1964-04-22

PRIVILEGE


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. My point of privilege is based on the fact that in my opinion certain statements made by one H. L. Keenleyside in the press are a challenge to the ancient rights and privileges of members of parliament. When Mr. Keenleyside was giving evidence before the external affairs committee on the Columbia river treaty, he stated in his closing remarks as follows:
I believe I am justified in objecting most strongly to the sneering attacks that have been made on these senior officials and highly competent technical advisers, attacks which are, in my opinion, as unjust in substance and as deplorable in taste as they are constitutionally improper.
My question of privilege is based on a letter appearing in the Ottawa Citizen on Tuesday, April 21, 1964, written by one H. L. Keenleyside and entitled "Attacks on public servants in the house are deplored", in which he restated at much greater length the substance of the statement made before the external affairs committee.
It is obvious that H. L. Keenleyside's remarks are directed at me. That is of little consequence to me, as I am quite capable of defending myself against such a charge. However, in my opinion, Mr. Speaker, and in the opinion of a good number of other members, this is a challenge to the rights of all members of this house, and I feel duty bound to bring it to the attention of the house.
Now, I understand that in rising on a question of privilege it is proper for a member to state his point of privilege. I have done that. Then the member must produce prima facie evidence to support his point of privilege, and I shall do that. Then it is customary for the member to move a motion. Therefore I now proceed to produce my evidence in support of my point of privilege, which is based on Dr. H. L. Keenleyside's letter in the Ottawa Citizen of April 21, 1964.
The questions at issue, Mr. Speaker, are first, whether a member of the Commons may freely and constitutionally comment, in the house or in a committee thereof, on the conduct of any person in the public service
in so far as that conduct relates to such person's official duties. Second, whether any person may criticize a member for so commenting and not be in contempt of the house. The answers to these questions are fully contained in certain resolutions unanimously confirmed by the United Kingdom House of Commons on February 26, 1701. The relevant extract from the orders of the House of Commons, second edition, 1756, is as follows:
Colonel Granvil reported from the committee of the whole house, to consider further of the rights, liberties, and privileges of the House of Commons, that they had come to several resolutions, which they had directed him to report, when the house will please to receive the same.
The report ordered to be read immediately, and he reported, viz.
First, resolved, that it is the opinion of this committee, that to assert that the House of Commons is not the only representative of the Commons of England, tends to the subversion of the rights and privileges of the House of Commons, and the fundamental constitution of the government of this kingdom.
Second, resolved, that it is the opinion of this committee, that to assert, that the House of Commons have no power of commitment, but of their own members, tehds to the subversion of the constitution of the House of Commons.
Third, resolved, that it is the opinion of this committee, that to print or publish any books or libels reflecting on the proceedings of the House of Commons, or any member thereof, for, or relating to, his service therein, is a high violation of the rights and privileges of the House of Commons.
Fourth, resolved, that it is, and ever hath been the undoubted right of the subjects of England, to petition the King for the calling and sitting of parliaments, and redressing of grievances. That to traduce such petitioning, as a violation of duty, and to represent it to his Majesty, as seditious and tumultuous, is to betray the liberty of the subject, and contributes to the designs of subverting the ancient legal constitution of this kingdom, and introducing arbitrary power.
Fifth, resolved, that it is the opinion of this committee, that it is the undoubted right of every subject of England, under any accusation, either by impeachment or otherwise, to be brought to a speedy trial, in order to be acquitted or condemned.
The said resolutions being severally read a second time, were, upon the question severally put thereupon, agreed to by the house.
Under the protection of the privileges, Mr. Speaker, a member can properly criticize a member of the public service in the performance of his public duties and is protected when he does so. Further, upon a criticism made, the House of Commons had jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the charge so made and to administer punishment upon conviction.
A complaint is made under the fourth resolution as a grievance. This right is that of every subject. The grievance can originate

Question of Privilege
with the member himself in his capacity as a subject or, under the first resolution, as a representative of the commoners or subjects of England. Under the fifth resolution, the subject so accused is entitled to a speedy trial -by the house if it assumes jurisdiction-to be acquitted or condemned. And, if condemned, then under the second resolution he can be committed by the house to prison although he is not a member of the house.
I am not going to read at length from the very interesting precedent here, but there is another interesting precedent to be found in Gray's debates of the House of Commons for 1667 to 1694, volume VI, at page 153. Now, Mr. Speaker, this precedent I have just referred to illustrates the constitutional position. Every citizen, member of the house or not, by petition under our standing order 70, or orally by or through a member in a proper proceeding, as on supply, can charge a crown employee before the house with misconduct or negligence in office. The house may investigate the charge, adjudicate the charge, and acquit or condemn the employee.
In 1964 the constitutional position is the same in the Canadian House of Commons as it was in England in 1701. Certain of these privileges have been delegated but can be repossessed at any time by parliamentary action.
The present day procedural position is that by section 18 of the British North America Act and section 4 of the Senate and House of Commons Act, this House of Commons and the members thereof have the privileges of the United Kingdom House of Commons as of 1867. These privileges can be cut down, varied, but not increased by Canadian statute. Two Canadian statutes vary the privileges of the house as to investigation, adjudication and consequent acquittal or condemnation. The criminal aspects of abuse of office are not here dealt with. The two statutes are an act respecting public and department inquiries, 1952 revised statutes, chapter 154, and the Civil Service Act, 1960-61 acts, chapter 57.
Section 6 of the Inquiries Act provides:
The minister presiding over any department of the civil service of Canada may appoint at any time, under the authority of the governor in council, a commissioner or commissioners to investigate and report upon the state-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: -and management of the business, or any part of the business-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I very much appreciate the endeavour of the hon. member to assist the Chair, especially when the matter is so fundamental, or appears to be so fundamental, but the hon. member is almost arguing

his case. I think he should leave a little discretion to the Chair, and the Chair is quite capable of doing some research itself. If the hon. member cares to send me a note of these authorities it would, of course, be very much appreciated, but could I suggest at this stage that he state his question of privilege so that we may get on with the business before the house.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I was just trying to be helpful. I have a number of precedents here which have been given to me as evidence of what has happened in the House of Commons with respect to previous cases. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I shall send you the complete text of my argument and, in conclusion, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Skeena:
That this house reaffirms the constitutional practice and validity of the privilege, right and obligation of its members to fully discuss or debate the actions or statements of any public servant of Canada, where, in the discretion of any member of this house, such a course is determined by such member which constitutional privilege and obligation has been established over centuries of British parliamentary custom.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure the hon. member will appreciate that on a matter which appears to be so important and so fundamental he would not expect to get an off-hand opinion from the Chair. Therefore, with the consent of the house, I would like to take this matter into consideration and bring in a decision later.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, are you accepting my motion?


Mr. Speaker:: Not before I have had a chance to consider your authorities thoroughly.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: You are not ruling it out, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Speaker:: No, I simply said the Chair needed time to study the voluminous authorities cited by the hon. member for Kootenay West and would bring in a decision as soon as possible.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I judge, Mr. Speaker, that will be by tomorrow?


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair is only human, like the hon. member, and it might even be longer.



FINANCE


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, for the convenience of the house I should like to give notice of the fact that the report of the royal commission on banking and finance will be made public late Friday

afternoon, April 24. Copies will be made available for sale to the public from 5.30 Friday at all retail outlets of the queen's printer. Arrangements are being made for these stores to remain open until 7 p.m., eastern standard time, that evening.



ANNOUNCEMENT OF DATE OF BY-ELECTIONS

Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to inform the house that by order in council P.C. 1964-556 of April 22, by-elections will be held to fill the vacancies in the two federal constituencies of Nipis-sing, Ontario, and Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, on June 22, 1964.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. Lambert: 1.	Has the province of Alberta made any proposals to the government of Canada to integrate veterans hospitals, pavilions, domiciliary care institutions in Alberta into that province's hospital plan and, if so, as indicated in the Edmonton Journal of Wednesday, March 4, what are the full terms of such proposals?
2.	After study of the said proposals, have any counter proposals been made and, if so, what is the nature of any such counter proposals?
3.	If any decision with respect to such proposals has been reached, what is the nature of such decision and, if not, when is it expected that such decision will be reached?
4.	Do the above proposals include the re-sale to the province of Alberta of the Government House site in Edmonton and, at what price and under what conditions?


Mr. Teiliei:: 1. The answer to the first part of the question is yes. The answer to the second part of the question is that such information is contained in a confidential letter and can only be provided properly by the province of Alberta.
2.	These proposals are currently under study.
3.	No decision has yet been reached in this matter. When such a decision is reached, it will be made fully known to the house.
4.	Yes, see second part of 1, above.


EXPENDITURES, POINTE BLEUE INDIAN RESERVE
Mr. Gauthier: 1.	What expenditures were made by the Department of Citizenship and Immigration in the year 1961-62 for the Pointe Bleue agency on (a) operation (b) maintenance (c) work on other than federal property?
2.	For the same year, what expenditures were made for the welfare of Indians at Pointe Bleue chargeable to (a) operations (b) maintenance?
Questions
3.	What expenditures have been made for the improvement of the economic status of Indians at Pointe Bleue chargeable to (a) operation (b) maintenance?
4.	What expenditures have been made on the education of Indians at Pointe Bleue, chargeable to (a) administration (b) operation (c) maintenance?
5.	How much does the Pointe Bleue reserve cost the federal government annually?


Mr. Badanai:: Hereunder is a report showing the branch expenditures at Pointe Bleue agency for the fiscal year 1961-62:
(a)	Operation and maintenance
of buildings and works $	56,241.37
(b)	Construction of buildings
and works,	45,366.12
(c)	Construction of	Indian houses, 30,151.14
(d)	Repairs and upkeep of Indian
houses	5,498.54
(e)	Other welfare	costs	121,741.23(f)	Economic development	1,925.60(g)	Operation of Indian schools,including repairs and maintenance of schools; tuition and maintenance in nonIndian schools	218,503.38(h)	Construction of schools (including joint school agreements)	614,019.06Total	$1,093,446.44


NEW FARE PROGRAM ON C.N.R.
Mr. Peters: 1.	On the Canadian National Railway, what percentage increase in passenger service resulted from the new fare program currently known as the red, white and blue plan?
2.	What percentage increase has resulted in each area?
3.	What extra costs are necessary to handle the increased passenger traffic?


Mr. Pickersgill:: The management of Canadian National Railways advises that it is not possible to answer the question categorically in the form asked. The following information is supplied:
The first test of the red, white and blue fare plan was carried out on lines east of Montreal to the maritimes, commencing May 1, 1962. The reaction to the fare changes was very encouraging and significant increases in traffic and revenues were achieved in 1962 compared with the previous year, despite less passenger train miles being operated in 1962 than in 1961.
On May 1, 1963, some slight revisions were made to the original plan as a result of experience and the fares were extended indefinitely in the maritime territory; at the same time they were offered in Newfoundland. On June 23, 1963, the new rates were introduced between Toronto and North Bay and in

Questions
conjunction with the Ontario Northland Railway to points in northern Ontario. The new fare system was brought into effect on the transcontinental route, on local services in western Canada and in southwestern Ontario, effective October 27, 1963.
As shown in the 1963 annual report, the downward trends in traffic and revenues of recent years were halted in 1962 and reversed in 1963. During 1963 the total number of revenue passengers carried increased 9.3 per cent from 12.4 million to 13.6 million. The number of passengers carried one mile, or revenue passenger miles, increased by 13.9 per cent from 1.0 billion to 1.2 billion. Total rail revenue derived from the transportation of passengers (fare, accommodation, meals and miscellaneous) increased by almost $1,000,000 from 1961 to 1963, a two year period when total passenger train miles operated were decreased by slightly in excess of 13 per cent.
By and large, increases in traffic and in revenues have occurred whenever and wherever the new fares have been introduced. They have also increased traffic in adjoining
or non-red, white and blue territories by encouraging through or connecting traffic.
The level of charges under red, white and blue is such as to encourage the largest increase in passenger travel, relative to the cost of providing the service. The relation of revenues to expenses of operation is expected to be more favourable under this fare plan than under others.
Detailed results obtaining in any given territory and other similar data have not been released publicly, for competitive reasons.


APPEARANCES OF MARCEL CHAPTJT ON C.B.C.
Mr. Maiheson: 1.	On what date or dates was Marcel Chaput, the author of "Why I am a separatist" a guest of C.B.C. radio or television and in each case for what length of time?
2.	What radio or television stations carried such broadcasts and where are they situated?
3.	What was the purpose of the C.B.C. in extending this radio or television time to Chaput?


Mr. Lamonlagne:: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows:
1.
Date	Title of Program	Duration of Program	Duration of Participation by Mr. Chaput	Other Participants
		Radio Network (French)		
June 8/61	Place Publique	
30 mins.	5 mins, (approx.)	Roger Cyr Jean Hubert Gaetan LegaultNov. 17/61	Rond point	5 mins, (approx.)	Michael OliverDec. 26/61	Rond point	5 mins.	Adelard Desjardins Maurice Lamontagne Jean-Jacques BertrandDec. 29/61	Rondpoint	
15 mins.	Raymond BarbeauDec. 7/61	Part age	5 mins.	Feb. 15/62	Place Publique	30 mins.	Andre Laurendeau Jean Boucher Michael OliverFeb. 28/62	Metro-Magazine	
40 mins.	5 mins.	Jan. 17/62	Rondpoint	
15 mins.	5 mins.	Andre LaurendeauAug. 6/62	Metro-Magazine	
40 mins.	5 mins.	Sept. 25/62	Metro-Magazine	
40 mins.	5 mins.	Dec. 18/62	Partage du matin	
30 mins.	5 mins.	July 23/63	Partage du matin	
30 mins.	9 mins.	Aug. 29/63	Partage du matin	12 mins. 12 secs.	Gerard Pelletier

Questions
Date	Title of Program	Duration of Program	Duration of Participation by Mr. Chaput	Other ParticipantsNov. 15/60	Television Network (French) Carrefour	
30 mins. 5 mins, (aonrox.')	Nov. 20/61	Carrefour	5 mins, (approx.)	Dec. 9/62	Tribune Libre	Laurier LapierreMar. 18/63	Aujourd'hui	Real PelletierApr. 23/63	Aujourd'hui	8 mins.	May 5/63	Tribune Libre	
30 mins.	Leon DionAug. 13/63	Aujourd'hui	4 mins.	Jean-Charles Harvey Yves MichaudAug. 23/63	Conference de Presse	
30 mins.	Pierre de BellefeuilleJan. 18/64	Champ Libre	
60 mins.	10 mins.	Michel Roy Yves Michaud Jean DufresneJan. 22/64	Aujourd'hui	8 mins.	2.	These programs were available to the stations of the C.B.C. French radio and television networks. It would be necessary to examine the logs of each station, for each occasion, to determine whether or not the particular program was transmitted. The networks are made up as follows:
C.B.C. French radio network stations-(C.B.C. owned and operated stations marked*): *CBAF, Moncton, N.B., CHNC, New Carlisle, Que., *CBJ, Chicoutimi, Que., *CBV, Quebec, Que., CFLM, La Tuque, Que., CHLT, Sherbrooke, Que., CCKRN, Rouyn, Que., CHAD, Amos, Que., CFBR, Sudbury, Ont., CFRG, Gravelbourg, Sask., CJAF, Cabano, Que., CJEM, Edmundston, N.B., CJBR, Rimouski, Que., CHGB, Ville de la Pocatiere, Que., CHLN, Trois Rivieres, Que., CKLD, Thetford Mines, Que., CBF, Montreal, Que., CKVD, Val d'Or, Que., CKVM, Ville Marie, Que., CKSB, St. Boniface, Man., CHFA, Edmonton, Alta., CKBL, Matane, Que., CJFP, Riviere-du-Loup, Que., CKML, Mont Laurier, Que., CHRL, Ro-berval, Que., CKRB, Ville St. Georges, Que., CKCH, Hull, Que., CKLS, La Sarre, Que., CFCL, Timmins, Ont., CFNS, Saskatoon, Sask., CFKL, Schefferville, Que.
C.B.C. French radio network low power relay transmitters: *CBAA, Wedgeport, N.S., *CBAH, Meteghan, N.S., *CBAL, St. Quentin, N.B., *CBFG, Gaspe, Que., *CBLX, Hearst, Ont., CBAE, Digby, N.S., CBAJ, Yarmouth, N.S., CBFB, Megantic, Que., CBLK, Kirkland Lake, Ont., CBAG, Weymouth, N.S., CBAK, Kedgwick, N.B., CBFC, Senneterre, Que., CBLU, Smooth Rock Falls, Ont.
French network (television) C.B.C. owned: *CBAFT, Moncton, N.B., *CBFT, Montreal, Que., CBOFT, Ottawa, Ont., CBWFT, Winnipeg, Man.
Relay and rebroadcasting stations: *CBFT-1, Mont Tremblant, Que., *CBFST, Sturgeon
20220-156J
Falls, Ont., *CBFST-2, Timiscaming, Que., CBFT-2, Mont Laurier, Que., CBFST-1, Sudbury, Ont.
Privately owned: CHAU-TV, New Carlisle, Que., CJBR-TV, Rimouski, Que., CKRS-TV, Jonquiere, Que., CKTM-TV, Trois Rivieres, Que., CKBL-TV, Matane, Que., CKRT-TV, Riviere-du-Loup, Que., CFCM-TV, Quebec, Que., CHLT-TV, Sherbrooke, Que., CKRN-TV, Rouyn, Que., CHAU-TV-2, St. Quentin, N.B., CHAU-TV-4, Chandler, Que., CHAU-TV-6, Gaspe, Que., CJBR-TV-2, Sept Isles, Que., CKRS-TV-3, Roberval, Que., CKRS-TV-1, Port Alfred, Que., CKRN-TV-1, Senneterre, Que., CHAU-TV-1, Ste. Marguerite Marie, Que., CHAU-TV-3, Port Daniel, Que., CHAU-TV-5, Perce, Que., CJBR-TV-1, Edmundston, N.B., CKBL-TV-1, Mont Climont, Que., CKRS-TV-2, Chicoutimi, Que., CKRT-TV-1, Baie St. Paul, Que.
3.	The corporation has a responsibility to provide fair opportunity for the presentation of the principal points of view on issues of public interest and concern. The corporation policy for controversial broadcasting is included in the B.B.G. statement on policy for political and controversial broadcasting, which states:
1.	The air belongs to the people, who are entitled to hear the principal points of view on all questions of importance.
2.	The air must not fall under the control of any individuals or groups influential by reason of their wealth or social position.
3.	The right to answer is inherent in the democratic doctrine of free speech.
4.	Freedom of speech and the full interchange of opinion are among the principal safeguards of free institutions.

