1964-04-17

HOUSE OF COMMONS DEBATES


[Stage Direction]
20220-145i

[Stage Direction]
queen's printer and controller of stationery OTTAWA, 1964
[Stage Direction]
Friday, April 17, 1964


Mr. J. E. Walker (York Centre) moved:: That the special committee on food and drugs appointed March 9, 1964, be composed of Messrs. Armstrong, Asselin (Richmond-Wolfe), Basford, Mrs. Casselman, Cote (Longueuil), Enns, Francis, Gauthier, Harley, Horner (Jasper-Edson), Howe (Hamilton South), Jorgenson, Macaluso, Mackasey, Marcoux, Mitchell, Nesbitt, Orlikow, Prud'homme, Roxburgh, Rynard, Slogan, Willoughby and Whelan.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the order:
April 15-Mr. Knowles (Acting for the special committee on procedure and organization):
That the second report of the special committee on procedure and organization, presented on April 15, be now concurred.
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, there has been a reasonable request that the presentation of this motion be delayed for one more sitting day. Therefore on behalf of the committee I ask that it stand until Monday.



CANADIAN FLAG


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Leon Balcer (Three Rivers):: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Could he tell the house whether he has decided to give his support to a Canadian flag having three maple leaves against a white background or to some other design, as reported in this morning's Globe and Mail? [Text]


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I assume that my hon. friend's question is based on a press story that appeared this morning. May I say that that story is entirely speculative. I know, and I
am sure other hon. members know from their own experience, that there has been a great deal of speculation about the design of a Canadian flag for a good many months.


Léon Balcer: May I ask a supplementary question. I wonder if the Prime Minister would take the house into his confidence as to what is going on about the flag. Is the matter being handled by a committee of cabinet, or by a committee of the Liberal caucus, or is it being left to that government co-ordinator extraordinary, Mr. Tom Kent?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Well, Mr. Speaker, I can say that there is no committee as stated in the story, which confirms its speculative character. As to what is going on in connection with this matter, that will be announced to the house when a decision has been taken and the house will be asked to take its responsibility in this matter as the government must take its responsibility. The government is pledged to make a recommendation on this matter within two years of coming into office. We have now been in office almost one year.


Mr. MacEachen:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. May I suggest to hon. members that I have grave doubt whether the question is that pressing. It is an emotional question and a very important one, but it seems to me we should not be extending discussion on it at this time.


Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Jolieiie-L'Assompiion-Montcalm):: Mr. Speaker, further to the question asked by the hon. member for Three Rivers, I wonder whether the Secretary of State could tell the house how many flag designs or suggestions he has received approximately since his party has been in office. Two thousand, 3,000?


Mr. Speaker:: I am afraid the hon. member did not hear my suggestion that this matter could not reasonably be considered that pressing.



PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquillam):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the

Inquiries of the Ministry Prime Minister and ask whether he is prepared to make any report with reference to his negotiations with the premiers of the provinces regarding the Canada pension plan; and can he tell the house whether it is the government's intention to introduce a new plan or to proceed with the present plan and make certain amendments in committee of the whole?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, in welcoming my hon. friend back from the wars I would tell him I made a statement to the house yesterday in which I said I would be making a report on this matter not later than Monday. It will be made on Monday, and at that time I hope to deal with some of the points he has specifically raised this morning.


Mr. Georges Valade (St. Mary):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Prime Minister.
Could he tell the house whether the Minister of National Health and Welfare is taking part in the discussions now going on between the Quebec and Ottawa authorities with regard to the Canada pension plan?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Of course, Mr. Speaker. [Translation]


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question. Will the Minister of National Health and Welfare present the new pension plan or will the Prime Minister introduce the bill next week?


Léon Balcer: May I
ask a supplementary question. I wonder if the Prime Minister could tell us if these negotiations are being held at the present time and where the representatives of the various governments are meeting. Are the meetings taking place in Quebec city or in Ottawa?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows, because I made the announcement in the house, that these negotiations have been going on, not necessarily at meetings in Ottawa, by discussions between officials and by correspondence between myself and the premiers of the provinces. I shall be glad to explain on Monday exactly how it has been handled and the happy results which I hope will have been achieved by then.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. It concerns the reported trial in London, Ontario of a Greek seaman by the name of Stylianos Yiannopolous who was held without trial for three months. Could the Minister of Justice and his colleague, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, look into this very serious matter and make a report to the house at their very earliest convenience?


Hon. Guy Favreau (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I will look into the matter, though I doubt very much if it is within the realm of my jurisdiction.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Industry. Last November the minister, along with his colleague the Minister of Finance, assured the house that all depressed or designated areas, together with the formulae used, would be reconsidered once they had a little experience of them. Is he now in a position to inform the house whether these formulae are to be changed?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minisier of Industry):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think we have yet had sufficient experience of this program to warrant an announcement of changes at this time.



REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OP WINTER WORKS PROGRAM

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Marcel Lessard (Lake Si. John):: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the Prime Minister?
During the recent federal-provincial conference in Quebec city, did the premier of Quebec present him with a request from all the municipalities of his province to the effect that the winter works program be extended until the end of May? Has he received an official request from Quebec in that connection?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I cannot answer that question specifically but I will be glad to look into it. Meanwhile may I say that the policy of the government on the matter has already been announced.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heward Graffley (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Minister of Justice. Is he now in a position to reply to the question I posed some time ago relating to age restrictions for non-custodial positions in the penitentiary service?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I had the intention of meeting the director of penitentiaries, but he has been away on duty for quite some time recently. He has just returned and I will discuss the matter with him at the earliest possible date.



SUPERANNUATED FEDERAL EMPLOYEES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Has the right hon. gentleman received a request recently from the federal superannuates national association for legislation this session to amend the Public Service Pension Adjustment Act, and can we expect a favourable response to this request during the present session of parliament?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I believe within the last few days I have received such a communication, but I should like to check. The matter will be under consideration in the light of that communication, and I shall be glad to report to the house as soon as I can.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, earlier this week both the right hon. Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Grey North raised questions concerning the serious low water conditions
Inquiries of the Ministry which presently exist in the great lakes basin. In this connection, if I have the permission of the house, I should like to table a statement recently furnished to the governments of Canada and the United States by the international joint commission, which statement I believe was requested yesterday.
The international joint commission has responsibility with regard to certain regulatory works in the international section of the St. Lawrence river and has stated that these works will continue to be operated under present extraordinary conditions in order to alleviate, to the greatest extent possible, the situation in lake Ontario and downstream. I can assure the house that the government is very much concerned about this matter and will adopt all measures open to it which will help to minimize these extremely low water levels.
The Leader of the Opposition also mentioned the Chicago diversion. Some United States domestic aspects of this problem are now before a special master appointed by the United States supreme court. He is in no doubt about the position the Canadian government takes toward the Chicago diversion. In the past the Canadian government has repeatedly made clear its unalterable opposition to the unilateral diversion of great lakes water. There is no difference on this point between the policy of the present government and that of the government which was headed by the right hon. gentleman.


Mr. Speaker:: Did I understand that the Prime Minister wished to table some documents?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I should like to table the report of the international joint commission, which I thought was rather too lengthy to read.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey North):: I should like to ask the Prime Minister if this has anything to do with the international joint commission.


Lester Bowles Pearson: It is the report of the international joint commission that I am tabling. I know it will be of special interest to the hon. member.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: I wonder if I could direct a question to the hon. member

Inquiries of the Ministry ior York Centre in his capacity as chief government whip. Since the standing committees have been constituted as to membership, would the hon. gentleman move with some speed to have these committees meet for organization purposes in order that some of the pressing matters referred to them and uncompleted at the end of last session may be referred to them and dealt with?


James Edgar Walker: Two of
them are being called for Tuesday and five for Thursday. The others will follow very shortly. Notices are going out today.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: This question is addressed to the Minister of Finance. Yesterday I asked the hon. gentleman whether he had received any representations with reference to the sales tax on drugs and medical supplies, and he said he had not. I wonder if he would mind checking his files to see whether there are letters written to a druggist by the name of Irwin and to other druggists by the Prime Minister, the Minister of Agriculture and the former minister of national revenue in reference to this matter. Perhaps the hon. gentleman would let us have a reply at a later date.


Hon. Waller L. Gordon (Minister of Finance):: My recollection is that the hon. member for Bow River prefaced his question by asking whether I had received extensive or voluminous correspondence on the subject, or something of that kind. The adjective was part of his question and I replied to it perfectly accurately. No doubt I have received one or two representations on this matter. I will be glad to look into it.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Perhaps I could put a supplementary question. Did the hon. gentleman receive representations from three of his colleagues in reference to this matter?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: That I would have to look into also.



REFUND OF SALES TAX TO CHURCHES, SCHOOLS AND HOSPITALS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. R. Soulham (Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the acting minister of national revenue is prepared to an-

swer the question I posed yesterday with relation to the formula for the refund of sales tax as it affects schools, churches and institutions in that category.


Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, work is being done now to change the method of calculating this tax. While I cannot give the precise time when the new regulations will be ready, I would expect it to be in the very near future.



LEGISLATION RESPECTING CANADIAN CONTROL OF NEWSPAPERS AND BANKS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George C. Nowlan (Digby-Annapolis-Kings):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance a question based on an interview he gave last night which is reported in the press today. Is it the minister's intention to recommend to the government that legislation be introduced at this session to deal with Canadian control of newspapers and also of banks or will the minister wait until the report of the banking commission is received?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I do not quite know how that question could arise from the interview to which my hon. friend has referred. If there is any announcement to be made I can assure him it will be made in the normal way.



