officer of parliament, should nominate the other. I say unreservedly that I have every confidence that no matter who occupies those offices, any person who becomes leader of the opposition in the parliament of our country or prime minister in the parliament of our country would take this responsibility seriously and make the kind of nominations that all of us would feel were appropriate under the circumstances.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Read the next sentence.


Eric Alfred Winkler: The hon. member may make his own speech later, if he desires. If the Minister of Transport wishes to stand by the words he used on March 10 we are prepared to support him any time he wishes to change his attitude.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am prepared to stand by them and I am prepared to read the rest of them. This old and not very creditable parliamentary dodge of taking half a paragraph as if it were the whole thing is not going to be imposed on the committee on this occasion. I will read the words again. I said-and I stand by what I said:
After various other possibilities were considered the government finally agreed to put in the bill the suggestion that the chief justice of the province should nominate the chairman from a member of his court; that the leader of the government, the Prime Minister, should nominate one of the members of the commission; and that the Leader of the Opposition, who is an officer of parliament, should nominate the other. I say unreservedly-
-and I continue to say unreservedly, despite the partisan utterances that we have heard today-


Some hon. Members:: Oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -and despite the imputation that there is partisanship on this side of the house and none on the other, which I find a little hard to take, I say unreservedly-
-that I have every confidence that no matter who occupies those offices, any person who becomes leader of the opposition in the parliament of our country or prime minister in the parliament of our country would take this responsibility serously and make the kind of nominations that all of us would feel were appropriate under the circumstances.
I do not hesitate to say that with respect to this provision or with respect to any other method which commends itself to the house or to a majority of the house and which seems likely to produce as fair and effective a result, the government will be quite prepared in committee to consider on its merits any amendments to this procedure.
The hon. member for Grey-Bruce is one of the most amiable and normally one of the fairest members of the house, and I do not imagine that on his own motion he would deliberately quote half a paragraph and leave out the other half of the paragraph.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: We had that the other day.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Nothing could be plainer from that whole paragraph than that when I said we finally came to this conclusion we were very far from being completely happy about the suggestion, but it was the best one, as I have said about a dozen times in this debate already, up to then that we could think of, and that showed any prospect of working.


Mr. Bigg:: It still is.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. member is entitled to his opinion and to his vote, and I wish he had the courage to get up and vote on it and let the rest of us get up and vote on it.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Don't talk to me about courage.


Lucien Lamoureux: The hon. member for Greenwood.


Erik Nielsen: I wonder whether the minister would permit a question?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I yielded to the hon. member for Greenwood.


Mr. Brewin:: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether I might ask the hon. member for Grey-Bruce a question.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. The hon. member for Greenwood can now make his contribution but he cannot ask a question of the hon. member for Grey-Bruce.


Francis Andrew Brewin: I will make my contribution by suggesting that if the hon. member for Grey-Bruce is going to make any further contribution to this debate he should tell us whether or not he thinks the right hon. and learned Leader of the Opposition is not, in a matter of this sort-the question of appropriate tasks for the judiciary-an even more persuasive authority than the Minister of Transport. May I suggest to the hon. members who form Her Majesty's loyal opposition that in this matter at least they should pay great heed to the good advice put forward by the Leader of the Opposition when he introduced the bill to which reference has been made.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Chairman, as I stated earlier my position is a very simple one. So far as what has been said is concerned, I am prepared to accept the clause in the bill originally submitted to the house by the Minister of Transport.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Vote on it.


Some hon. Members:: Let us vote on it.


Eric Alfred Winkler: When the Minister of Transport says in the house that he and the government are prepared to accept amendments which he feels are an improvement, may I point out that he himself has expressed some doubt in regard to this amendment-


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have expressed no doubt that his amendment is better.


Eric Alfred Winkler: -as have supporters of his party. I say to you, Mr. Chairman, that my main objection is to the way in which this amendment has been brought forward.