Questions


EXPENDITURES IN INDIAN AGENCIES, B.C.
Mr. Howard: For the fiscal year 1963-64 how much money was spent for (a) house building (b) house repairs (c) welfare (relief) (d) roads (e) water
systems, and (f) sewage systems in each of the Indian agencies of (i) Skeena river (ii) Terrace (iii) Queen Charlotte (iv) Bella Coola (v) Babble, and (vi) Bums lake?


Mr, Badanai:: See following table.
Skeena river	Terrace	Queen Charlotte	Bella Coola	Babine	Burns Lake	Total$	s	$	$	$	$	sHouse building	12,597	8,007	5,152	5,376	2,355	17,684	51,171House repair	3,477	1,146	667	2,066	4,736	717	12,809Welfare (relief)	9,164	9,535	72,193	8,352	17,200	22,624	139,068Roads	5,785	32,617	-	-	3,284	-	41,686Water and sewage systems..	4,703	31,563	2	3,229	1,360	1,478	42,335Totals	35,726	82,868	78,014	19,023	28,935	42,503	287,069


SLEEPING CAR SERVICE, CHARLOTTETOWN, P.E.I.
Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	Have discussions been held with the C.N.R. relative to restoring sleeping car service to and from Charlottetown at least during centennial year 1964?
2.	What has been the outcome of any such discussions?
1.	What C.B.C. radio or television programs were produced in 1963 designed to foster and strengthen national unity?
2.	What radio or television stations carried such broadcasts and where are they situated?


Maurice Lamontagne: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows:


John Whitney Pickersgill: The management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows: 1 and 2. No. However, the question of train service to and from Prince Edward Island has been given special attention, particularly in view of the centennial celebrations this year. Consideration is currently being given to improvements in available transportation services which would benefit the majority of rail travellers to and from Prince Edward Island.


BROADCASTS TO STRENGTHEN NATIONAL UNITY
[Stage Direction]
1.	The attached list is representative of programs of various types presented during 1963 on C.B.C. radio and television which had in their content many of the elements that would contribute to the fostering and strengthening of national unity.
2.	In addition to C.B.C. stations, these programs were also available to the affiliated private stations of the C.B.C. radio and/or television networks. It would be necessary to examine each station log, for each occasion, to determine whether or not a particular

Question No.	456-Mr. Matheson:	program was transmitted.	Series	Subtitle	Remarks	Duration	NetworkExplorations	... Road to Confederation (Sir Charles Tupper)	Dramatic portrayal of Sir Charles Tupper's part in confederation	30 min.	TVExplorations	... Road to Confederation (Louis Hippolyte Lafon-taine)	Dramatic portrayal of Lafontaine's part in confederation	30 min.	TVExplorations	... Arctic Circle	Four interviews about the Arctic with Stefansson and Inspector Henry Larson	30 min. ea.	TVExplorations	,... The Doukhobors	Two programs traced arrival and life of this sect since coming to Canada	30 min. ea.	TVExplorations	.... Antigonish International...	Two programs-story of international ramifications of St. Francis Xavier	30 min. ea.	TV
University's work
[Mr. Lamontagne.l

Questions
Series	Subtitle	Remarks	Duration	NetworkExplorations	.. Fellow Canadians	Two programs-story of student exchange program between western Canada and Quebec	30 min. ea.	TVExplorations	.. Class of '39	Two programs comparing outlook of members of UBC graduates of class of 1939 with their fortunes and outlook on world of today	30 min. ea.	TVExplorations	.. A Public Life	Interviews with four ex-politicians about their public life	30 min.	TVExplorations	,. The Hutterites	A visit to a Hutterite colony in Alberta	30 min.	TVClose-up	. Winter Navigation on the Program about shipping on the St. St. Lawrence Seaway Lawrence in the winter months	30 min.	TVClose-up	. Portrait of Caughnawaga 	
Indians	30 min.	TVClose-up	. French Canada	Program explored French Canada's grievances especially in labour field	30 min.	TVNewsmagazine. ...	. Report on Canadian Indian.	Study of social and economic problems and steps being taken to deal with them	30 min.	TVNewsmagazine. . ..	. Canadian Space Program..	The Alouette satellite and other efforts portrayed	30 min.	TVNewsmagazine. . ..	. Change in Government for Discussion of what change would mean Northwest Territories for the territories	30 min.	TVCamera Canada. ..	. The Big Country	The cattle drive in the foothills of Alberta	60 min.	TVCamera Canada...	. The Wilderness	Look at the wilderness country in B.C., Alberta and Yukon	60 min.	TVCamera Canada...	. The Opening of The West..	The program, using still photographs, traced the opening of the west from 1860-1920	60 min.	TVCamera Canada...	. Last Summer	Sights and sounds of summer in forest, marsh and prairie	60 min.	TVCamera Canada...	. Montreal	A portrait of the city	60 min.	TVCamera Canada...	. Calgary Stampede	Highlights of the rodeo	30 min.	TVCitizens' Forum...	. Confederation a Century Later-Does it Still Work	Four programs: (a) education, (6) economic development, (c) fiscal arrangements, (d) civil rights	30min.ea. TV (Eng. & Fr.)	Telescope	. The Calgary Eye Opener...	The story of Bob Edwards	30 min.	TVTelescope	. Big City-Halifax, Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto and Winnipeg	A series about the attractions and problems of life in these big cities	TVWednesday Night.	. The Great Song	The story of Calixa Lavalee, composer of "0 Canada"	90 min.	RadioWednesday Night.	. Henri Bourassa	A political profile	60 min.	RadioThe Learning Stage. Ear for French	26 French Lessons	10 min. ea.	RadioThe Learning Stage. Basic Canada	
Time for French	
Speaking French	
The Massey Lectures (The Image of Confederation) A Special	
Dominion Day Ceremonies from Ottawa A Special	
The Johnson-Lesage Debate	13 weekly programs-a study of Canadian political institutions A weekly program of French conversation Weekly lessons in conversational French 6 talks by Professor H. F. Underhill... Quebec election campaign	Radio 15 min. Radio 30 min. TV 30 min. Radio 60 min. TV & Radio 60 min. TV (Fr. & Eng.)	
Questions

Mr. Slefanson: 1.	What is the total value of roads constructed under the forest access roads construction program and what is the federal government's share to date?
2.	What are the figures for each province, giving total mileage of roads, total cost and federal government's share of cost?
3.	Does the federal government share in the cost of maintenance of these roads, if so, what has been their share listed by provinces?
4.	During the 1964-65 fiscal year what roads are planned under this program, listing by provinces, with estimated cost of same?
Answer: 1. The total cost of forest access road construction carried out to date is approximately $31,197,000 and the federal government contribution is $15,289,287.
2.	The following table shows for each province the approximate mileage of right of way clearing, grade construction, gravelling, total cost of the work, and the federal share.
Progress and cost of forest access road construction
Cost ($)
Province	Clearing	Grading	Gravelling	Total	Federal ShareBritish Columbia	456	434	240	8,333,701	4,115,944Alberta	726	435	194	3,607,167	1,770,826Saskatchewan	410	198	83	2,146,153	1,057,855Manitoba	401	289	251	2,757,250	1,338,691Ontario	401	324	120	6,545,272	3,142,644Quebec	619	652	442	6,545,192	3,232,314New Brunswick	114	98	80	532,170	266,085Nova Scotia	91	63	22	483,500	241,697Newfoundland	90	103	-	244,506	122,253Prince Edward Island	-	2	-	2,026	978Totals	3,308	2,598	1,432	31,196,937	15,289,2873.	The federal government does not share in the cost of maintenance of forest access roads.4.	The information requested is not available because programs for the fiscal year 1964-65 have not been completed.


ACCESS ROADS PROGRAM, MANITOBA
Mr. Siefanson: 1.	When was the forest access roads construction program brought into being?
2.	What roads were constructed in the province of Manitoba under this program, listing location of road, approximate mileage of each and cost of same, also showing how cost was shared?
3.	Does the federal government share in maintenance of these roads or is this cost borne entirely by the provincial government?
4.	During the 1964-65 fiscal year what roads are planned for the province of Manitoba under this program?
5.	What is the estimated cost of same?
Answer:	1. The first federal-provincial
forest access road construction agreement was in effect from January 2, 1958 to June 30, 1958.
2. (a) Complete details are not available for all projects carried out in Manitoba prior to June 30, 1959. However, about 207 miles of right of way were cleared, 44 miles of grade were constructed and 34 miles were gravelled. The total cost was $985,714 and the federal government share was $452,923. (b) For the period from December 1, 1960 to the present, the following table shows the progress and the total expenditure made on each forest access road construction project carried out in Manitoba:
Summary of progress and expenditures in Manitoba under forest access road construction agreements, Dec. 1, 1960 to March 31, 1964.
		Grade		
Project	Clear	miles	Gravel	ExpenditureWhitemouth L. to Dawson Rd.	17	17	17	$ 67,602Whiteshell West Fireguard	7	8	11	67,516Lake St. George to Jackhead R.	3	13	18	62,251Sandilands West Boundary	6	11	10	14,139Woodridge to PTH #12	-	5	8	99,645Thompson Rd. to Paint L.	2	-	-	7,656Moose L. to Dawson Rd. IMr. Lamontagne.l	~	22	28,270
Project
Sandilands Central Rd.
Le Mine Road (T.C.H. to G.W.W.D. Hwy.) Bissett to Caribou L.
Grand Rapids Hwy. to Cedar L.
Pine River to Wellman L.
Blue L. to Wellman L.
Hart Mt. tower
Fireguard Trails, Sandilands F.R.
St. Labre
W. Boundary Wooded Dist. (Marchand to PTH #1)
Trail S. of Flacon L.
Whitemouth L. to Whitemouth R.
Fireguard Rd. PTH #4 to PTH #1 (Location survey only)
Fish Rd. (Rosenburg to Koostatak)
Whitefish Lake (Porcupine Mt. F.R.)
PTH (10 to Baden Waterhen to Homebrook Waterhen to Mallard L.
Idylwild to Wallmore Grand Rapids Hwy. to Long Point Cedar Lake Road to Denbeigh Pt. Whiteshell Central Rd. to Wpg. R.
Rice Lake Tower Windy Hill Tower Ketchum Hill Tower Totals
Federal government share
3.	The federal government does not share in the cost of maintenance of these roads.
4.	and 5. The information requested is not available as yet because Manitoba's program for the fiscal year 1964-65 has not been received.


PRINTING BUREAU CONTRACTS WITH PRIVATE FIRMS
Mr. Jorgenson: 1.	What percentage of printing by the printing bureau is "farmed" out to private printing firms?
2.	What is the dollar value of contracts let in (a) western Canada (b) Ontario (c) Quebec (d) the maritimes, in the last fiscal year?
3.	Are contracts let by public tender and, if not, who are invited to tender?


Mr. Drury:: 1. Approximately 50 per cent of printing is contracted out by the printing bureau.
2.	In the 1963-64 fiscal year the following is the dollar value of contracts in: western Canada, $198,226.00; Ontario, $3,970,210.00; Quebec, $1,547,269; maritimes, $75,972.
3.	Contracts are not issued as a result of paid advertisements to tender. Tenders are invited from firms who have indicated that they wish to tender on government business and who are considered to have the proper facilities for the particular printing jobs.
		Questions	
	Grade		
Clear	miles	Gravel	Expenditure3	6	13	17,527-	10	8	40,2139	-	-	39,31541	41	41	657,676-	5	7	41,339-	11	11	166,151-	1	3	9,09117	39	2	69,4994	-	-	1,17414	16	110,9753	-	-	6,445-	4	-	6,388-	-	-	2,60420	-	-	22,597-	9	9	33,613-	6	6	46,1405	14	-	84,5374	4	9	14,2394	3	6	3,96920	6	-	24,7365	5	5	17,154-	1	1	2,3853	3	3	2,0006	6	6	4,0001	1	1	690194	245	217	$ 1,771,536$ 885,768


COST OF ISSUING SOCIAL INSURANCE CARDS
Mr. Laprise: What will be the cost (advertising, radio, television, newspapers, etc.) of issuing the new social insurance cards which are being distributed by the unemployment insurance commission for the government?


Mr. MacEachen:: The estimated ultimate cost of advertising, including radio, television and other advertising media to publicize the new social insurance cards is:
Newspapers	$159,606
Publications	17,156
Radio	59,488
Television	47,400
Billboard advertising	33,400
Production costs	14,950


$332,000 AWARDS AVAILABLE FOR ACTS OF BRAVERY
Mr. Basford: What are the names or designations of the decorations or medals available from the Queen to Canadian citizens on the recommendation of the government of Canada in recognition of acts of bravery performed at the risk of death or serious personal injury?


Maurice Lamontagne: In so far as the Department of National Defence is concerned the

Questions
following are names and designations of sovereign's awards which may be awarded, in peacetime, to members of the Canadian armed forces for acts of bravery at risk of death or serious personal injury: George Cross, G.C.; Commander of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire, C.B.E.; Officer of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire, O.B.E.; Member of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire, M.B.E.; Albert Medal in Gold, A.M. (posthumously only); Albert Medal, A.M. (posthumously only); George Medal, G.M.; Air Force Cross, A.F.C.; Air Force Medal, A.F.M.; British Empire Medal for Gallantry, B.E.M.; Queen's Commendation for Brave Conduct; Queen's Commendation for Valuable Service in the Air.
In addition, the following are available only to members of the nursing service displaying exceptional bravery on duty: Royal Red Cross, Class I, R.R.C.; Royal Red Cross, Class II, A.R.R.C.
In so far as the Department of the Secretary of State is concerned:
The names or designations of decorations or medals available from the Queen to Canadian civilians on the recommendation of the government of Canada in recognition of acts of bravery performed at the risk of death or serious personal injury are: George Cross, G.C.; Officer of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire, O.B.E.; Member of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire, M.B.E.; Albert Medal in Gold, A.M. (posthumously only); Albert Medal, A.M. (posthumously only); George Medal, G.M.; Queen's Police Medal for Gallantry (posthumously only); Queen's Fire Service Medal for Gallantry (posthumously only); Edward Medal, E.M. (posthumously only); British Empire Medal for Gallantry, B.E.M.; Queen's Commendation for Brave Conduct; Queen's Commendation for Valuable Service in the Air.


C.B.C. NEWS REPORTERS AND COMMENTATORS
Mr. Lambert: Are full-time news reporters and commentators in the employ of the C.B.C. permitted to act as
news reporters and commentators for newspapers, magazines and publications under their own byline and, if so, what are the restrictions, if any, imposed upon such activities?


Maurice Lamontagne: I am informed by the C.B.C, that staff reporters and correspondents under contract may engage in outside writing or other activities upon receiving permission to do so, provided it is not in direct competition with the news service of the corporation, and that the outside employment shall not interfere with the worker's employment with the C.B.C., or be of a nature that is likely to embarrass the corporation.


COST OF OBTAINING UNIVERSITY DEGREES
Mr. Orlikow: What is the approximate total cost, at the present time, of educating the following qualified persons up to (i) bachelor's (ii) master's, and (iii) doctor's levels (a) engineers (b) mathematicians (c) physicists (d) scientists (e) physicians and surgeons?
Answer: The cost of education used in these calculations is the estimated cost for the current year, i.e. the school year 1963-64. Thus the costs of university education to the bachelor's level are four times the cost of one year of undergraduate education in 1963-64.
Cost to university is the current operating cost only. It does not include: (a) implicit rent, i.e. depreciation, wear and tear of buildings and capital equipment; (b) tax exemptions.
Cost to the student is limited to educational expenditures only, including tuition and other fees, textbooks, school supplies and equipment and transportation (other than local). It does not include (a) living costs; (b) possible earnings foregone.
Approximate costs have been calculated for mathematicians, engineers and physicians and surgeons. It is not possible to estimate figures for physicists and other scientists but it may be assumed that they will fall between the costs for mathematicians and for engineers, probably closer to engineers.
Estimated Total Cost of Educating Engineers, and Physicians and Surgeons Cost to		Mathematicians Cost to	
Engineers	student $ 300	community $ 6,600	Total $
Elementary and secondary			6,900
University to bachelor's level (4 years)	3,000	7,200	10,200Total to bachelor's level	3,300	13,800	17,100Postgraduate to master's level (1 year)	600	2,500	3,100Total to master's level	3,900	16,300	20,200Postgraduate to doctor's level (2 years)	1,100	4,000	5,100Total to doctor's level	5,000	20,300	25,300
[Mr. Lamontagne.l

Mathematicians
Elementary and secondary
University to bachelor's level (4 years) Total to bachelor's level
Postgraduate to master's level (1 year) Total to master's level
Postgraduate to doctor's level (2 years) Total to doctor's level
Physicians and surgeons
Elementary and secondary
University-pre-medical (2 years)a>
University-medical course (4 years)
Total to doctor of medicine'2'
'"In medical schools where three years of post-medical training is required total cost to the student would be $6,100, and to the community $18,200 making a total of $24,300.
'"Before a physician or surgeon may enter public practice one additional year of internship is required.


HYDROGRAPHIC SURVEY, LAKE WINNIPEG
Mr. Siefanson: 1.	How much money will be spent during 1964 on the survey being carried out on lake Winnipeg, Manitoba, by the Canadian hydrographic service?
2.	On what part of the lake will this work be carried out and approximately how many persons will be employed?
3.	When is it expected that the survey will be completed and when will the charts be available?


Mr. Benidickson:: 1. Nil.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	It will take about 12 years to complete the survey of lake Winnipeg, once work is restarted. The charts will be available about two years after each section of the lake is completed.


* APPOINTMENT OF CARETAKER, FEDERAL BUILDING, SPRINGHILL, N.S.
Mr. Coales: 1.	Does the Department of Public Works plan to appoint a non-veteran as caretaker of the new federal building in Springhill without notifying the Royal Canadian Legion in Springhill that the vacancy is in existence and is to be filled?
2.	Did the department follow the same procedure when the last position was filled at this federal building?


Mr. Deschalelets:: 1. No. There is no vacancy for a caretaker in the new federal building at Springhill. The present caretaker is on extended sick leave. Should he not return to work, the position would be filled either by promotion or by the civil service commission after a public competition.
2. This was done by the civil service commission after a public competition.
Questions
Cost to	Cost to	
student	community	Total$	$	$300	6,600	6,9002,200	4,900	7,1002,500	11,500	14,000600	1,300	1,9003,100	12,800	15,9001,100	2,500	3,6004,200	15,300	19,500300	6,600	6,9001,100	2,500	3,6004,100	7,800	11,9005,500	16,900	22,400


LETTER CARRIER SURVEY, SELKIRK, MAN.
Mr. Siefanson: 1.	When was a survey last made in the town of Selkirk by the Post Office Department with a view to implementing letter carrier service?
2.	What was the result of that service?
3.	When is it expected that letter carrier service will be commenced?


Mr. Nicholson:: 1. The last survey was made in Selkirk, Manitoba, in June 1963.
2.	It indicated that there were 2,050 calls available for letter carrier delivery service.
3.	When the town has developed to the extent that there are 2,500 available calls in a compact area.


RESTRICTIONS ON DUMPING OF WASTE INTO GREAT LAKES
Mr. McMillan: Is there any restriction to ships dumping raw sewage, oil and other wastes into the great lakes system or into any of its confined waters?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The oil pollution prevention regulations provide that no person shall discharge or allow to escape from a ship into the inland, minor or other waters of Canada any oil or oily mixture that foul the surface of the water, and oil includes crude oil, fuel oil, heavy diesel oil, lubricating oil, vegetable oil, fish or other fatty oils.
The Navigable Waters Protection Act provides that no person shall throw material or rubbish liable to sink to the bottom into any navigable water or into navigable non-tidal water of Canada where there are not at all times at least eight fathoms of water.


RED CROSS HOSPITAL, MASSET, B.C.
Mr. Howard: Does the Department of National Health and Welfare have any plans to occupy, by lease, purchase or otherwise, the Red Cross hospital at Masset, B.C. and, if so, what are the details of any such plans?


Miss LaMarsh:: No.

Questions


EXPATRIATED RECIPIENTS OF WAR VETERANS ALLOWANCE
Mr. Malheson: 1.	How many veterans of allied countries in receipt of war veterans allowances resided outside of Canada in 1963?
2.	By countries, how much was paid to such veterans in 1963?
3.	By countries, what system of supervision is in effect to ascertain the current income of such expatriated W.V.A. recipients?


Roger-Joseph Teillet: 1. One hundred and eleven.
2.	Australia, $1,008; Belgium, $336; France, $5,477.93; India, $636; Italy, $35,839.40; New Zealand, $1,754.22; Poland, $1,644; United Kingdom, $37,460.42; U.S.A., $20,136.56.
3.	Each year a form is sent to all those who are receiving war veterans allowance outside Canada. The form contains questions, the answers to which provide a full report of the veteran's financial and domestic circumstances. The information on this form must be supported by a declaration made before a magistrate, notary public or other authorized official as to its truthfulness. The supervision of recipients outside Canada comes under the foreign countries district authority at Ottawa which obtains reports of the veterans' circumstances in all countries through the medium of the office of the Secretary of State for External Affairs and other agencies.


SITE OF OCEANOGRAPHIC INSTITUTE, VICTORIA, B.C.
Mr. Groos: Has the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys received a telegram from the president and the immediate past president of the Alma Mater Society of Victoria University relative to the siting of the proposed institute of oceanography in Victoria and, if so, has a decision been made to transfer the site of this institute from the campus of Victoria University to a waterfront site in the Victoria area?


William Moore Benidickson: Yes. No decision was ever made with Victoria University to locate a western institute of oceanography on the university campus. Among the sites considered was one on the campus.
Careful study over three years has indicated definite advantages in a seaside site in association with the Canadian coastguard service of Department of Transport.


NAVIGATION AIDS, LAKE WINNIPEG
Mr. Slefanson: 1.	How much money is allocated for the aids to navigation program for lake Winnipeg and adjoining rivers and lakes for 1964?
2.	What are the locations and types of projects planned for this area under this program for 1964?


John Whitney Pickersgill: 1. The estimates for 196465 would provide $108,920 for aids to navigation, administration, operation, maintenance and construction at the Selkirk Manitoba subagency.
2. In addition to ordinary maintenance, minor repairs and operation of existing equipment, the following projects are provided for in the estimates: (a) Department of Transport's share in providing office, workshop and stores building; (b) Lightkeeper's dwelling at Warren's Landing; (c) Repairs to range beacons Winnipeg river; (d) Relocate one pair of range beacons and instal additional pair of range beacons at Bloodvein river; (e) Take over and improve system of aids to navigation maintained by Selkirk Navigation Company, between Warren's Landing and Norway House, Nelson river; (f) Installation of range lights Papoose channel, lake Winnipegosis.


COST OF DAWSON CITY FESTIVAL
Mr. McMillan: 1.	What was the total cost of the Dawson city festival in 1962?
2.	What amounts were contributed by the Canadian taxpayer through federal funds and through the council of the Northwest Territories?


Mr. Laing:: 1. Not available, since the department has no full record of private expenditures for this purpose.
2. Government of Canada
As reported in return tabled December 19, 1962	$343,954.99
Payments to creditors of the Dawson city festival foundation to be made from vote 106e, supplementary estimates "E" 1963-64, and not included in the above	87,500.00
Total	$431,454.99
Northwest Territories: The commissioner of the Northwest Territories advises that the government of the Northwest Territories incurred no expenditure in connection with the Dawson city festival.


C.B.C. TELEVISION STATION, QUEBEC CITY
Mr. Marcoux: 1.	When will the C.B.C. open a television station in the city of Quebec?
2.	Where will the studios and the transmitter be located?
3.	Will the C.B.C. operate an English language television station in the city of Quebec?


Maurice Lamontagne: The C.B.C. informs me as follows:
1. Next September.

2.	The studios will be at Ste. Foy and the transmitter on Orleans island.
3.	The C.B.C. has no such project at present. CKMI-TV, a private affiliated station, provides approximately 55 hours a week of C.B.C. programs in English.


*COST OF ALTERATIONS, VALCARTIER ARSENAL
Mr. Beaule: 1.	What is the total cost of the alterations being performed at present at the Valcartier arsenal?
2.	For whom or for what purpose are those works being undertaken?
3.	If the government has decided to sell part of Canadian Arsenals Ltd., why are new works being undertaken?
4.	Will the cost of these alterations be included in the sale price of the corporation when it is sold?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: 1. Some $83,000.
2.	Since the Cote du Palais plant will soon be closed down in Quebec city, it will be necessary to provide room at the Valcartier arsenal for certain facilities which are essential to the production of light weapons ammunition. We will thus reduce total operating costs and at the same time retain production facilities for light weapons ammunition.
3.	See No. 2 above.
4.	Yes.


LIFT LOCK AND DAM, TRENT WATERWAY
Mr. Sienson: 1. Will the work on the hydraulic lift lock at Peterborough, Ontario be completed in time to coincide with the opening of the Trent waterway?
2.	Will the construction of the dam at Burleigh falls, Ontario interfere with the water levels in the lakes adjacent to the dam?


John Whitney Pickersgill: 1. The Trent canal in general is scheduled to be open for navigation on May 15; the Peterborough lift lock, due to contract work, is not scheduled to be open until June 1, 1964. This information was published in a notice to mariners dated March 20, 1964.
2. Details of the method of constructing the proposed new dam at Burleigh falls have not as yet been finalized. However, it is not expected that the levels in the lakes adjacent to the proposed new dam will be affected by its construction.


REQUEST FOR MEDIUM TERM EXPORT FINANCING
Mr. MacEwan: 1. Has the government received a submission from the Canadian export association for extension of export financing into the medium term field so as to cover periods under five years for industrial machinery and equipment and, if so, what decision has been reached on the matter?
Orders for Returns
2. If no decision has been reached, when can a decision be expected?
Answer: 1. The Minister of Trade and Commerce received the submission. It is presently being studied by officials.
2. Answered by 1.


* ORDERS FOR ENAMEL AND HEATING PRODUCTS LTD., AMHERST, N.S.
Mr. Coates: Has the Minister of Industry taken any action to increase the overhaul and repair work for Enamel and Heating Products Limited at Amherst, N.S., and, if so, what steps have been taken?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: The problem of work load at Enamel and Heating Products Limited is one shared, to some degree, by the whole aircraft repair and overhaul industry. Due to the phasing out of older types of aircraft, the requirements on industry for repair and overhaul have declined significantly in terms of manhours.
My officers are, however, currently discussing with Enamel and Heating Products the possibility of further component overhaul and repair work for the company's aircraft division at Amherst. It is hoped that these discussions will be fruitful.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Rideout: 1.	For the 1962-63 fiscal year, what are the names, with postal addresses, of private printing firms which received contracts, or orders, from the department of public printing and stationery for offset printing, showing amounts in each case?
2.	For the 1962-63 fiscal year, what are the names, with postal addresses, of private printing firms which received contracts, or orders, from the department of public printing and stationery for letterpress printing, showing amounts in each case?
Return tabled.


BOOKS PUBLISHED BY FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS
Mr. Caouette: With respect to the following books published by various federal government departments:	(1)
Weather Ways, Harvey Johnson, illus. Norman Steinhaur, Department of Transport, (2) Geology and Economic Minerals of Canada, by officers of the geological survey of Canada, edited by C. H. Stoekwell, Department of Mines and Technical Surveys, (3) A Guide to Geology for Visitors in Canada's National Parks, by David M. Baird, national parks branch, Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources, Canada (a) are they translated into French (b) what is the price of each (c) what was the date of first printing of each (d) what was the last date of printing, in English and in French (e) for what use are they intended (f) are they available to the public (g) are they used in Canadian schools (h) are they

Motions for Papers
used in Quebec schools and, if so, since what date (i) have the departments concerned received any requests for these volumes?
Return tabled.


UNITED NATIONS EXPEDITIONARY FORCES
Mr. Caouette: 1.	How many expeditionary forces does the U.N. have in various parts of the world and on what date was each formed?
2.	Where is each of these forces located, and what are the duties of each?
3.	How many people, civilian and military, are in these forces?
4.	What expenditures are involved in maintaining these forces?
5.	Does Canada take part in the organization and in the operations of these forces and, if so, how many Canadians are there in these forces?
6.	In which forces are there Canadians members, and in what parts of the world are they serving?
7.	How many Canadians, military and civilian, are presently serving in (a) the Congo (b) Cyprus (c) Gaza?
8.	How long have Canadians been in the Congo?
9.	What is the nature of the Canadians' work in the Congo?
10.	How much is Canada spending, or how much has Canada spent, to keep these men in the Congo?
11.	How many Canadians, military and civilian, are serving on a mission in Gaza?
12.	How long have these Canadians been in Gaza?
13.	What is the nature of their mission in Gaza?
14.	How much has Canada spent on the Gaza mission since it began?
15.	When will the Gaza mission's work end?
Return tabled.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 37-Mr. Langlois:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams or other documents exchanged between maitre Luc-Gilbert Lessard, of Black Lake, Megantic county, and the Minister of National Health and Welfare or the deputy ministers or any officials of that department, since March 1, 1963.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 101-Mr. Aiken:
That an order of the house do issue for a 2opy of all letters written, or telegrams sent, by the Prime Minister between February 17 and March 20, 1964, relating to the proposed functions of a parliamentary committee to study the Canada pension plan.
Motion agreed to, subject to usual reservations.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 103-Mr. Peters:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents exchanged between the government or any
agency or branch thereof and any person, group or organization relating to the government docks at Haileybury, Ontario.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 106-Mr. Granger:
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 June 21, 1957, and April 22, 1963, between any member of the government of Newfoundland and the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources regarding additional federal assistance for Indians and Eskimos in Labrador.
Motion agreed to, subject to usual reservations.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 36-Mr. Langlois:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams or other documents exchanged between maitre Luc-Gilbert Lessard, of Black Lake, Megantic county, and the Solicitor General, since March 1, 1963.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 46-Mr. Langlois:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams or other documents exchanged between maitre Luc-Gilbert Lessard of Black Lake, Megantic county, and the Minister of Fisheries or the deputy minister or any officials of his department, since March 1, 1963.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 57-Mr. Howard:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all regulations, or letters or communications relating to, or directed to, employees in the public service of Canada who are employed at Terrace, B.C. and relating to the question of seniority being or no longer being the determining factor in the scheduling of annual leave.
John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if I could say a word about this motion. So far as we can discover the only department to which this motion would relate is the Department of Transport. While there is some doubt whether the house would really wish to make an order to have the documents produced in this particular instance, there is no question about the government's willingness to do it voluntarily. I believe the hon. member would be willing to drop the motion if I tabled the document on my responsibility as minister.


Mr. Howard:: Yes, it is arguable as to whether any particular document should or

should not be produced upon an order of the house. However, in the light of the amicability of the genial minister I will gladly agree with him.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I table it herewith.
Order discharged and motion dropped.



SALES TAX ON RETREAD TIRES

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 97-Mr. Dinsdale:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, and other documents received by the government of Canada with respect to the implementation of the 11 per cent sales tax on retread tires.
Mr. Benson:: This motion is acceptable provided that where such correspondence contains business information of a confidential nature, only the name of the writer and not the document itself will be made available. I believe the hon. member has agreed to this.