Erik Nielsen: Since the Minister of Transport has risen to participate and inasmuch as the hon. member for Royal has put forward an argument which I think had a good deal of force, and to which the Minister of Justice attempted to reply and in doing so brought up the bill that was introduced during the
23. 1984
Electoral Boundaries Commission last session when the Progressive Conservative government was in power, would the Minister of Transport now explain to the house why he took such a violent position during that session with regard to the partiality of judges? In essence, that was the nature of his argument because he would not have anything to do with that provision in our bill until the names of the judges were before the house. Now he purports to reassure members of the committee that he has every faith and confidence in judges so far as the appointment of the personnel to form these commissions is concerned. I think the committee deserves an explanation with regard to the obviously wide variance between the position he now takes and the position he took when he was on this side of the house.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That has nothing whatever to do with clause 6 of this bill.


Mr. Basford:: Mr. Chairman, last Friday morning I took part in this debate, at which time I supported the clause as introduced and opposed the amendment moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. When I spoke then I had, as I think a great many members of the house had and still have, reservations with regard to which is the best method of trying to correct the abuses that have taken place in the past in connection with redistribution. On Friday morning I expressed my reservations about the method proposed in the amendment and urged that clause 6 be adopted as it appears in the bill.
At the time I spoke on Friday morning I had complete confidence in the type of people the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition would appoint to the 10 provincial redistribution commissions. I had confidence that my leader and the Leader of the Opposition would appoint the sort of people who could make an honourable and honest contribution to the work of these commissions.
I have sat in the house and listened to the debate all last Friday, all yesterday afternoon and all of today. In particular I listened today to the speeches of the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka, the hon. member for Yukon and the learned contribution tonight by the hon. member for Brandon-Souris. I must say that listening to hon. members opposite for the last three days of debate has raised in my mind the greatest possible reservations-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gordon Minto Churchill: You have been out in the
woodshed.


An hon. Member:: You have been brainwashed.

Electoral Boundaries Commission


An hon. Member:: Three cheers for the whip.


Stanley Ronald Basford: -with regard to the type of
people that the Conservatives opposite would insist on their leader appointing.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: The trained seal. "His
master's voice."


Stanley Ronald Basford: The hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka made it quite obvious to me today that he is going to insist that the Leader of the Opposition appoint persons to these provincial commissions who will give their party a partisan, political pipe line to the redistribution commissions. I think this is not what hon. members wish. All of us, at least those on this side, have endeavoured to approach this matter in a non-political way in an effort to work out what we regard as the best possible way to deal with the difficult question of redistribution and redrawing the boundaries. I expressed reservations the other day about the method proposed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre-


Erik Nielsen: Vancouver Quadra next.


Stanley Ronald Basford: -but after having listened to hon. gentlemen opposite for three solid days, they have raised far greater reservations in my mind about-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Pugh:: You have read your speech twice now.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Hon. gentlemen opposite seem to object and become quite worried when they are told that in effect they have been talking unadulterated nonsense for three days. The fact is that they have talked so much nonsense that a great many members on this side of the house who originally had reservations about the amendment now support it.


Erik Nielsen: Are we not going to hear from Welland and Vancouver Quadra?


Hugh John Flemming: Mr. Chairman, I am reminded by my friend and colleague, the hon. member for Royal, that we are dealing with a most important matter. We are not only dealing with it for the present, but we are dealing with it in connection with its application to every 10 year census we will have over a long period of time. I agree with him thoroughly when he states to this house that a few days of consideration on a bill with the implications that I have just mentioned is something which is completely justified, and for which I make no apology.

I have in my hand Bill No. C-72 with which all hon. members are familiar. It is the bill that is now under discussion. Having had some experience in public life on the government side of a legislature, I think I can speak with some knowledge and some authority as to what takes place in the preparation of bills, or what should take place in the preparation of bills. My friend and seatmate, the hon. member for Brandon-Souris, has mentioned that undoubtedly the government gave the preparation of this bill very careful consideration. I hope that is the case because it is a most important bill. We have the bill presented to us and there has been a great deal of debate in this chamber in the last few days in connection with it. The bill was introduced in the name of the Prime Minister of Canada and was presented on his behalf by the Minister of Transport. This, in my opinion, comes within the category of public bills. I believe the Minister of Transport would be the first one to acknowledge that it answers that description.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Of course it does.