Mr. Dinsdale:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the reservation, is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Has the Prime Minister received any word regarding the request he made for information touching on the interference with or acts of violence against the Canadian representatives in the United Nations force on Cyprus?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker. I understand no report has been received yet. I hope one will be in during the day.
fTranslation]


Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Jolielie-L'Assomplion-Montcalm):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Does the government intend to ask the secretary general of the United Nations to demand from Archbishop Makarios that the United Nations troops in Cyprus be allowed to seize arms belonging to Cypriot civilians?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The government, is, of course, in continuous touch with the secretary general of the United Nations and makes its requests to the government of Cyprus in respect of matters of this kind through the secretary general.
Inquiries of the Ministry


SOUTH AFRICA
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Cenire):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the statement by Mr. W. Garfield Weston of George Weston and Company Limited of Toronto in defence of apartheid in South Africa and in view of this country's attitude toward that policy, will the government consider the question of government purchases from that company?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, isn't that just the sort of question that the hon. gentleman usually complains of when others ask
them?


Mr. Speaker:: This question should be placed on the order paper.


LEGISLATION RESPECTING 12 MILE FISHING LIMIT
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries. It is a question of some urgency to those engaged in the fishing industry on the east coast. Does the minister intend to introduce legislation within a week to impose a 12 mile fishing limit off the coast of Canada? If so, would he indicate whether ships belonging to countries which traditionally fished waters close to Canada would be allowed to operate between the three mile and nine mile boundaries?


Mr. Speaker:: May I suggest that this is a question for the order paper.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: May I say, supplementary to the question I addressed to the Minister of Fisheries, that I understand this announcement is to be made by May 1. That is the reason I raised the matter on the orders of the day.


Mr. Speaker:: I quite understand the importance of the question and the desire to have an early answer, but it seems to me that there is still ample time in which to get a detailed reply to an important question of this sort. Of course the hon. member has two alternatives; he can place the question on the order paper or raise it by way of the adjournment debate.


REFERENCE TO STATEMENT BY MEMBER FOR YORK-HUMBER
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Chapdelaine (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct to the right hon. Prime Minister a very important ques-

Inquiries of the Ministry tion concerning a statement made by the hon. member for York-Humber (Mr. Cowan) to a reporter of Maclean's magazine. The hon. member was asked why parliament was quiet at times and he answered as follows: [Text]
"I'll tell you why It's quiet. It's quiet because Pearson's giving the Frenchmen every blank-blank thing they want." His voice was rising. "They go home at night and dream It up." And still rising. "They ask for it in the morning and, in the afternoon, Pearson gives it to them."

Could the Prime Minister tell us whether he approves that statement made by the hon. member for York-Humber?


Lester Bowles Pearson: If you consider that question to be in order under the rules, Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to answer it.


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest that this is the type of question which should not be asked on orders of the day. If it is in order at all it should be placed on the order paper.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Labour. In view of the fact that in his last budget the Minister of Finance seemed to consider regional unemployment as Canada's most pressing problem, could the Minister of Labour tell us whether he intends to extend the winter works program after April 30, so that it would cover the whole month of May, in designated areas, especially where regional unemployment is perhaps at its highest level?


Mr. Speaker:: It appears to me that this is not the type of question which should be asked at this time. May I suggest that it be placed on the order paper.


Mr. Marcel Lessard (Lake Si. John):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Labour. Has he received a formal request from the province of Quebec concerning the extension of the winter works period?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I have received a communication from the minister of municipal affairs [Mr. Chapdelaine.l
of Quebec which is marked personal and confidential, and I would hesitate to give the details of this letter until I have cleared the matter with the gentleman in question.


Gilles Grégoire: I wish to ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the Minister of Labour intend to make today the statement he promised yesterday respecting the extension of the winter works period in designated areas?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the government has considered very carefully the proposal put forward by the hon. member for Lapointe, with respect to the extension of the municipal winter works program in designated areas and areas of high winter unemployment, and after considering the circumstances it has been decided not to extend any part of the program beyond April 30.



POINT EDWARD NAVAL BASE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister. Now that within the last day or so 37 employees of the Point Edward naval base have received their dismissal notice, the first of some 350 who will be discharged, would the Prime Minister advise what measures are being taken to provide employment for these workers who will be thrown out of work as a result of this government's action?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will be very glad to look into the matter, Mr. Speaker.



PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question in relation to the release of information to the press in connection with the new pension arrangements last Thursday and Friday. I want to ask the Prime Minister if the way in which the information was released on that occasion is likely to become a precedent in making government policy known through one of his private advisers.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I cannot accept the hon. gentleman's assumptions. Not being able to accept them, I cannot answer his question.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I wonder if the Prime Minister has seen the allegation by Mr. Pierre O'Neil to the effect that only certain newspapermen were privy to this information, and that they were called directly by Mr. Kent.


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, I have not seen that report.


Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: Would the Prime Minister inform us to which minister we should direct our questions with regard to the Canada pension plan?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Hon. members will be glad to know that the Minister of National Health and Welfare is back in the house. I hope she is feeling better, and I am sure she will be quite capable of taking care of any questions which the hon. member may wish to ask.


Mr. W. H. A. Thomas (Middlesex West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare, whom I am glad to see back in the house. Would the minister consider a request to supply at an early date a revised white paper on the Canada pension plan, to help promote a fuller understanding of the changes which are proposed?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I will be glad to, Mr. Speaker.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Can she assure the house that the new national pension plan will be brought forward at this session?


Mr. Speaker:: I think the purport of this question is too large for the minister to answer without very careful consideration, and would fall under the category "Questions should not be of a nature requiring a lengthy and detailed answer; and should not raise a matter of policy too large to be dealt with as an answer to a question".


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I wish to give you notice that I intend to raise this subject on adjournment of the house tomorrow night at ten o'clock.
TTPTtl



PUBLICATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Marlineau (Ponliac-Temisca-mingue):: I have a question for the Prime
Inquiries of the Ministry Minister. Is it the intention of the government to delay or indefinitely shelve the proposed legislation on magazine publications?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Royal: Forty days ago today I placed a question on the order paper addressed to the Minister of Justice. It is No. 417. I wonder when I can expect an answer.


An hon. Member:: Twenty more days of action.


Hon. Guy Favreau (Minister of Justice):: My memory may be short. Could the hon. member refer to the subject matter?


Mr. Fairweather:: I do not want any implications to be drawn, but I asked what was the total by provinces as of March 13 of inmates of the prison for women at Kingston.


Guy Favreau: I must admit to a certain amount of delinquency as far as answering questions is concerned and I am glad to advise the house through you, Mr. Speaker, that I am in the process of initialling and authorizing a group of answers to questions.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I so agree with you when you say that questions should go on the order paper. However, when one looks over the order paper and finds-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Order.


John George Diefenbaker: -that there are-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. MacEwan:: This is a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I take it that the right hon. Leader of the Opposition is about to ask a question?


John George Diefenbaker: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I know that the hon. gentleman from Winnipeg North Centre is always pretty fast on the draw, but of course there must be a preliminary to a question. I therefore direct the question to the Secretary of State. What about the answers to these questions? In regard to questions placed on the order paper there has been a scandalous delay in replying. What is going to be done about bringing down the returns and bringing in the answers to questions going back as far

Inquiries of the Ministry as February 18, questions that should have been answered a long while ago?


Mr. Graffley:: They have been too busy making speeches.


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, I think the right hon. Leader of the Opposition should compare our record with that of his government.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Same old bunch.


John George Diefenbaker: I realize the centralizing capacity of the hon. gentleman, but I ask him, when are we going to get answers to these questions that are placed on the order paper?


Maurice Lamontagne: As soon as possible, Mr. Speaker.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker-


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, might I try to satisfy the curiosity of the right hon. gentleman-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Lester Bowles Pearson: -by a supplementary answer, and tell him that 600 questions have been answered so far this session, which is more answers than were given in a whole session of parliament under his leadership.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I realize the Prime Minister recognized that the Secretary of State needed help. I ask him now, will he get answers to these questions, answers that are obviously being held back because the government would be embarrassed by some of them?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we will do our best to avoid the very bad example set for us by my right hon. friend, and answer the questions as quickly as possible though we realize that more questions are already on the order paper than were on the order paper in whole sessions of previous parliaments.


Mr. Starr:: Answer the question like a prime minister should.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, to begin with, I should like you to know that I made it a point to rise from my seat right after the question period, that is to say, when you called for the orders of the day and the clerk assistant started calling them. Therefore, when I stood up, standing order 39A no longer applied.

That is why, on the strength of standing order 17 respecting questions of privilege and, now that we are through with orders of the day, I rise on a question of privilege.
When the new procedure was established the members adopted certain rules in respect of the question period.
I think it would now be appropriate for the Speaker of the house to tell us exactly what he considers to be an urgent and an important question. Will the same rule apply all the time?
I asked today the very same question I asked yesterday. Yesterday the question was ruled to be in order and the minister replied that he would supply me with a precise answer today. I ask the same question today and it is ruled out of order.
From day to day, is there one law for one's friends and another for one's foes? Because the Minister of Labour (Mr. MacEachen), as reported in the first column on page 2394 of Hansard, made the following promise:
Mr. Speaker, I hope to give a definite answer to that question tomorrow.
The minister was unable to give an answer today.
Second, if standing orders must apply to members on this side of the house they should apply likewise to those on the other side of the house.
I think that the remarks made by the Prime Minister after the question period were as much out of order as the questions asked on this side of the house, and yet he was not called to order as the others were.
I immediately resumed my seat, and that is why I feel bound now to raise this matter.


Mr. Speaker:: It seems to me that the hon. member for Lapointe is under a misapprehension. The question period is not over and under the new rules it does not end, unless there are no more questions, until 3.31; so the hon. member has ample opportunity to ask any question he desires which is in order.



TRANSLATION OF PROCEEDINGS OF AGRICULTURE COMMITTEE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Raymond Langlois (Megantic):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State.
As the last sitting of the standing committee on agriculture took place on December 21, 1963, the English report was published a few days after and we did not receive the French report until four months later, could the

Secretary of State see to it that the French reports of these special committees are published sooner in the future?


Maurice Lamontagne: I will see to it, Mr. Speaker.



CONSUMER CREDIT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reid Scott (Danforth):: I have a question to ask the leader of the house. In view of the importance of the subject of consumer credit, and in view of the fact that we have now been meeting for about six weeks without the joint committee being convened, can the hon. gentleman tell us when the government intends to convene the joint committee of the Commons and the Senate on consumer credit so we can get on with our work in connection with this important subject?


Guy Favreau: This is, as the hon. member says, a joint committee, and I understand that the Senate has yet to complete its own part of the staffing of the committee.


Reid Scott: Would it be proper to ask these busy gentlemen if they can supply the names so we could get on with this work?



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: I wish to address a question to the Minister of Transport. Will the minister request the management of the C.N.R. to delay their announced plans to revise maintenance operations on that railway at least until the railway committee has a chance to study this matter, or until the estimates come before this house?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I will bring the hon. member's question to the attention of the management of the C.N.R.



ROYAL CANADIAN AIR FORCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: I have a question for the Associate Minister of National Defence in the absence of the Minister of National Defence. It relates to a question I
Inquiries of the Ministry asked a few days ago about the intended layoff of some 500 air force personnel. Can the minister inform the house whether the officers concerned have been advised about these lay-offs and about the pension benefits which the government is planning?


Mr. Speaker:: If I am not mistaken this question was asked last week. In any event, this is the type of question which requires a very careful reply. May I suggest that the hon. member put it on the order paper.


Erik Nielsen: If I might take a moment to explain why the question of urgency arises-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry to use the hon. member as an example, but perhaps he is a good choice at the moment. He has, of course, the advantage of being able to give notice that he intends to raise the matter on the adjournment debate.


Erik Nielsen: A question, sir, for the Associate Minister of National Defence. When does the government intend to end the anxiety of defence force personnel by announcing the names of the officers concerned in the layoffs?


Hon. Lucien Cardin (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence answered that question just a few days ago.


Erik Nielsen: A supplementary question to the associate minister. Since the Minister of National Defence said that he did not know whether the officers concerned had been notified, I wonder if the minister would inform the house whether any action has been taken.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Yes, Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the officers have been notified.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Michael Starr: Would I be in order if I asked the Minister of Fisheries whether he has taken any immediate action to stop the inhumane slaughter of baby seals?


Hon. H. J. Robichaud (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, this question has been brought to the attention of the house on many occasions. As I have said before in the house, action is being taken to prepare legislation which will, I hope, be satisfactory in this regard.

Inquiries of the Ministry Mr. Diefenbaker: Next year. It will be a lot of good next year.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Labelle. [Translation]


Mr. Gerard Girouard (Labelle):: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to direct a question to the Prime Minister but it has already been asked by the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher). At any rate, I am sure I would no more get a reply than he did.



NON-PARTICIPATION BY CANADA IN JAPANESE INTERNATIONAL FAIR

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. S. J. Enns (Porlage-Neepawa):: Mr. Speaker, on Friday last I asked the Minister of Trade and Commerce a question relating to the international trade fair in Japan. I wonder whether he can now tell the house why Canada is not participating in this fair.


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the minister, but this question should really be put on the order paper.



CUBA-INQUIRY AS TO MODIFICATION OF CANADIAN POLICY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Henri Laiulippe (Compion-Fronlenac):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In view of the disapproval expressed by the attorney general of the United States with respect to Canadian trade with Cuba, could the minister tell the house whether that Canadian policy will be changed?


Mr. Speaker:: May I suggest that the hon. member put this question on the order paper.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. K. H. More (Regina City):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Associate Minister of National Defence and ask him when the employees of the R.C.E.M.E. workshop in Regina will be advised that the government intends to close this workshop on July 1. As of yesterday the employees knew nothing about it.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon. member put this question on the order paper.



WORLD FAIR


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State. In view of reports which indicate that there are some 290 employees of the Montreal world fair organization receiving over $10,000 per year, does the Secretary of State feel that the organization is now adequately staffed?


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, the World Fair Corporation is one of the responsibilities of my colleague the Minister of Trade and Commerce.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the answer to this question is no. Staff is still being gathered together and the establishment will be larger than its present level.



PEACE RIVER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Public Works. I should like to ask whether he is now in a position to answer the repeated questions I have posed to him and to the Minister of Justice with regard to the government's intentions about calling on the province of British Columbia to abide by the law, as set out in the Navigable Waters Protection Act, in connection with the Peace river.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Speaker, may I say to the hon. member that I expect to be in a position to answer his question on Monday.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Justice. In the report prepared by counsel with regard to the investigation of certain officers of the S.I.U., was there a recommendation made with regard to McLaughlin, who is about to ascend to the presidency of the S.I.U., that he too be prosecuted as was Mr. Banks?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, the report obviously speaks for itself.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: A supplementary question. Has the report the minister refers to been tabled in the House of Commons; and when he says it speaks for itself, is he speaking about a report which has been tabled in this house?


Guy Favreau: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I misunderstood the hon. member. If he was referring to the report of counsel I will make a second check into this and then decide whether I should suggest to Your Honour that his question is or is not in order.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: A further supplementary question. I regret, Mr. Speaker, that I did not hear the answer of the Minister of Justice because he seemed to stutter and stammer in his answer and I felt he was not quite sure of himself.


Guy Favreau: Without stammering or stuttering, Mr. Speaker, let me say I shall first decide whether the question is in order for me to answer it, and if it is in order I will look into the report.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, in view of the sceret meetings which seem to be the policy between the federal government and the government of Quebec, I wonder whether the Minister of Justice could inform the house if the commission has yet been set up by the federal and Quebec governments with respect to the handing over of the Quebec Eskimo people.


Mr. Speaker:: May I suggest, first of all, that the preamble to that question was obviously out of order, as the hon. member must know. The importance of the question remains, but to get a detailed answer the hon. member should put it on the order paper.


Erik Nielsen: It requires a yes or no answer. May I rephrase the question. Has the commission to be formed by the federal and Quebec governments relating to the handover of the Eskimos in Quebec yet been set up?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, there has never been any commission provided for to hand over the Eskimos of Quebec.
Electoral Boundaries Commission REDISTRIBUTION



PROVISION FOR BOUNDARIES COMMISSIONS AND READJUSTMENT OF REPRESENTATION

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, April 17, 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. Pickers-gill (for Mr. Pearson)-Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.
On clause 6-Appointment of chairman, etc.
The Chairman:: Order, please. When the committee rose on April 17 last it was considering clause 6 of the bill, with an amendment thereto by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, and an amendment in amendment thereto by the Minister of Justice. The question is on the amendment to the amendment.


Mr. Lamberf:: Mr. Chairman, in order to improve the decorum of the house I would appreciate it if hon. members who have stood during the time you were on your feet would take cognizance of the rules in this regard, and I suggest that when the committee is called to order, it should come to order.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Norman Platt Lambert: Mr. Chairman, the other day I had the occasion to make some remarks on the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. Since that time I have had a further opportunity of considering the amendment, and more questions of doubt have come to my mind which make the proposed amendment that much more dubious.
First of all, I want to reiterate the point that has been made previously, that this amendment, in derogating from the formula proposed by the government in the bill, is a derogation from parliament in that it places in a secondary or inferior position-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. May we please have some order in the committee. It is very difficult for the hon. member who has the floor to make himself heard when we have conversations going on, on both sides of the house.