Hugh John Flemming: Of course it does, he says. Now, I am going to proceed a little farther. Having said it answers the general description of a public bill, then I say that amendments to this bill should be made by the government itself, if they expect the government members to support it. Before I complete these remarks I expect to convince any member, regardless of where he sits in this house, that he should not be voting for this amendment, and I include the New Democratic party.
At the moment, I am going to deal with this matter of public bills. Let us give the government full marks for having carefully considered this bill. They introduce it and it goes through the various readings. Now we have it before us in committee. While debate was taking place on this measure, the Minister of Transport who was sponsoring it said that he found something wrong with clause 6. It did not suit him, and he was sort of looking to someone to suggest something better. This was the implication in his remarks. We finally come to clause 6 and, in my opinion, if the Minister of Transport speaking on behalf of the government was in favour of the amendment, then he should have asked the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre to send the amendment over to the government because they would like to have a look at it.


Erik Nielsen: Why should he; he drafted it


Hugh John Flemming: Instead of that, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre-


Stanley Howard Knowles: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman. May I say to my hon. friend it is not in respect of the hon. member who has the floor but it relates to an interjection by the hon. member for Yukon; and in case it is on the record it should be denied. If it is on the record from the mouth of the hon. member for Yukon that the government drafted this amendment, I want to deny that categorically. It was my amendment and my idea. I made all the initial drafts. A law officer of the crown did the final drafting for me, but it was my amendment.


Hugh John Flemming: I have not any particular fault to find in respect of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre for having suggested the amendment. No doubt it is his privilege to do that in this house. The criticism I am making is that of the Minister of Transport accepting the amendment to a public bill on behalf of the government. In my opinion, that should not be done.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I know the hon. gentleman does not want to misrepresent this thing. He has always been very careful about getting the facts. I have never accepted this amendment on behalf of the government or on behalf of anyone except myself. I said I would vote for this. I said I would vote for any other amendment from any quarter of the house that would improve the bill. I have said that about 20 times at every stage of this legislation, and I say it again tonight.
I know there are one or two hon. gentlemen opposite, including the hon. member for Bow River, who have said they want to suggest amendments. If they can improve the bill, I would be only to happy to have them improve it and I will accept their amendments right off.


Hugh John Flemming: I want to make this observation in connection with the remarks just made by the Minister of Transport. Being a practical politician he must know that the attitude he takes, as sponsor of the bill, has tremendous influence on the members on his side of the house. It cannot help but have; it is only natural it would have. When he says he will accept the amendment, I say the government is making another retreat, for which they are now famous. They cannot get away from it, Mr. Chairman: This is another retreat. They introduce a bill, someone suggests an amendment and instead of saying we would like to look it over, they say yes, we will take it holus-bolus; they reach out and grab for it. I say this is just another
Electoral Boundaries Commission retreat for which they are now becoming more and more famous.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Hugh John Flemming: Yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If when we get to clause 13 a member of the Progressive Conservative party were to suggest an amendment changing the tolerance factor and the government were to accept it, would that be called a retreat?


Hugh John Flemming: If the
Minister of Transport gets any satisfaction out of that question, he is entitled to it. Actually, it is hypothetical; it does not apply at the present time and neither do I propose to answer it.
What do we do? We get to clause 6, and I have mentioned the amendment that was proposed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. I say that the Minister of Transport, who acted as the minister sponsoring the bill, should not have accepted it. Let us consider, for a moment, the matter of the amendment itself. I say to the government that they have retreated again when they accepted this amendment and announced their support for it. I know the Minister of Transport is going to say that he was talking for himself. However, for all practical purposes that binds every member across the way. Oh, I agree, there are some who will have courage enough to stand up and vote against this amendment when the vote is called, but there will not be many. In my opinion, the Minister of Transport knows the amendment will carry before he supports it, because he is that kind of a practical politician-and I intend that to be somewhat complimentary.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Would the hon. member permit a question? Is he aware of the fact that this afternoon there was a vote, that the difference was only one, and that there were more people on this side of the house who were opposed to the amendment?


Hugh John Flemming: As I remember it, they were mostly out behind the curtains, or else they would have been placed in a very embarrassing position. I know one who did not get in-the hon. member from Hamilton; but he tried, and he is entitled to some credit for that.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: When the hon. member introduced the Atlantic development board bill in the house, how many retreats did he make when it was before the committee?


Hugh John Flemming: If my
hon. friend will look back at the record of the passing of the Atlantic development board bill in its first stages, and then subsequently

Electoral Boundaries Commission when it was being sponsored by the present Minister of Transport, he will find that the amendments proposed by the opposition on both those occasions were sent over to the government benches, and the government incorporated them as amendments coming from the government.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce looks so pained, but he has to acknowledge the facts. Now, there is another principle involved which is most important.


An hon. Member:: What was the first principle?


Hugh John Flemming: I outlined the first principle. If you were not so dumb you would know.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is that addressed to the Chair?


Hugh John Flemming: I apologize, Mr. Chairman, for not addressing you, but you must be aware the provocation was substantial. In my opinion elected members of parliament should not delegate their responsibility to any officials anywhere, without specifically naming them. The amendment proposed delegates responsibility to someone else to do something which parliament was elected to do. That is the reason I said I would convince even members of the New Democratic party that they should not support the amendment, because this is a delegation of responsibility which they have no right to sanction. They and we were not elected to delegate responsibility. We were elected to do the business of the country and to make decisions.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Has the hon. gentleman forgotten-


Lucien Lamoureux: Is the minister rising to ask a question?


John Whitney Pickersgill: To ask a question, and I think I have the consent of the hon. member. Has the hon. gentleman forgotten he was a member of the late and unlamented Diefen-baker government which introduced the bill that my hon. friend has referred to, in 1962, and which delegated the power to the governor in council to make these appointments? Now he is objecting to the delegation of power which he recommended to the house when he took collective responsibility for that measure.


Hugh John Flemming: The Minister of Transport speaks about that delegation to the governor in council as a delegation from parliament. I suppose, strictly speaking, perhaps it is.


An hon. Member:: I guess it is.


Hugh John Flemming: Just a minute, Mr. Smart Aleck. I submit that it is


the usual thing for this committee of parliament known as the cabinet and the governor in council to make appointments, because they are the committee of parliament occupying these positions of responsibility, but answerable to parliament. It is the delegation to people outside parliament to which I object.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the hon. gentleman-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. Is the minister rising to ask a question?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes.


Lucien Lamoureux: Does he have the consent of the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton?


Hugh John Flemming: Yes.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the hon. gentleman be willing, if the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre withdrew his amendment, to accept an amendment from me to delegate the power to the governor in council to make all these appointments, because that is what hon. gentlemen opposite recommended only two years ago? Would the hon. gentleman now be content with that method?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I won't withdraw it, anyway.


Hugh John Flemming: According to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre it is a hypothetical question, but I will answer it-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Good.


Hugh John Flemming: -and say
that, so far as the principle of delegation of public responsibility for public bills is concerned, that would answer it; but that does not answer my objection to the amendment itself, which I am trying to express in spite of a few interruptions from hon. gentlemen opposite. The members of the cabinet, the governor in council, are members of parliament, and a delegation to them is altogether different from a delegation to the chief justice of any province.
Now, in the two minutes that are left I am going to go a little further. I do not think we should accept the amendment because it excludes too many people from the opportunity to serve on these commissions. The amendment says they must be college professors, presidents, members of faculties or surveyor general. Perhaps I have left one or two out, as I have not time to read the full list; but the point is that it disqualifies every county court judge, every warden of every municipality, every mayor of every town and city. It takes out every industrialist in New Brunswick. No industrialist could serve because he is specifically excluded by this [DOT]amendment. School teachers are disqualified.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: What about Brigadier
Wardell, would he be disqualified?