Norman Platt Lambert: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This places the office of prime minister-I am not talking about the personalities-the office of the prime minister and the office of the leader of the opposition in a somewhat inferior position to what has traditionally been recognized, which offices I submit should be

Electoral Boundaries Commission incontestable and invariable. It seems to me that the amendment gives a greater recognition to other groups within the house.
We are doing a disservice to parliament and to our parliamentary system by downgrading the offices of prime minister and leader of the opposition. I find this thoroughly repugnant and, if only for that reason alone, I would be against the amendment. But, going further than that, it would be interesting if the committee could have confirmation of some of the rumours I have heard, that the representation commissioner already has a somewhat extensive staff at work drawing up the new boundaries.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Could I interrupt the hon. gentleman on that very point and draw his attention to clause 6 of the act that was passed in the last session of parliament which, as the hon. gentleman will recall, not only authorized but directed the commissioner to engage the staff and to carry on this preparatory work. I understand the commissioner has been doing precisely what parliament authorized.


Norman Platt Lambert: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the ubiquitous Minister of Transport has misconstrued the remarks I made. I said there were rumours that this was happening, but I am not suggesting it was illegal or in contravention of the act.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Neither did I.


Norman Platt Lambert: All right. I am making a point, and if the representation commissioner has been at work as authorized and directed by parliament, then that is fine. I am not questioning that. What I am saying is that there are rumours or reports that the maps have already been prepared, and what I am questioning is, by whom? Who are the people doing this and what are their qualifications for the preparation of these maps?
If this be the case, under these circumstances whether it be the commission set up under the proposed amendment or even under the act, are we not authorizing some sort of a blank cheque and suggesting that these provincial commissions shall be rubber stamps? If the thing is going to be all cut and dried for them beforehand, then why set them up? At least, why set them up with this sort of aura of independence, or independence from any political implication. Why suggest there is anything wrong with political connections in regard to bodies set up by parliament? After all, everything we do is political. The administration of this country is political. This is the science of government and the active carrying out of it. So, why is there all this sanctimonious clap-trap we sometimes read in comments about this
[Mr. Lambert.!
house, that the people here are somehow second rate persons because they are politicians?
Who on earth can set himself up at that level to downgrade persons who take an interest in public affairs in this house, in provincial legislatures and in municipal government? If the people making these comments had the courage of their convictions, why don't they get out into this business of politics and find out for themselves? I apologize, Mr. Chairman, for these perhaps intemperate remarks, but I think we have had enough of such comments.
It is true enough that this body must be subject to criticism, but let us not have it from high and mighty towers. The people who have served this country in public life in the past, who are serving it in the present and who will serve it in the future, without assuming any mantle or halo of self-justification, have been, are, and will be discharging their duties as citizens.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Norman Platt Lambert: Unless anyone can point the finger and come up with proof of venality with regard to participation in public life, then I would say to him, in the very crude phrase, "either put up or shut up."
Now, having said that, I have asked the question, who is preparing these maps, what are their qualifications, and is there any means of examining them before we give this blank cheque? After all, the purport of the amendment is to remove this entirely from parliament and, if we look at the bill, there is but a tenuous connection with parliament thereafter.	-
There is no obligation for public hearings. Clause 17 is only permissive and, if I may be permitted to make a little further reference to clause 17, by the provisions of subsections 2 and 4 of that clause only five days are allowed for a person or body to make up their mind to study the report of the commission and to file their objections, provided the commission has deemed that it shall hold public hearings.
I shall have a lot more to say about clause 17, which provides that notice be published in the Canada Gazette 15 days prior to the hearings, with the further requirement that the secretary of the commission shall have ten days' notice before the hearings. The gist and purport of this is that there will only be five days for anyone in any province to make representations against the decisions of a commission. In effect this is almost tantamount to a denial of review.


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question. He started out by referring

to rumours. Has he by any chance heard a rumour that I was going to propose an amendment to this very clause?


Norman Platt Lambert: Well, I am glad to see that the minister is giving us a tip, but I do not know whether it is a Pandora's box from which he has tried to lift just a corner of the lid, or whether it has been like holding out a paper bag to children and saying maybe there is some candy in it. I have not heard the rumour, but we have now got it from the horse's mouth.


Gilles Grégoire: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out to the hon. member that I raised that point, on clause 1 of the bill, regarding the five days allotted for those who would like to make recommendations, and at that time the Minister of Transport gave us the tip that he would move an amendment later.


Norman Platt Lambert: I am glad the hon. member has made a speech because it gives me 30 minutes from now in which to speak, but I fail to see how this is a point of order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, on the point of order, I should like to support the right of the hon. member for Edmonton West to speak for 30 minutes from now, provided he is on clause 6.


Norman Platt Lambert: I am coming to clause 6. I have indicated the difficulties involved in the hearings and I beg the indulgence of the house in order to do so. If these maps and so forth are ready, let us know what they are at this time. What are the objections if the work is already done? It would give an indication to hon. members how the composition of the house may be affected, and members are no less entitled than anyone else to this information since it affects their rights as citizens and as well as members of the house who may be adversely affected within their constituencies. Is there not a danger under the present set-up of the commission actually being almost in the nature of a rubber stamp?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: That is right.


Norman Platt Lambert: I raise this as a danger signal. In what I am saying I do not wish for one moment to reflect upon the person or qualifications of the gentleman who is occupying the position of representation commissioner, but having appointed him to be representation commissioner we have not granted him immortality and he may be followed by persons in whose objectivity members may not have so much confidence. What I am concerned about is the framework that has been set up.
22,	1964
Electoral Boundaries Commission


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether I could raise a point of order? I would not raise it perhaps against any other member of the house, but the hon. member for Edmonton West is a former Speaker of the house and as a former Speaker perhaps he should set the rest of us an example in obeying the rules. At the last session of parliament we did establish a position. It was established by parliament and certain duties were laid down in clause 8 of the statute. I made a mistake in the clause before because I had picked up the act quickly. But it does seem to me, Mr. Chairman, that when parliament has laid down the conditions under which the job is to be done it is surely a reflection upon parliament itself to suggest that the person doing the job is doing something that is in some way improper. I do not believe the hon. member for Edmonton West recollects what clause 8 of the act contains, and I wonder whether I might permitted to read it so that we will be talking-


Norman Platt Lambert: Mr. Chairman, what is the point of order? Otherwise the minister is out of order in standing up.


John Whitney Pickersgill: My point of order, very briefly, is that we are dealing with clause 6 of the present bill, and instead of dealing with clause 6 of the bill the hon. gentleman is debating a matter which relates to an act of parliament already passed. I suggest that in doing so he is going beyond the scope of clause 6 and is giving the impression that something which parliament ordered an officer of parliament to do he should not be doing.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Chairman, I should like to speak to the point of order. It seems to me that what the minister is really saying is that we have got to confine our arguments solely to clause 6. I do not see how we can confine our arguments strictly to the wording of clause 6 because clause 6 cannot be read separately and apart without considering many other sections of the bill and the other act involved. I would say that the member who has the floor has been absolutely in order and the debate should continue.


Norman Platt Lambert: Mr. Chairman, with regard to the argument raised on the point of order, if the Minister of Transport would tame his impatience he would see that within the framework of the amendment there is a reference to the representation commissioner and I am reviewing the position of the representation commissioner under the act appointing him. Nowhere can the minister detect any objection on my part to the representation commissioner and the work he

Electoral Boundaries Commission has done so far. What I am concerned about is the amendment.
I am advancing my argument somewhat, but if you look at paragraph (b) of subclause (b) of the amendment you will see that the chief justice of the province is directed to appoint certain persons in the alternative after consultation with the representation commissioner. So far as the designated persons are concerned the chief justice has authority to act without reference to the representation commissioner, but when he has to go beyond that category he must refer to the representation commissioner. I suggest to hon. members that that provision is repugnant. I do not see why there should be this provision for reference to the representation commissioner.
It seems to me we are blithely building up a framework in which there is not that check and counterbalance that there should be. Frankly, we are setting up almost an autocratic organization under the representation commissioner. First of all, we have the act setting up the office and directing the representation commissioner to do certain work. He goes ahead with his staff to do that work. We do not know the qualifications of the members of his staff, whether they are geographers or political scientists or what. Who are they? We would like to know that.
This framework is set up and then the chief justice of the province is to appoint the commissioners for the province from among certain individuals. But in default of a province agreeing that certain employees of the province shall act on the federal commission the chief justice is directed to appoint alternates after consultation with the representation commissioner. I do not believe that such a requirement is satisfactory. If the chief justice is a satisfactory person to make these appointments otherwise, then why should there be provision for the consent or approval of the representation commissioner with regard to nominations to the commission in certain circumstances?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: That allows the minister to get his hand in.


Norman Platt Lambert: After all, this means that the representation commissioner has the right to say who shall sit on a commission with him, because actually he is a member of every provincial commission. I do not believe that framework is right in this regard. After all, the chief justice is not authorized to name himself on the commission. The provision indicates that he shall name someone from among the judges under his jurisdiction. I find it rather difficult to understand otherwise under this type of legislation whereby the chief justice does say: I name you.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Yes, I do too.


Norman Platt Lambert: This, under the ordinary interpretation of language would be a direction to pick from amongst the members of his court or, under the subamendment, from any of the superior courts. If the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre would distinctly understand the composition of our superior courts, he would know that there is a trial division and an appellate division. The trial division has a chief justice and as a result the chief justice of the province has a limited jurisdiction over all judges. Is he able to say, also, that he will name himself? I do not think so. He is therefore going to name another justice who is a member of a court under his jurisdiction.
So, we have this disqualification of the chief justice and the provision saying that he cannot name outright all the commissioners. I believe this would be right because otherwise we would be telling the chief justice: "You name the people that you want", and if you do that you set up in fact, if not in theory, a one-man representation commission. This could be a possibility; but the act, as I say, does provide against that.
Now, on the other hand, if a province denies the right of its public officials to membership on the representation commission, the chief justice must then come back to the representation commissioner, who is a member of the commission under this act, for the approval of the appointment of another member to the commission. I do not believe that is logical.
I come to my third point. In view of the work that has been done by the representation commissioner and his staff, under the act authorizing them to do it, and the plans that are prepared for submission to the representation commissioner, I would put it to hon. members that the tolerance formula may become quite academic. I do say that I would much rather see some more independent persons named by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, who may work as a check and countercheck. Somebody has said we are trying to divorce this from politics. I do not believe there is a man in public life who is entirely divorced from politics, even with all the intentions to be so. I would say that, in my opinion, there is an important factor in the check and countercheck, and that greater justice will not only be done but will appear to be done under the formula provided for in the bill.
The government did not come to this conclusion hastily. I am sure that the then secretary of state was not flying trial balloons to sound out the opinion of the house and of

the public when he advanced such suggestions. He must have received a pretty good echo of the provision which he recommended to his cabinet colleagues. Knowing the Minister of Transport, I know the care he would take in advising his colleagues on this particular key provision of the bill. His cabinet colleagues have accepted this, and they must be fixed with the responsibility therefor. It was not something that had been suggested very lightly. It was not a suggestion that was made within the famous 60 days of decision. This has been very carefully considered legislation, with the exception of what I will have to say later on about clause 17. There is always the possibility that it only takes one word to change and greatly improve legislation.
I say this is not the way, by making this complete change, to get away from partisan political action. I would say that the danger of having a more partisan commission might arise under the formula devised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. I say that when we get into the academic staffs of the universities, there are some gentlemen there who will fight to the death for the right to assert their partisan political views. They do so on every occasion. We see them day after day on television and radio. Some of them also have taken charge of the political activities in certain of these provinces. I know this is so in the province of Saskatchewan, and their federal campaign was pretty well in the hands of academics.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Was that the reason the results were so good?


Norman Platt Lambert: The fact that they are at the academic level does not detract from their political activity, and I would not want it to. Let us not say we are making these political academics into political eunuchs by any means.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if the hon. gentleman would allow me to ask him a question? Does he think the people who might be recommended by my right hon. friend the Prime Minister or by his right hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition would be political eunuchs?


Norman Platt Lambert: No, because I do not think there are such people. I said it was not the extension of this aura of political purity that is improper. This amendment that we are considering is not going to create political eunuchs; I do not think you can find one. There is no such political purity. There is no advantage gained by the acceptance of such an amendment. There is a far better chance of justice under the original provision. These are the further criticisms that I have.
Electoral Boundaries Commission This is what concerned me. There would be this particular body erected under a framework which could result in a rubber stamp set-up because of the illogical structure. After all, the commission could dispense with a hearing. I think this is one danger and I am hoping the Minister of Transport may bring forward a viable amendment to clause 17 which would perhaps remove this disability. In any event, I think the original proposal in the bill is a far better formula than that proposed in the amendment.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I must say that with many of the things said by the hon. member for Edmonton West I cannot disagree very much. As to the idea that we must try to get political eunuchs, whatever they are-I suppose, in a sense, since the hon. gentleman imported that term, judges are, because they are not allowed to vote. But I think there is a great deal of difference between politics, as the hon. gentleman used the word in the beginning of his statement, and politics in a more partisan sense. After all, the reason we want to have a commission to carry out redistribution is not to get it away from politics, in the broad sense of that word, but to get it away from party politics. If we think this job could be better done by politicians, we should scrap this legislation entirely and do it in the old-fashioned way, the way that Sir John Macdonald, that great purist, used in the past.


An hon. Member:: And Mackenzie King.


John Whitney Pickersgill: But I do not think anybody in the committee has seriously suggested we should do that. We feel we have made a lot of progress in this matter. It seems to me there is a very narrow point of difference in the committee at this time. I, myself, am in a difficult position because, since I indicated that I have a slight preference-and it is not very great, as I said on Friday-for the amendment, I am expected to try to find some fault with my own drafting. This puts me in a very awkward and embarrassing position, particularly when the hon. gentleman is so complimentary to me as he was this afternoon when he said that after great thought and after an exercise of great wisdom I had produced something upon which no one could improve-that clause 6, as it now stands was, indeed, all but divinely inspired. Yet it was just the best thing, up to that time, that I had been able to recommend, and that is why I recommended it.


Some hon. Members:: It still is.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Hon. gentlemen opposite say: "It still is" and I thank them for the compliment. But I was not quite so proud of my handiwork at the time when I produced

Electoral Boundaries Commission the bill originally, and with regard to this very clause, when exception was taken on second reading I said, as I have said at every stage, that if anyone could suggest an improvement, and if I thought it was an improvement, I would vote for it. That goes for every clause in this bill. Indeed, there are at least three other clauses including clause 17, to which I myself wish to propose amendments; I hope other hon. members may also have suggestions for improvements and I can assure them that in such a case they will not face any stonewalling on this side of the house. But I do not think this particular clause is perfect, by any means. It was just the best one I could figure out. I notice that the hon. member for Edmonton West said that while clause 6 was perfect some of the other clauses were open to question. Apparently, if he agrees with a clause it is wise, and if he does not agree with it it is not so wise.
In order to remove any doubt, in the light of what has been said in this discussion, I think I should be permitted to read section 8 of the act respecting the office of representation commissioner which lays down clearly what the representation commissioner was instructed by this parliament to do. I think we ought to have this clearly in our minds. It reads as follows:
As soon as possible after the completion of any decennial census-
That, of course, really applies to the future.
-or in the case of the census taken in 1961 as soon as possible after the coming into force of this act, the commissioner shall prepare maps showing the distribution of population in each province and setting out alternative proposals-
And I stress that word "alternative"-
-respecting the boundaries of electoral districts in each province and shall thereupon supply such maps to the appropriate electoral boundaries commission.
I understand that as far as it is possible for the representation commissioner to carry out that instruction-and it is not entirely possible, for the good reason that until parliament decides what the tolerance will be, any maps which may be drawn can only be drawn up very tentatively-


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Would the hon. gentleman permit me to ask him a question? He appears to lay a good deal of stress on this matter of the tolerance. Does he not agree that though the figure in the bill may be 20 per cent the actual tolerance might be as low as 1 per cent or as high as 19 per cent, and that this tolerance provision is not as effective in protecting rural constituencies as the hon. gentleman would lead the committee to

believe. It is an academic thing and it does not mean anything when you get down to it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not think I agree with that. If I did agree with it I would wonder why the hon. gentleman and his friends have spent such a long time talking about it. It seems to me that the tolerance ought to be high enough-and in my opinion it ought to be higher at this time than may eventually be desirable when the pattern has been more or less established after one or two redistributions-for the express purpose of enabling these commissions to take the proper account of municipal boundaries, the distribution of urban and rural populations, of traditional considerations and other such factors. The hon. member for Bow River seems impatient to rise. Perhaps he would allow me to answer one question before he asks another. If we were doing all this in a mechanistic way, as the reformers did it during the French revolution, we would simply take a map and draw lines on it without any regard to whether there were human beings involved or not. But since we have chosen to approach this question in an entirely different way we must have a tolerance large enough to take account of our history and geography as well as of certain traditional factors. Quite frankly, though we had to put some figure in the bill to start with, that, like other aspects of this measure is something upon which our minds are not closed.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Perhaps I may ask a further question. We may get a tolerance of 20 per cent, or whatever is decided on. But is it not a fact that there is no safeguard written into the law to provide that the commissioners, or the people doing the work of these commissions must have regard to a 20 per cent tolerance in certain areas. It could be less than 2 per cent. So this tolerance figure becomes extremely academic. That is my question.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is not a question; that is an assertion, as the hon. gentleman will find out if he looks at it later. It is an assertion that the commissions are not going to pay any attention to parliament and I do not believe that if parliament were to change the figure from the figure presently in this bill to another figure, that the decision of parliament in this respect would be ignored. I am sure the change would be an indication that the majority in this parliament felt there are cases where the higher tolerance should be regarded. Otherwise, what would be the sense of putting it there?