Hugh John Flemming: That is a
more stupid remark than the minister usually makes.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. It being ten o'clock shall I rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again at the next sitting of the house?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gordon Minto Churchill: May we have the business of the house, for the record?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we will proceed with the estimates of the Department of Agriculture, and since it seems obvious that there is not much use in again taking up the debate in committee on the electoral boundaries, on Monday we will proceed with the three budget resolutions. We shall take first the resolution concerning the income tax bill, then the resolution with respect to customs, and finally the resolution concerning estate taxes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask the house leader if we can anticipate that the electoral boundaries bill will be brought back before the house reasonably soon?


Guy Favreau: Well, we still have hope that hon. members opposite will have thought the matter over and will be in a better mood then.



PRIVILEGE


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, before the house adjourns I would like to raise one small question of privilege which affects most members, particularly those in the west block.
I think it is the first time this has happened, but tonight following the dinner recess, although there was an important debate in progress in this house, the bell rang for only a few seconds, and even if we had run as fast as we could we could not have been in the chamber when the debate commenced. And it was a strange thing that there were so many government supporters here during that time. I say it is a question of privilege, because surely, with regard to the notification by the bell, we should have time to come from the west block.


Guy Favreau: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: May I make my point, please?
23. 1964	2529
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion


Guy Favreau: -there is no question of privilege here.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. There is a point of order before the house. Would the hon. member allow the Minister of Justice to make his point of order.


Guy Favreau: I submit, Mr. Speaker, that no question of privilege arises here with respect to what is being stated by the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Woolliams).


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I would like to finish, Mr. Speaker. I still believe that the facilities which are in another building in which our offices are situated should be such that when we wish to be in the chamber after being summoned by the bell, we should be able to get here before the debate commences. Surely the bell should ring long enough so that the members of the House of Commons can assume their responsibilities in this house.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Have you got a watch?


Mr. Nasserden:: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order that has been raised, I just want to say that I have never heard a more arrogant statement than the one just made by the Minister of Justice. I am on the sixth floor of the House of Commons, and I did not have time, after the bell rang, to get down here for the commencement of the debate.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Chair has heard the various complaints and will certainly look into them.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
(Subject matter of questions debated under adjournment motion)
A motion to adjourn the house under provisional standing order 39A deemed to have been moved:


Mr. Speaker:: In accordance with provisional standing order 3 9A, a motion to adjourn the house is deemed to have been moved and seconded at this time. Therefore the question is that this house do now adjourn.
The first question this evening is to be discussed by the hon. member for Kootenay West, and it is:
As a result of the administrative seesawing with respect to ARDA, has there been any delay in the
2530	HOUSE OF
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion development of programs and the study of proposals presented to the government, or in the processing of agreements?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I have always had a particularly keen interest in the progress of the ARDA programs, which I consider offer an excellent opportunity for co-operation between the federal and provincial governments and community organizations to promote the planning of rural rehabilitation, which is a very necessary thing in Canada at this time. A good many constituencies are interested in the ARDA program and are concerned because of the administrative seesawing that they have read about in recent days. They are concerned about the local application of this very excellent legislation and are hoping that it will not be affected by any administrative difficulties in the days ahead.
I understand that the minister in charge of the administration of this act is active and is very interested in it, but the public at large do not know this and they are concerned at the present time. That was my reason for asking the question that I asked on orders of the day today. In addition to seeking an answer to that question, I would ask the minister if, in order to clear the air, to provide the persons interested with information, and the members of this house, he would make a full statement on the progress that has been made to date under the ARDA program, future plans for the initiation of projects in co-operation with the provincial governments and community organizations, and what he intends to do in the days ahead. Perhaps the minister would make such a statement when he is speaking on his estimates.


Hon. Harry W. Hays (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the hon. member may I say that no provincial ARDA projects submitted to the federal ARDA administration have been held up as a result of a change of administrative responsibilities. All projects are given the same study in Ottawa after submission by the provinces, and this may take some time.
In connection with British Columbia, in which I am sure the hon. member is particularly interested, all British Columbia projects submitted have been approved after study, and again no projects have been held up. In fact, no British Columbia project proposals were received between February 3 and February 20; but to date 16 ARDA projects in British Columbia have been approved, with a federal cost share of some $508,000 and a total cost of over $1 million. I might add that the ARDA projects are in the Department of Agriculture estimates. We will be discussing


those tomorrow and I am sure that at that time we will satisfy the hon. member for Kootenay West that this government is doing an excellent job with ARDA.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, we, on this side of the house, are surprised to see that the government intends to drop the legislation which was passed on March 23, 1962, with only one dissenting vote, that of the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher).
I feel that such action on the part of the present government is undemocratic and constitutes an insult to parliament since at the time-the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pick-ersgill) will surely remember-all hon. members voted in favour of that legislation to promote the economic development of the Gaspe area.
I know that the government intends to spend $16 million to develop that district, especially seaports, but I do not think that will solve the problem and reactivate the economy of the area, since ships sail only five or six months a year while a railroad through the Gaspe peninsula would be essential for the development of mining claims.
At any rate, the president of East Sullivan gold mine, Mr. Pierre Beauchemin, holds a mining claim known as Federal Metals in the Gaspe peninsula, near Ste. Anne des Monts. He also has a prospecting licence valid in Gaspe peninsula's national park, which was granted to him by the provincial government following the decision taken by the Conservative government in Ottawa to build a railroad between Matane and Ste. Anne des Monts.
This is very important, Mr. Speaker, and I ask the minister to tell us whether it is his intention to extend he period provided in the bill, because if he does not see to it, it will be the end of the whole project, since the bill expires on December 31, 1964.
That bill is important and essential to the development of the Gaspe economy, and the minister knows that, for nearly 30 years, his party promised to build a railway in the Gaspe peninsula. The Conservative government adopted a bill to make good that promise to promote the economic expansion not only of Gaspe but of Canada as a whole.
It must be remembered also that the province of Quebec has only 11 per cent of the railway lines in Canada, and that part of our country needs such a railway to develop its mineral wealth. The businessmen as well as

the chamber of commerce of the lower St. Lawrence region are desperate.
The Secretary of State (Mr. Lamontagne), speaking before the Reform club in Montreal recently said that $7 million out of an amount of $16 million would be allocated for the construction of the Riviere du Loup wharf.
According to Le Soleil of last April 21, the chamber of commerce of north Gaspe did not like that statement made by the Secretary of State.
I would ask the minister to assure the people and the chamber of commerce of Gaspe that this bill, which has been accepted by all members, except the hon. member for Port Arthur, will be implemented. Even the minister, at the time, approved the bill.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. gentleman recalls to our minds that five years after the government which he supported came to office, on the eve of an election, they rushed through this house a bill to build a railway from Matane to Ste. Anne des Monts. It is quite true, as the hon. member said, that we assumed the government of the day had paid some attention to this matter before they did this, and we did not oppose it because we wished to see development of that region, which we knew needed development.
But when we took responsibility for office -and the hon. gentleman's friends had done nothing about the railway in that year; they had been too busy passing orders in council to tax the people without any authority from parliament; a year later they had done nothing about this-


Some hon. Members:: Oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: When we came to office we examined the project and found there was no sound economic foundation for this railway. What was needed was improved transportation which would better serve the needs of the region. Let me point out that this parliament did not order the government to build the railway; it gave the governor in council permission to do so. We felt that before we spent $16 million of the taxpayers' money we should be satisfied it was being spent to the best possible advantage of the people of this region. We are engaged at the present time-it is no secret-in discussions with the government of the province of Quebec. There is a great need for the improvement of the highway from Mont Joli a little beyond Ste. Anne. From there to Gaspe the road is in good condition, I am informed, but that section is rather out of date and unsuited to modern needs. We are considering, with the government of Quebec, 20220-161
23. 1964	2531
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion a contribution in order to speed up the construction of that road so that the people of Gaspe north will have communications which are worth the money that is to be spent on them. This will really help the region.
We also intend to recommend to the house that some of this money be spent on the improvement of other communications, airfields and harbours in order to speed up the development of the area about which hon. gentlemen opposite, when they were in office, did absolutely nothing until just before the election.