I am quite sure that the men who are going to be appointed to these commissions, no matter which of the two methods now under discussion may be followed, are the kind of men who are not going to try to disregard the will of parliament but are going to try to carry it out. But surely the hon. member is not suggesting that this parliament should direct the commissions that they must have one constituency at the bottom of the scale of the tolerance and another at the top. Surely if we are going to have a non-partisan redistribution, we are not going to try by the back door to prevent a non-partisan redistribution. It seems to me that the implication of the hon. gentleman's assertion was that he has a secret hankering after doing the job himself, instead of leaving it to the commissions.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Chairman, that is not very fair, and I am sure the minister wants to be fair.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, I want to be very fair.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: My question was this. I still believe in every safeguard for human rights or any other rights, whether under this act or any other act. That is something that is spelled out in the law. That differentiates our democratic system of the rule of law from the rule of people. What the minister is saying this afternoon is briefly this, that he has a great respect for these men, whoever they may be. No matter how high your ideals are about it, they may be subject to some elusiveness when given such wide discretion. I say that the best safeguard is to spell out a thing in the law. You can promise us or anybody else the sky, but the fact is that this protection should be given under the law and not by people, with the greatest respect to the people doing the work today.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I completely agree with that, and that is why in this bill, unlike the bill introduced by the right hon. gentleman in the last parliament, we have a definite figure for the tolerance and we do not say that the commissions can disregard the figure and take any tolerance they like. That would certainly be disregarding the law and making the commissions completely arbitrary. I am not prepared to support the abolition of the tolerance altogether. I agree with the hon. gentleman for Bow River that what the tolerance is to be should be in the law. Whatever figure the house may agree upon, it should be a definite figure beyond which the commissions cannot go; otherwise we are just handing the thing over to these commissions without any rule at all.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Chairman, would the minister allow a question in this regard?
Electoral Boundaries Commission


Lucien Lamoureux: Order, please. Before the hon. member poses his question, I wonder whether I could bring to the attention of the committee that we seem to be getting away from clause 6. For the last 10 or 15 minutes we have been discussing the question of tolerance, and my understanding of the procedure to be followed in the committee was that this particular clause would be set aside until the end. I would suggest that hon. members revert to the consideration of clause 6.


Eric Alfred Winkler: I agree, Mr. Chairman, and I was going to take the argument back to clause 6, in conjunction with what the minister has now said, after consideration of the tolerance. Would it not be in the interests of parliament itself, under the jurisdiction of the chief electoral officer, who is the chairman-


John Whitney Pickersgill: The representation commissioner.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Yes, the representation commissioner-to safeguard this particular interest in clause 6 by reverting to the initial clause in the act? This we are prepared to support, and I think the minister now realizes this. He is in a flexible mood this afternoon, and if he will return to this position I am sure he will get full agreement.


John Whitney Pickersgill: On that point, Mr. Chairman, I think perhaps I should indicate, as I indicated and as I think my colleague the Minister of Justice also indicated on Friday, that no one on this side of the house is going to try to suggest to any other hon. member what decision he should make about this matter. We do not regard this as a question of confidence at all. As I have pointed out from the beginning, it may well turn out- in fact I think it is pretty evident already- that some of us feel that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has produced a better method than the one I produced. I happen to be one of those who think so. I think, in conscience, I should support that; I think it would be an improper thing for me to support anything else. I have at no time sought to suggest to any of my friends-I refer to my political friends in the house-that they should accept my judgment; I hope they will exercise their own judgment. I even hope there may be some broadminded people on the other side of the house who will not necessarily agree with the views that have been expressed this afternoon by the hon. member for Edmonton West. But it does seem to me that we must do this one way or the other. Either we are sincere when we say that every hon. member should make up his own mind without any fear or hope of favour as to which is the best way to do this, or alternatively we have to say that this is a

Electoral Boundaries Commission government measure and the government is going to use all the discipline it knows how to get this done in a certain way.
I said on Friday, and I say again, that if the bill as originally drafted is acceptable to the house, I am not going to shed any tears over it or this clause. After all, I drafted it and I would not have brought it before the house had I thought it was bad. I do not think it is bad; I think it would work reasonably well.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Then why are you forsaking it?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Because I think the other method would be better. I know there are people in the house, and a lot of people out of the house, who do not like the idea, when we are trying to take redistribution out of politics, of having the commissions appointed, or any of the commissioners appointed, by the leaders of political parties. I do not object to that myself, but I know many, many Canadians who do; who will say that this is a second best way. I did not think we could find a better way, but I do quite honestly and genuinely feel that the amendment that has been suggested is a better way. However, 1 am not asking anyone else to share my view at all, and I am perfectly happy to have the committee decide this question by a vote at any time.
As for the subamendment, I feel a little differently about that. Perhaps, Mr. Chairman, I could say just a word about that at this moment. I think the subamendment is essential either to the amendment or to the main motion, because otherwise we might create an unworkable situation; in other words, we might have a case where the chief justice of the province was incapacitated or ill, or where there was a vacancy and there would be nobody to make the appointment within the statutory time. We do not want this to happen. I also think it would be better for trial judges, as well as appeal judges, to be eligible for the chairmanship of commissions. That is all the subamendment does; it ensures that whoever for the time being is fulfilling the functions of the chief justice of the province shall be able to exercise the powers given to the chief justice, and he will be able to choose, not just from the appeal court in the case where there are two courts, but from the appeal court or the trial court. I think we could put that in the bill, whichever way it goes. But as far as the amendment is concerned, I say again that personally I feel it is somewhat better and somewhat more acceptable; but I cannot deny that I think the other method would work pretty well, too. So far as I am concerned, I am ready to have the matter voted upon at any 

time and to accept very cheerfully indeed the decision which the house, in its wisdom, makes.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order, please.


Norman Platt Lambert: Mr. Chairman, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. He did not deal with what I-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order, please. I have been wanting to give an opportunity to other hon. members to join in this debate. Some hon. members at the other end of the chamber have been rising repeatedly, and I would like to be given an opportunity to recognize them. Did the hon. member for Edmonton West wish to direct a brief question to the minister?


Norman Platt Lambert: I wanted to know, Mr. Chairman, whether the minister was going to deal with the point I raised about the reference back, in the alternative, to the representation commissioner, and the illogicality that I feel exists in this position where the chief justice cannot name himself on the commission, yet the representation commissioner, who is a member, has the right of approval of the alternative appointment.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Did the hon. gentleman say that the chief justice could not name himself?


Norman Platt Lambert: Yes.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not so interpret the clause in either form. I would think the chief justice could appoint himself or any other member of his court. He is a member of his court, after all. This point never occurred to me. I am not a legal draftsman, but my understanding from the legal draftsman was that this would include the capacity of the chief justice to appoint himself.
I hope in many cases that that is precisely who would be the chairman of the commission, as is the case of the provincial commission in Manitoba. As for the other point made by the hon. member for Edmonton West, should, for example, the amendment be accepted, if the hon. member felt this was a defect it would still be capable of further amendment.


William Howell Arthur Thomas: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, the Minister of Transport stated that the amendment to the amendment, or the sub-' amendment, should possibly be withdrawn.
I do not know how we can consider the amendment of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre properly until the subamendment is withdrawn. Now that we are told that in the wisdom of the Minister of Transport the subamendment will apply in any

event whether or not the amendment is carried, the subamendment should be incorporated in the bill. To clear this matter up, if we are going to consider the two tied together we are heading for confusion worse confounded. If the two are separate and the subamendment is to be incorporated in the legislation in any event, or if it is desired to be incorporated in the legislation, then it should certainly be removed at this time so that we can consider the amendment itself on its merits, and not have the two amendments confused.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Chairman, if I understood the Minister of Transport aright, I think he meant that the principle of the subamendment ought to apply to whatever clause is voted upon-that is, either the amendment or the original clause 6 as proposed in the bill. If the amendment were voted on without the subamendment, then if I were of the opinion that I should vote for the amendment I could propose an amendment to the clause which would have already been voted on. Therefore, I think the procedure would be to put the subamendment to the vote; and depending on the fate of the amendment I would then rise and propose another amendment to clause 6.


Lucien Lamoureux: I think that is the correct procedure. There should in due course be a vote on the subamendment; and if the amendment as amended does not carry it would be the responsibility of the Minister of Justice to introduce a new amendment to amend the original clause itself. I am sure there will be no difficulty about it.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to talk at length about the matter under consideration.
The choice lies between two types of electoral boundaries commissions. On the one hand, their members could be appointed by the leaders of the political parties, that is by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) and the leader of the official opposition (Mr. Dief-enbaker); on the other, they could be appointed by politically independent people, that is, of course, if the provisions of clause 6 remain as they are now. However, if the amendment is not taken into account, we would like changes to be made to the said clause.
We think that members of the provincial boundaries commissions for the various ridings should not necessarily be appointed by the Prime Minister and the leader of the official opposition, but rather by the leaders of the two parties who have obtained the most votes in a province during the previous election, 20220-157i
Electoral Boundaries Commission just as it is now the case, under the Canada Elections Act, in our various constituencies.
As a matter of fact, when city enumerators are appointed, they are chosen by the candidates of the two political parties who obtained the greatest number of votes in the previous elections. For instance, in my riding, if any political party obtained only 200 votes, whereas the Ralliement Creditiste received 16,000 and the candidate of the Conservative party, for instance, did not even get 2,000, then the Conservative party does not represent public opinion, and I do not see why that party rather than the Ralliement Creditiste should appoint the enumerators.
To my mind, we should proceed in the same way, with regard to the appointment of provincial commissions members, and maintain that procedure for instance, in certain places, in the province of Quebec, where the Conservative party is practically nonexistent according to the latest results-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I hear applause from both sides of the house. As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, it is true that there are some left, and they are rare animals, but you know that most of the time they are confined in museums. Consequently, next time we shall send them to the Quebec city provincial museum.
In the circumstances, I do not see why the leader of the official opposition would appoint the members of the commission for the province of Quebec, when his party practically no longer exists there, for the two parties that received the greatest number of votes are the Liberal party and the Ralliement Creditiste.
On the other hand, in Alberta, the Liberal party was third best, far behind other parties. As a matter of fact, it is practically extinct in that province. Since the two parties that received the greatest number of votes are the Conservative party and the party of the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson), it would be in order that those two leaders appoint the members of the commission for that province.
This procedure should be applied in the various provinces, which would enable the party leaders with the greatest number of votes to appoint the commissioners for the province.
In other respects, I support the new method advocated in the amendment of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), which is an effort to take redistribution completely out of politics and appoint in each province three commissioners who would be as far removed from politics as possible. I am not saying we would thereby achieve

Electoral Boundaries Commission perfection, for mistakes would certainly be made. Nevertheless, it seems to me such mistakes would not be more serious than those which could be made if the commissioners were to be appointed by party leaders. In any case, there would not be as many, because a very high standard would be sought in setting up electoral boundaries commissions which were politically independent.
As pointed out by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill), such is the object of the proposed amendment. In my opinion, however, even the amendment would have to be changed, but the Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau) and the Minister of Transport are no doubt better qualified than I am in that respect. It is a matter of terminology more than anything else.
I see, for instance, that section 6 (la) provides: "The chief electoral officer, the surveyor general or the registrar of vital statistics of the province or the holder of any similar office in the province of Quebec".
I think that we have not seen many pieces of legislation voted by this parliament using such vague and broad terms as those: "or the holder of any similar office in the province." Now, reference is made to:
1-	the chief electoral officer;
2-	the surveyor general.
Those offices are far from being similar. The chief electoral officer does not do any surveying and the surveyor general does not deal with voting on election days.
And here is a third category: "the registrar of vital statistics of the province". That is another office altogether different.
And finally, another one is added: "or the holder of any similar office in the province", while three different offices were just lined up:
1-	the chief electoral officer;
2-	the surveyor general;
3-	the registrar of vital statistics.
In my parish the parish priest is a registrar of vital statistics.
Reference is made to "the holder of any similar office". Similar to what category, Mr. Chairman? Similar to the surveyor general, to the parish priest or to the chief electoral officer?	!
You will recognize that it is quite vague and indefinite. I am amazed to see that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre who has an acute sense-as he has showed in the past-of precision in procedure and legislation should bring forward such vague terms.
But that is not all. We can also read: "The president or other similar officer of a university"-I should like to know what other 

officer is similar to the president of a university. There is the president and then the officers under him. He is president because he manages the whole business; now there are no such officials at a university.
We also read therein: "or other similar officer of, or a member of the faculty of a university, college, or other educational institution providing courses at a post-secondary school level in the province." That is compared to the president. Now, the secretary of the law faculty is certainly an officer of the university.
I hear the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette) reminding me that, in our time, there was an apparitor, or beadle; the apparitor took the roll call of the students and was a university officer. Now, I can hardly imagine such an officer as a member of such a commission.
There are some rather vague terms here. For instance, how far will the powers of the chief justice extend? How is he going to choose his commissioners?
I see the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Tremblay), who was a professor at a social science faculty. I shall render him this tribute: He was very efficient in his teaching field, but not with regard to the innovations he wants to bring about now. He is even secretary of the Quebec liberal federation. That means that the chief justice might have appointed him a member of the boundaries commission.
I am in favour of the principles laid down here, but I do not approve of the terms of this amendment which, to my mind, has been written in a hurry without any effort being made to use explicit terms in order to avoid the danger of partisan politics.
Another member of this government was once a university professor: the Secretary of State (Mr. Lamontagne). Does that mean that he would have been a commissioner really aloof from politics, when during all the time he spent at the university he was head over heels in politics?
I think that the Minister of Transport will agree that the terms of this amendment are not precise enough. The bill should say only: the university president. For the University of Montreal, it is Mgr. Moreau; for Laval University, in Quebec city, it is Mgr. Vachon. Are university presidents going to quit their functions in order to look after redistribution?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: There is also Mgr. Lusier.


Gilles Grégoire: He is with the University of Montreal.
For instance, it says here: the chief electoral officer of the province. This is something, Mr. APRIL 22, 1964
Chairman, that can be taken into consideration and can even bring advantages. Then provincial counties and constituencies in some provinces might be roughly similar to those of other provinces, and four or five provincial ridings might be included in a federal constituency. There will probably be a greater tendency to unity in some provinces if the chief electoral officer of the province is at the same time a commissioner, that is a member of the federal commission.
Hence, I want to ask the Minister of Transport, the mover of the bill, to retain the idea of the amendment-I am in favour and I approve of it-but before the question is put on that matter, let him give a more precise definition of the terms than is the case at present. The wording is too vague, too indefinite to be adopted as is.
I should like to bring another point to the attention of the Minister of Transport. The article states: "selected by the chief justice of the province". But, in the province of Quebec, you have the chief justice of the court of appeal, the chief justice of the superior court and, finally, you have a district superior court in Quebec city, a district superior court in Three Rivers and a district superior court in Montreal. Therefore, there are three chief justices. Furthermore the magistate's court has a chief justice and the court of the sessions of the peace also has a chief justice.


Mr. Choquette:: There is the municipal court.


Gilles Grégoire: It is not a provincial one.
Which one of those judges is concerned? There again, some explanation is called for.
There are several such points, Mr. Chairman, and I feel that the Minister of Transport should be asked not to withdraw the amendment, but to allow it to stand for a 24-hour period. In the meantime, we could go on to the other sections, and the Minister of Transport could ask his departmental officials, those of the Department of Justice or those responsible for the administration of the Canada Elections Act, to define those terms, so as to prevent any future misunderstanding or any mistake from being made, not in bad faith, but through failure to consider the terms of this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment because I feel that the more we keep clear of politics, the better it is.
I think that I have successfully proved that the terms of the said amendment are indefinite and vague, and I would like to move that the said section 6 be allowed to stand for now and that we could go on to consider other sections. We could ask the Minister of Transport to have more precise terms used in that section. We should not
Electoral Boundaries Commission use terms such as "any similar office" or "a member of the faculty or other educational establishment", but precise terms. Then the members of our party would readily agree to section 6.