REDISTRIBUTION


Mr. Speaker:: Question No. 3 is the following:
Is the minister prepared to table any maps prepared by the representation commissioner under section 8 of the Representation Commissioners Act, for reference during the debate on the redistribution bill?


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Section 8 of the Representation Commissioners Act which is to be found in the statutes of 1963 chapter 40, and which received royal assent on December 21, 1963, provided that the commissioner shall prepare maps showing the distribution of population in each province, and setting out proposals respecting the boundaries of the electoral districts in each province. I assume that the representation commissioner, with his usual dispatch, is proceeding with the preparation of those maps.
I have neither seen them nor inquired about them. However, I have heard rumours about them and the rumours I have heard are quite startling. I do not wish to go into those rumours but I think hon. members will understand that there is a good deal of concern about these basic proposals and the alternatives. I know that these are merely proposals, but I believe that the maps would give hon. members a fair idea of what is likely to result from the passage of the redistribution bill we have now been labouring with for so long.
I want to ask the Minister of Transport if he can now answer the question I raised this morning, and tell us whether in the opinion of the government these maps can be made available to the house. I cannot find anything in the act which says they are confidential, and there is at the present time no commission to which they can be submitted. Perhaps the minister could tell us whether it would require an order of the house for the production of these maps.
2532	HOUSE OF
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it would be appropriate for the government as a government to express any view on this matter. The representation commissioner, like the Clerk of the house and the Auditor General, is an officer of parliament, not an officer of the government. Therefore I would not presume to make a decision myself on a matter of this kind.
That is precisely why I asked the hon. gentleman for time to answer the question. I wanted to consult the representation commissioner who, though he is an officer of the house, cannot respond for himself in the house. I have ascertained from him, since the question was asked this morning, that he has prepared or caused to be prepared by his staff-I do not think it is right to say he has prepared them himself because it is a technical job that he probably could not do-* sketch maps of all provinces, on the assumption that there would be a tolerance of 10 per cent. He has also had produced sketch maps on the assumption that there would be a tolerance of 20 per cent, and he is in the course of having prepared another set of sketch maps on the assumption that there would be a tolerance of 25 per cent. None of them is completed.
They are only sketches, and in his opinion the publication of them would be rather apt to create the impression, because we all know that people look at things and do not even read the big print, much less the fine print, that this was the finished product. It certainly is not, because the representation commissioner said to me that he himself could point

to dozens of objections in every one of these maps as they are now drawn.
He did make a suggestion which I am very happy to pass on to the house. He suggested that each party or group in the house might like to delegate three or four members to visit his office. I do not think we could reasonably expect him to be prepared to have every member of the house visit his office, because it would paralyse the work of the office and I do not think that would be right. However, he suggested that if three or four members selected by the caucus or by the leader would like to come and meet him and his staff and have the whole process explained fully to them he would be very happy indeed to do that.
I pass on that suggestion to the house as an eminently reasonable one. But I must say that personally I agree with the view he expressed that if these maps-as I have said there is more than one series of them-were published they would create an impression, which apparently has been created even in the minds of some sophisticated people like members of the house, that this is done when it is not done at all. All these sketches represent are exercises, as I called them earlier today, that were prescribed by parliament in the act that we passed unanimously at the last session.


Mr. Speaker:: Under the provisions of provisional standing order 39A this house stands adjourned until tomorrow at eleven o'clock a.m.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.20 p.m.

Friday, April 24, 1964