Lucien Lamoureux: May I mention that we are now considering the subamendment and that we are not yet ready to vote on the amendment of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.

I am wondering if the committee is prepared at this time to vote on the subamendment. Also I am wondering, for the sake of orderly conduct in the committee, whether it would not be wise to try and dispose of the subamendment which, in a way, is of a minor character. The subamendment is to clarify the question of the position of chief justice as mentioned in clause 6 (1) of the original bill. If we could dispose of the subamendment we could go on to debate or vote on the amendment itself.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I think even the subamendment still shows a lack of precision. I have only the English text but, for instance, when it says:
-of any superior court.
-the word "superior" is written with a small "s". Would it not be a good thing to define what is meant by "any other"?
There are no superior courts in the province of Quebec, "Superior" with a capital "S", that is.
When one considers that we have the court of appeal, I would like to know, from a terminology standpoint, what the word "superior" means. Is it restricted to the court of sessions of the peace or to magistrates courts? Does it mean that the superior court of Montreal is a superior court? There are even courts which are presided by two justices of the peace.
That is where we should be more specific, to eliminate the vagueness of the amendment and subamendment put together.
We ask that the sponsor of the bill be given time to make his terms more explicit, so that he may succeed not only in expressing a precise idea, but in using clearly defined terms which will not eventually give rise to misinterpretations, misunderstandings or even mistakes which we would all have cause to regret.


Lucien Lamoureux: Is the committee ready for the question on the subamendment?


Mr. Aiken:: No, no. Speaking first on the point you have just raised, Mr. Chairman,

Electoral Boundaries Commission I think it is eminently clear from the subamendment that if we accept it, then we are accepting the premise of the amendment.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Well-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. If I may have one word, and I do not want to enter the debate of course, possibly I might refer to the statement I made a moment ago, that even if we accepted the subamendment and then the amendment itself was defeated the Minister of Justice could still introduce an amendment to the main clause.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: With all respect, the subamendment reads as follows:
That the following words be substituted for subsection 2 of section 6 in clause 1 of the amendment as moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.
I merely say I am opposed to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg
North Centre and I would not want to vote on the subamendment until we had fully discussed the amendment.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder whether I could make a practical suggestion, that the house consent to allowing the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre to incorporate the subamendment in his amendment and then there will be no confusion.


Some hon. Members:: No.


John Whitney Pickersgill: When we voted on it we would then be voting on his amendment.


Some hon. Members:: No.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I just thought it might be simpler for the committee.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether I might make an appeal to the hon. member for Bow River to consider that the suggestion the Minister of Transport has just made is a rather practical one. If it were permitted that the subamendment be incorporated in my amendment I would be glad to agree to that.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: No.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am appealing through you, Mr. Chairman, to the hon. member for Bow River, a very eminent counsel. If my amendment in the terms I would then be putting it were carried, that would be the judgment of the committee. On the other hand, if it were defeated it would still be clearly in order for the Minister of Justice or anyone else to move an amendment to the main clause to incorporate the parts of my amendment that the house generally seems to favour. It does seem to me that it would simplify matters a bit if I were allowed to accept the words of the 
Minister of Justice and make them part of my amendment, but obviously it would require unanimous consent.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Chairman, I must say that the reason I moved the subamendment was precisely a procedural one. Personally I would much prefer if it were possible, assuming we had unanimous consent of the house, to integrate it in the main amendment so that we would have one amendment to vote on. Then we would know clearly that what we were voting on by way of an amendment was the principle submitted by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. If it were defeated then I could move to amend clause 6 so as to incorporate what is merely an explanation of the scope of the persons from whom the choice can be made. If the committee would agree to incorporate the subamendment in the amendment I would be ready to withdraw my subamendment.


Mr. Baldwin:: Mr. Chairman, assuming for the sake of argument that the subamendment moved by the Minister of Justice had such merit that it would appeal to the house, what would be the procedural situation if his subamendment were included in the amendment and the amendment as modified by the subamendment were defeated? Would it not be correct that the committee would then have rejected each and every principle appearing in the amendment, which would include the subamendment? With the house having come to a decision, would the Minister of Justice then be able to come back and move an amendment which the house had already rejected? I offer that for your consideration, Mr. Chairman.


William Howell Arthur Thomas: Mr. Chairman, if I may come back to the point I raised a few minutes ago I think it would clear up the matter more satisfactorily if the subamendment were removed from the amendment. If the house by unanimous consent can incorporate the subamendment in the amendment moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, then I do not see why the house by unanimous consent cannot remove the subamendment from the amendment and let us deal with the amendment itself on its merits. I would so move, Mr. Chairman.


Lucien Lamoureux: There can be no other motion at the moment.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I say that I agree with what the hon. member for Middlesex West has said. I think either course would arrive at what we are trying to do. We are trying to get a vote on these two questions separately without their being tied together. Either the subamendment could be incorporated in my amendment or the Minister of Justice could

be given unanimous consent to withdraw his subamendment on the understanding that if my amendment were defeated he would move the subamendment later as an amendment to the original clause. Naturally my main interest is in my amendment but I am also interested in our making some progress.


Erik Nielsen: On the point of order raised, I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. member for Peace River. Once the house rejects, if that happens, the composite amendment, how in the world can we vote on it a second time after it has been reintroduced?


Guy Favreau: It would not be in the same form.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: It seems to me we have three things. We have the clause of the bill, we have an amendment and we have a subamendment. With the greatest respect, it seems to me what we have got to clear up is the amendment and then the subamendment. If the amendment is carried we then have the question whether the subamendment becomes part of the amendment or part of the clause of the bill. It is very clear. The question now before us is whether we are going to adopt the amendment. That is what is being debated, and the subamendment will form part of the amendment. It seems very clear to me.


Mr. Olson:: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that the way to get out of the difficulty with which we are confronted is for the Minister of Justice to obtain unanimous consent to withdraw his subamendment. I say that because a very real problem has been raised by the hon. member for Peace River. If we do in fact reject the wording of the subamendment now we may run into difficulty in reintroducing an amendment where a vote of the house has already been taken. The Minister of Transport has said that the wording of the subamendment is required in clause 6, whether the amendment suggested by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is accepted or whether we revert to the wording now in the bill. Therefore as far as we are concerned, and I see I almost have unanimous consent, we think this would be the most practical way to deal with the problem because some members have voiced some objection to supporting the subamendment in that it may imply they are in favour of the amendment. We know of cases where this has been true. Therefore it seems to me the most practical thing to do would be to withdraw the subamendment so that each of us will know exactly where he stands.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Chairman, in view of the feeling of the committee on the matter, which seems to be relatively general, I would be
22, 1964
Electoral Boundaries Commission ready to withdraw the subamendment provided I have agreement of the committee in advance, of course, that I may move it again if the amendment is accepted or rejected.


Erik Nielsen: Withdraw them both and you will get unanimous consent.


Guy Favreau: There is no problem.


Lucien Lamoureux: I do not know if there are other members who want to take part in this discussion further. The hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Chairman, we have one further difficulty. I think we have a motion by the hon. member for Lapointe.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Churchill:: It is out of order.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: In that case I have to admit that-


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, on the point of order, it is true that I have asked the Minister of Transport to let clause 6 stand for a 24-hour period in order to give him time to consider the wording of the amendment because, in my opinion, I have fully established that it is ambiguous. In so doing, we would give the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Transport time to check the terms and replace them by others more precise and less vague.
That is the proposal I made a few minutes ago and I have not had any answer. I should like to know whether he would be prepared to reconsider the wording of this amendment.


Guy Favreau: As far as I am concerned, Mr. Chairman, I think the only question which was asked concerning the subamendment had to do with the meaning of the words "high court" and the answer is that they apply to the supreme court in all provinces. Those Quebec courts have the same jurisdiction and the same rights as the equivalent tribunals in the other provinces.
Quebec has a superior court, the Queen's bench (criminal jurisdiction) and the Queen's bench (appeals division).
In each province the jurisdiction of the high courts is clearly established as is that of the tribunals mentioned earlier such as the court of the sessions of the peace, the magistrates court and other courts of so-called lower jurisdiction.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I had also mentioned the boundaries and I think that, at that time, the Minister of Justice recognized that all such offices were not filled in other provinces whereas he had mentioned

Electoral Boundaries Commission three of them previously, that is the chief electoral officer, the surveyor general and the registrar of vital statistics. Three people are appointed to three different offices in the province-I see that the minister is talking -but I said a little earlier that those terms were vague and the same thing is true with regard to paragraph (b): "the president or other similar officer of a university". What is meant by officer of a university? Is it a professor, an employee of the university? Those terms are vague and not precise. They are the ones we would like to see explained before the vote.


Lucien Lamoureux: Those remarks deal mainly with the amendment rather than with the subamendment and the suggestion made a moment ago is to the effect that the Minister of Justice be given the unanimous consent of the house to withdraw his amendment.

I would ask this committee whether it gives the Minister of Justice unanimous consent to withdraw this subamendment?


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I had not completed the remarks I was making before I was interrupted by the hon. member for Lapointe. We have been asked to give unanimous consent to the withdrawal of this subamendment. I may be a little slow in my mental process, but I should like to ask the Minister of Justice why he needs to have an understanding or an agreement that he can reintroduce it? I am a little slow about this. If he withdraws it unconditionally, I see no objection.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I can perhaps throw a little light on that. If the committee voted on the hon. member's subamendment, there might be some argument. If he is given consent to withdraw it, then the committee has not passed upon it and there is no reason why, at a later stage, if it is in order he could not introduce it. This would enable us to deal clearly with what hon. members want to deal with, that is the amendment moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. I would, therefore, hope we could agree, without any condition, to the withdrawal of this subamendment.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Amendment to the amendment withdrawn.


Lucien Lamoureux: The question is on the amendment. The hon. member for Muskoka-Parry Sound.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I have some remarks, and for the benefit of hon. members who are making the noise across the way, I may say that they
[Mr. Gregoire.l
are extended remarks. The Minister of Transport has said he agrees with the original clause, but perhaps the amendment may make it a little better. All the members of the committee are entitled to their own opinions, and I want to express mine. I am hoping that in so doing I might persuade some of my colleagues that the original draft of this bill is the right one.
I think someone should say what I am about to say. Most members have skated around this, but let us be honest about the whole situation. What are the dangers of redistribution? Why do we find ourselves in a position where we are arguing about redistribution? Is it not simply that redistribution is a political matter?


An hon. Member:: It is a geographical matter.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Surely no one in this house is so naive or so dishonest with himself as to say that redistribution is not a political matter. It is so darned political that we are arguing about it and probably will continue to argue about it ad infinitum. Let us not fool ourselves. If it were not a political matter, why should we be trying our best to get it outside of the bounds of partisan politics? So it is a political matter. On political matters there must be two sides

I limit it to two sides, but there are sometimes three, four or five. Basically, however, there are two sides.
If the boundaries of a constituency are drawn one way it is going to benefit one party. If they are drawn another way it is going to benefit another party. I do not say which party, and I do not say who is going to benefit. However I say this is a political matter, and let us not try to say we will be putting this into the hands of judges and others and they will not be accused of partisan politics. They cannot avoid it.
It is nearly five o'clock, but I want to say if the judges are going to be given any break at all under this legislation there must be two parties on this commission, one appointed by the Prime Minister and one appointed by the Leader of the Opposition, who will be able to put forward the opposing views in connection with redistribution. It will be necessary then for the whole commission to decide what is fair, but we cannot cripple them before they even start by not having both sides of the story laid before them. You are allowing two sides to participate in that commission, and for that reason alone we must follow the original draft of the bill.
May I call it five o'clock?
Progress reported.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being five o'clock, the house will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on

today's order paper, namely notices of motions and public bills.



INCOME TAX ACT


Mr. R. R. Souiham (Moose Mountain) moved:: That, in the opinion of this house, the government should consider the advisability of amending the Income Tax Act, section (10), subsection (3) so that elected trustees of "larger school units" be entitled to the same exemptions of their regular indemnities for income tax purposes as those presently allowed to elected members of municipal corporations.
He said: I welcome this opportunity to direct the attention of the house to what I consider to be a defect in the income tax laws of our country. For the enlightenment of hon. members and for the sake of the record I should like to read the section to which my observations will refer. I am now holding a revised copy, office consolidation, of the Income Tax Act which at page 14, section 10(3) reads as follows-this refers to municipal officers expense allowance:
Where an elected officer of an incorporated municipality has been paid by the municipal corporation an amount as an allowance in a taxation year for expenses incident to the discharge of his duties as an elected officer of the corporation, the allowance shall not be included in computing his income for the year unless it exceeds one half of the amount that was paid to him in the year by the municipal corporation as salary or other remuneration as an elected officer of the corporation, in which event there shall be included in computing his income for the year only the amount by which the allowance exceeds one half of the amount so paid to him by way of salary or remuneration.
I think that is a clearcut enunciation of the position and I believe the problem I intend to raise will become apparent to hon. members as I continue to make a few further remarks. It is a problem which affects particularly the province of Saskatchewan inasmuch as we have there larger school units than those which exist in some of the other provinces. Back in 1905, when Saskatchewan came into confederation, we set up school districts which were very small in area; the municipal units were also relatively small. School districts in those days were four, six, or eight square miles in area. However as time went on and communications improved the areas became larger, and in 1945 the provincial government saw fit to give school districts the option of amalgamating into larger units. Thus today we have school units which comprise 30 or 40 square miles of area.
In consequence, the elected officials of these larger school units have to take possibly a whole day off from their other work in order to look after the obligations imposed on them. In order to get round these large districts 20220-158
Income Tax Act
they have to leave their businesses or vocations in charge of someone else, often at considerable expense. We believe it is time the Income Tax Act was amended in this respect so as to provide for these officials the same benefits as municipal officers now enjoy. I might say that in Saskatchewan we have some 398 municipalities the officials of which presently enjoy these benefits. Under the present legislation governing our schools we have approximately 65 of these larger school units where the duties of these officers are even greater in scope than they would normally be. In my opinion, the present provision as it affects these people is discriminatory and reflects a defect in the act.
I do not think I need take up the time of the house any further. The point I wish to make is a very simple one and I would ask members of the government to look at the act as it is drawn up at the present time, to examine the problem as far as these officials of the larger school units are concerned, and to propose an amendment of the legislation which would give them the benefits to which I think they are entitled as far as income tax is concerned. Other hon. members of this house have indicated their support for the present motion. I believe the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Watson) who seconded the motion has some observations to make on it and no doubt others will find it worthy of their support.


Edgar John Benson: I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Moose Mountain (Mr. Southam) for having brought up this interesting question, one which has of course been considered over the years by the officials who are dealing with these matters and by the government in its position of responsibility for proposing changes to the Income Tax Act.
I was very interested in the outline the hon. member gave of the important developments in Saskatchewan leading to the amalgamation of school units. As I understand it, a similar situation applies in other provinces of Canada; it certainly applies in my own province of Ontario. In his resolution the hon. member speaks of larger school units. This phrase might be difficult to define in terms of legislation and I think it might be made a little more clear later on. He also quoted in detail section 10 (3) of the Income Tax Act which is the relevant section when we are dealing with this matter. This section provides:
Where an elected officer of an incorporated municipality has been paid by the municipal corporation an amount as an allowance in a taxation year for expenses incident to the discharge of his


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I want to say at the outset that I have no hesitation or reservation at all in supporting the proposal made this afternoon by the hon. member for Moose Mountain (Mr. Southam). I want to state at the outset that in Alberta, where I think the setting up of what have been termed school units was pioneered, there does not appear to me to be any significant difference between the service provided by a school board or school unit trustees and that provided by municipal trustees. This is particularly true in the rural areas.
The parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) has just stated that he would welcome some information as to how expenses are now being paid to the elected representatives of school divisions. I would like to tell him one or two things about this matter as it applies in Alberta. I speak specifically of southern Alberta, but I think it is true for the whole province, because at this stage all the rural areas of Alberta are in what we call school divisions and I think we can put exactly the same connotation on that as you can on the words "larger school units" in the resolution. There is provision for the payment of something like $15 a day, I believe, for each one of the trustees for the days they actually spend in school board meetings, plus an allowance of something like 12 cents per mile, I believe it is at the present time, for travelling to the meetings and back to their homes. In addition to that there are special payments for occasions when a school board member is required to visit a school within his subdivision but which is many miles from his home. In these cases exactly the same allowances are paid; $15 a day for the time he must spend away from home plus 12 cents a mile travelling to and from his residence.
There is one other point I should like to bring up to show the injustice and anomaly created by section 10(3). Commencing in 1936 or 1937 Alberta set up these larger school units for the more efficient operation of schools in the rural areas. This has worked so satisfactorily that from time to time other provinces have adopted the same method.

Income Tax Act
Now we have moved to another phase and we are setting up counties. We have well over 20 counties now and these county councils administer the affairs of all the schools within their boundaries through what they call the school committee of the county council. From my interpretation of what is now provided in subsection (3) I would presume that those members who are in fact elected to the county council, even though they may be subsequently appointed by the county council to the school committee, would be able to claim under this section expenses they incur for doing exactly the same thing which the school trustees do in units which are not counties.
This is completely unfair because, as I said, they are doing exactly the same thing. I know that in some of the county councils, while the members appointed to the school committee do have a vote on the council when the council is in what might be called plenary session, they spend all or almost all of their time on school affairs. The chairmanship of the school committee is a fulltime job within that time devoted to county and school business. The chairman is completely or almost completely concerned with school affairs in the same way as the chairman of the school board. Therefore there is an injustice created here which could be corrected bv accepting the recommendation which has been made by the hon. member for Moose Mountain.
In many cases the amount of the budget and the amount of the detailed work and general responsibilities of school trustees within a given area is substantially higher than that of the municipal councillors within the same area. I think it speaks for itself that there is therefore real justification for making some changes. In fact, at the present time if we had to choose between whether the school trustee or the county councillor should receive some consideration by way of expenses incurred, there are many places where the school trustee would be given priority because of the larger amount of money which he would be handling, and the greater responsibility he has to attend to the details of school administration.
I do not wish to say more because other hon. members would like to participate in this debate, but I am pleased to hear that the parliamentary secretary is going to take this matter to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) and his officials when they are considering amendments to the Income Tax Act because, as I said, a serious injustice prevails here which could and should be corrected.


Mr. Lawrence Watson (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words in support of this motion moved by the hon. member for Moose Mountain (Mr. Southam). I believe this is a question of the income tax laws not keeping up with progress in some of the provinces. The hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Olson) illustrated this when he referred to what happened in Alberta in 1936 or 1937. The larger school unit act came into effect in Saskatchewan in 1945. I believe the motion speaks for itself when it says the government should consider-
-the advisability of amending the Income Tax Act, section (10) subsection (3) so that elected trustees of "larger school units" be entitled to the same exemptions of their regular indemnities for income tax purposes as those presently allowed to elected members of municipal corporations.
When we speak in the rural part of Saskatchewan of municipal corporations, we are naturally thinking of the rural municipalities which were set up in 1905 when the province was established. These areas are 18 miles square and have six board members and one reeve. Under the larger school unit act of Saskatchewan these boards also have a chairman elected from the six members, and these people represent an area which would be possibly six or seven times the size of a rural municipality. One way to compare this would be that an assessment in a rural municipality would be anywhere from $2 million to $4 or $5 million. An assessment in a larger school unit would run anywhere from $20 million to $25 million. These board members have to travel

and I have had the pleasure of serving on both types of board-anywhere from 30, 40 and up to 50 miles to one meeting. When I served on a local municipal council I had to travel only ten miles to qualify for expenses, yet under the larger school unit act, or under the Alberta county system, I would have to travel a great many miles but would not be entitled to this exemption. I think this is merely a matter of the government's sitting down and taking a look at section 10(3) and bringing it up to date so as to cover, as was originally intended by the act, municipal corporations.
The hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Benson) gave the house a little more information, but I can tell him that in the larger school units in Saskatchewan the members of the board receive in the neighbourhood of $300 to $400 in a year-and I have had more than $500-as their indemnity and mileage combined. This is arrived at on the basis of a per diem of $15 a day for a maximum of 15 or 16 meetings, plus the mileage expenses of the individual member concerned. Our mileage rate is 11 cents a mile, and that also can be figured out on the

same basis. As I mentioned before, this is merely a case of the government sitting down and bringing the Income Tax Act up to date so as to keep abreast of the progress which has been made, in this particular case, in Saskatchewan under their larger school unit act. However, I feel it is an injustice to the members who serve on these boards.
In the same way as the hon. member for Medicine Hat has mentioned, we in the province of Saskatchewan were in the midst of setting up counties a year or two ago, and my interpretation would be that if these counties had been set up the members of the school boards would not be entitled to an exemption because they would come under the larger school units. In closing, I would like to say I hope the government and members of the house will support this notice of motion. If it would be of any assistance to the parliamentary secretary or to the minister, I would be only too happy to sit down and talk the matter over with them. Again I urge all members to support the motion.


Mr. J. E. Lloyd (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, I think one could almost say in one sentence all that needs to be said regarding the principle of this private member's notice of motion. We agree that there should be uniformity in the matter of exemptions to taxpayers in similar circumstances. However, when you stop to take a look at the drafting of an appropriate statute, and you take a look at the wide variety of arrangements that exist throughout Canada, you quickly see it is extremely important that some homework be done in the Department of Finance. I believe this homework will be done, as was suggested by the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance a few moments ago.
I share the gratification expressed by other members of the house that this will be done, and I shall be watching the progress made in that direction. However, it is apparent it will be necessary to have some conversations with provincial departments of education. Further, before we come to formal passage of a motion of this kind, we must inquire whether the royal commission on taxation has undertaken studies with respect to exemptions. I believe hon. members will find that the commission has been looking with some interest at all exemptions.
It finally comes back to what I said at the outset, that there is a great deal of homework to be done because of the variety of arrangements between elected boards and appointed boards. In the city of Halifax we have one school board, yet within our school system we have a tradition whereby we have
Income Tax Act
a parochial system, rather loosely put together but nevertheless very satisfactory to all concerned.
This system has been in operation for some hundred years, but there is only the one tax source. The city pays 85 per cent of the school budget and the remaining 15 per cent is paid in the form of provincial grants. Half of the members of the board are appointed by the province, and the other half by the city council of Halifax.
Those members of the school board who are elected members of the city council do not receive any remuneration from the school board, but those who are appointed by the province receive an honorarium of something like $300 per annum. Some people who are quite happy and anxious to serve on these large school units are not anxious to engage in the elective processes to either school boards, city councils, or county councils, and many of them even resent being paid for this kind of duty.
There is no doubt many of them are people in the higher income brackets, who feel they can afford to do this sort of thing, but they do not want to engage in other political activities. There is no doubt that because they are in the higher income tax brackets an exemption would be more valuable to them, but we have to take a look at the number of arrangements throughout Canada which would be involved in an extension of this particular exemption.
There are 12,000 school areas in Canada. One hon. member referred to Saskatchewan. I understand it has a more complex scheme, with large units divided into five or six subunits, and the representatives to the large units are elected by the ratepayers of the sub-units. As in Alberta, there are also separate school boards.
Manitoba has a mixed system of large and small units, and the Atlantic provinces have been moving for some years toward a system of larger units. In the western provinces election of school trustees by ratepayers is the rule, whereas in the Atlantic provinces appointment of trustees by municipal councils or the lieutenant governors is more general.
Then we come to Quebec where we find that the Roman Catholic school administration is based on the parish, except in large centres, and the Roman Catholic school boards number about 1,500. Up to the present, and I understand this is subject to change under Quebec's bill No. 60, Protestant schools have local elected representative administration in rural areas, but larger units are also being organized. Trustees are locally elected, except in Montreal and Quebec city where the school trustees are appointed, the Protestant trustees

Income Tax Act
being appointed by the lieutenant governor and the city, and the Roman Catholic trustees by the lieutenant governor and the archbishops.
Ontario has 4,200 local school boards, including 700 separate school boards and 300 secondary school boards. There are also boards of education which look after both the public and the secondary schools. Most local rural school boards are elected by ratepayers. Rural district high school area boards are appointed by councils in participating areas, and secondary school boards are appointed. Now it becomes a nice question-


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Would the hon. member permit a question?


John Edward Lloyd: Yes.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Is there really any difference between school board trustees being elected or appointed? Whether they belong to separate school boards or public school boards they all have some expense involved in the performance of their public duties, and should there not be some provision in the Income Tax Act to take care of these expenses?


John Edward Lloyd: I agree generally in principle, but if you look at the notice of motion it says:
That, in the opinion of this house, the government should consider the advisability of amending the Income Tax Act, section (10) subsection (3) so that elected trustees of "larger school units" be entitled to the same exemptions of their regular indemnities for income tax purposes as those presently allowed to elected members of municipal corporations.
It specifically deals with elected members, and I was pointing out that because of the variety of methods by which trustees are elected and appointed, one should do some homework on the very point which the hon. gentleman raises. It may very well be that if you receive an honorarium from a school board, and if some portion is to be designated, the same as applies to municipal councillors, it should be generally applied regardless of whether you are elected or appointed.
Some will argue that the elected representative is under expense by virtue of the process through which he gets on the board, and because of this fact he should be granted an exemption. Some will argue this. Others will contend, as the hon. member has just done, that it really does not make much difference. But I think there is a difference between the situation confronting the person seeking election to a public office and that of one who does not have any expense by reason of being appointed by the governor in council or by some regional board, depending upon the arrangements in each province.
I can only conclude, Mr. Speaker, that there is an inconsistency in regard to the matter set out in the motion. Certainly the

matter needs attention. We should not allow the situation to continue without investigating to see whether we can arrive at a uniform policy. I am glad, as I said earlier, that the parliamentary secretary proposes to undertake the essential homework to bring about a method more appropriate and more in keeping with the views expressed by hon. members today than would be the case if we passed this motion, because if we did so the impression might be given that it was the wish of the house that any such exemptions should be restricted solely to elected trustees of larger school units.
I have mentioned that perhaps there should be some consultation with the provincial authorities. If there is any field in which there seems to be great sensitivity, and with justification, it is that which involves the provision of educational facilities within a province. Certainly anything that has to do with inducing people to undertake duties by virtue of federal income tax exemptions in the performance of such duties is a matter which should be the subject of consultation with the provinces. It should not be a difficult matter to resolve, but I should like to see that done. I share the feelings of hon. members who have so expressed themselves that it would be a good thing for the parliamentary secretary to undertake the proper homework and bring in appropriate amendments. I do not think the royal commission needs to deal with such a matter unless it has been the subject of special reference to them.


Mr. J. J. Greene (Renfrew South):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is any question that those of us who have served in the past on municipal councils or school boards, where most of us started our humble careers, are sympathetic with the subject matter and the understanding envisaged in the general tenor of this motion. In my view, if our free society is to work effectively, and possibly even to survive in the competitive world of today from the point of view of modes of government and modes of people determining their destinies, there is no question but that we certainly need a high level of participation by our people in our system of government, whether in the parliamentary field, local political associations or bodies such as school boards and municipal councils.
I believe the late President Kennedy put this premise better than any of us can when he said that a free society cannot survive if those who believe in that free society sit on the sidelines and merely watch the game. If there is any need today, not only in this country but throughout the free world, it is the need for participation in various aspects

of the public weal by the very best people we can possibly entice to undertake such efforts.
Far from the least of our needs is that in the realm of education. I do not know about the situation in other provinces. Our constitutional system being what it is, I am not too well versed in the manner in which education is administered in other provinces. In the province of Ontario the principle of local autonomy has been maintained to a very large degree throughout the years. However, in the province of Ontario we find that centralization is creeping into education more and more, be it for better or for worse, and that the principles of local autonomy, which have been the very basis of our education system since the days of Ryerson, are gradually being whittled away, with the result that in the not too distant future education may have a far more centralized focal point than has been the case in the past.
But so long as local autonomy is maintained to any degree in the educational system of Ontario, so long will there be a need to induce the very best and most capable people we can find to enter the field of education at the local level. This, of course, involves several spheres. Certainly from both a moral and an economic point of view we need to encourage the very best people we can to enter the teaching profession, on which rests to the largest degree the education of our young people. But at the administrative level also we need to do all we can to encourage the best people to take part as school trustees and in other fields of school administration, so that our schools will be well administered and so that the dollars and cents aspect of education will be adequately looked after.
So far as the teaching profession is concerned, which is essential to the future of education, I think there may be some troubles ahead. The teaching profession appears to be very disturbed today with regard to its future. The other day we heard the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher), who speaks so often and so loudly in the house, take umbrage over the fact that the teaching profession was disturbed at the present time because its members had been requested by the Department of Labour to fill out the cards associated with the coming pension plan. Apparently the Ontario teachers federation has taken a strong lobbyist stand in this regard. The hon. member felt that this was improper and that it was a tragic thing that the teaching profession should be taking this view.
I suggest that in taking this view the teaching profession was objecting to only one thing. As a profession I do not think its members have ever been loath to carry their weight or
Income Tax Act
to fulfil their responsibilities to society in general. However, I believe that they are objecting to being treated differently from other professions. I think they are right in this stand. I do not believe there is any more noble calling or loftier profession than that of teaching, whereby the aspirations of tomorrow will be fulfilled if they are to be fulfilled.
I certainly disagree most emphatically with the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) in this regard. There should be no distinction or no differentiation between the medical profession, the legal profession and the teaching profession in so far as the laws of this country are concerned, be they income tax, unemployment insurance or any other laws.
I think possibly the criticism of the hon. member was justified to some degree, but only in this regard-


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think the member has been directing his remarks during the last five or six minutes to a point which has no relevancy whatever to the notice of motion moved by the hon. member for Moose Mountain.


John James Greene: Speaking to the point of order, I would point out that the relevancy of my remarks is in this vein: I maintain I am attempting to establish the point that there are two facets to the question of education, the trustees on the one hand-that is the administration-and on the other hand the teaching profession. I am attempting to establish the point that on these two aspects of the problem of education, particularly teaching, rest the future effectiveness of education.
In that regard, Mr. Speaker, I am merely saying that in so far as the teaching profession is concerned, which is one aspect, I think it should be pointed out that contrary to some opinion there has been no attempt made by this house under the unemployment insurance regulations to include the teachers. There was a suggestion of this type made in the Gill report, but any qualms the teaching profession may have in this regard are unfounded. In so far as this government or this house is concerned, we have not treated them in any way differently from any other profession. I do not believe the day will come when this government or this house will see fit to do so, even though the Gill report may have suggested it. I do suggest that in so far as the teaching profession is concerned, this house has maintained its respect for the profession and has legislated in no way that would diminish the honour of that profession.
Now, in so far as the trustees are concerned, if I may be permitted to turn to that specific aspect of my hon. friend's motion,

Business of the House
I	would say that apparently he is concerned about the trustees of the larger school units.
I look somewhat askance at my hon. friend because normally I would have thought he would have been somewhat concerned with the larger and bigger, but also with the smaller and humble. I do believe this party professes to speak not so much for Bay street as for the little man. I am somewhat surprised to see that his motion refers only to the larger school units and, in particular, to those trustees who are apparently elected to school units rather than appointed, as is the case in the smaller areas.
In the part of the country from which I come, school boards are of two types. Some boards are elected and some of them are appointed. District schools, which today I think are generally accepted as important throughout Ontario, are the trend today. I have recently had occasion to see something of the school question in Manitoba. In that province I think the trend is to centralize the district schools and bring the boy or girl from the country into the larger school units in those areas. In Ontario, certainly in eastern Ontario, the area school trustees are appointed by the local council and by the local school boards, separate and public, to serve on this area school board.
The problems of these area school boards I assure you, Mr. Speaker, are certainly not less, and in fact in a very large measure are far greater than those of the elected school boards. Where urban and rural areas are concerned, the problems are different. Frequently there is difficulty with the problem of equalization of assessment in these areas. I know of no more difficult area of public service than service on one of these area school boards. I know these men sit many nights during the month into the small hours, and they have all the problems connected with running very large business entities, because these school boards are big business.
In my own town of Arnprior, which is a town of some 5,500 people, the high school has an enrolment of nearly 1,000 boys and
girls. I think this points up the fact that those who serve on these school boards, and who serve as teachers, have very important work, and that those who serve on these appointed school boards have work that is just as important as those who are elected representatives. While I agree most wholeheartedly with the general principle of this resolution, I should be most remiss in my duty to those people who serve on the school boards in my area if I did not insist that if any consideration is to be given in respect of income tax deductions, as suggested by the resolution, it should be given not only to those who are elected but also to those who are appointed to serve on school boards. It may be that if our energies are directed toward this problem, we should see that all school boards will be treated equally.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: I should advise the house that the hour for the consideration of private members' business has expired.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gordon Minto Churchill: I should like to ask the
house leader what the government proposes for tomorrow, Friday and Monday.


Guy Favreau: Tomorrow we hope to complete the study in committee of the electoral boundaries bill, and if there is time left, as I hope there will be, we will take the resolution introducing the Post Office Act amendment. On Friday, we will have a study of estimates, and agriculture is the proposed subject.
As I have not seen the house leaders of the parties about Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday, I can give them notice that for the moment, subject to further discussion, it would be our intention to take budget resolutions, beginning with customs, then income tax and estate taxes on Monday.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, April 23, 1964