HARBOURS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Ron Basford (Vancouver-Burrard):: should like to address a question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the wide interest in shipping facilities in Vancouver and the hope of some of us for the eventual establishment of a terminal railroad, will the minister table copies of a report on freight movement through greater Vancouver prepared by the British Columbia research council and tell us what is now being done following this report?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: I will be glad to table the report, but I am sure if I attempted to tell this house all the things that are being done to improve the port of Vancouver I should be at it all day. But my hon. friend does know, I believe, as do the other hon. members from that area, that there have been discussions recently between the harbours board and all the

municipalities in the area, discussions which I think are going to be very productive indeed.


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: Will the Minister of Transport be able to demonstrate in the near future some interest on behalf of other national harbours?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. gentleman will recall that about three weeks ago I announced that the Atlantic development board had been asked to make a special study of the port of Saint John and the port of Halifax. So I naturally looked to the east before I looked to the west.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: I doubt if you are one of the wise men, though.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I might ask the Minister of Transport a supplementary question. I pose it to him in this way. Inasmuch as the late Mackenzie King promised that the port of Prince Rupert would be greatly expanded some time in the 1920's, I wonder whether the minister would look into that too.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I have been making plans to visit the port and I hope I can spread around the kind of sunshine that will please the hon. gentleman.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house give consent to the minister tabling his report?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Robert Muir: There is nothing like having a modest Minister of Transport.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, on April 9 the hon. member for Regina City drew attention to a circular letter that had been sent out, a copy of which he said had been received by someone in Regina. He asked the question whether the postmaster there was in fact the agent for the Winnipeg Free Press. I expressed the hope that this was not the case, and assured him I would give him an answer this week.
I have looked into the matter and can now state that the postmaster in Regina is not and never has been an agent for the Winnipeg Free Press. Postmasters in large offices 20220-146
Inquiries of the Ministry or in city offices are not agents for newspapers, but it is a fact that postmasters in smaller offices, rural offices, so-called revenue offices where they rent space in corner stores, drugstores and other stores, have no restrictions on their acting as agents in this field. How this particular letter came to be sent to a resident of Regina, we do not know. We are communicating with the Winnipeg Free Press on this aspect of the matter. I hope I have fully answered the question of the hon. member, and I thank him for having drawn this matter to my attention.



NON-PARTICIPATION BY CANADA IN JAPANESE INTERNATIONAL FAIR

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. S. J. Enns (Porlage-Neepawa):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I would ask the minister whether he can give the reasons why Canada is not participating in the international trade fair being held in Japan, when countries such as Australia, Italy and West Germany have sought to participate.


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I will take the question as notice and will endeavour to answer the hon. gentleman on Monday.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Lucien Cardin (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre referred to an answer to a written question tabled on Wednesday relating to thefts of equipment from national defence property. Specifically he referred to an item quoted as "unknown amount of military clothing" stolen from Shawinigan armoury on February 20, 1964 and said this wording was "a flagrant abuse" of the rules of the house. I took the question as notice and said I would look into the matter. I can now inform the house the facts relating to this matter.
The question asked by the hon. member did not in any way limit the extent of the items stolen or suspected of being stolen and in consequence, following the appearance of this question on the order paper on February 27, it was necessary to send out signals to all military establishments across the country, including ships, asking for a detailed return.

Inquiries of the Ministry Depending upon circumstances and the manpower available to do the necessary work on the return, replies from various units arrived back at headquarters over a period of time.
In so far as the specific item mentioned by the hon. member is concerned, this was reported from Quebec command at the beginning of March. At that time, although detailed reports had been made to the police on the important military equipment stolen from Shawinigan armoury, stocktaking of individual items of clothing had not been done. However, stocktaking was carried out on March 16 and as a result of the hon. member's complaint I have now obtained a list of clothing stolen at that time. This list includes: 13 blue berets, 16 ponchos, 1 ground-sheet, 10 khaki shirts, 5 battledress trousers, 14 olive drab field service trousers, 33 pairs of high black shoes, 16 trouser belts, 86 pairs of gloves, 22 neckties, 4 pairs of mittens and 137 pairs of socks. I might say, Mr. Speaker, that much of this has now been recovered by the police, but again at this date a detailed list is not available.
For the benefit of all hon. members I should like to draw attention to the fact that questions of this nature require a considerable amount of work and result in substantial cost to the public. On occasion when members put questions on the order paper an attempt is made to obtain clarification from the member in order to meet his specific request at the minimum cost. However, in view of the fact that the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre is a former minister of the crown and also was for a time minister of national defence, it was presumed that despite the considerable cost involved he required the information as set out in his question without any of the qualifications which might have resulted not only in an answer being supplied quickly, but also in limiting the amount of work involved in the preparation of that answer.


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is not within the jurisdiction of a minister of the crown to lecture any hon. member of this house just because he asked for information and that information was not supplied. I put a written question on the order paper, and the ridiculous answer was given that an unknown quantity of military clothing was stolen. Now the minister is attempting to explain away the inefficiency within his department. Shawinigan armouries was apparently completely stripped of military equipment and the minister was unable to give information to the house. Now he tells

us that in March he had this information, yet my written question was answered only on Wednesday, and answered incompletely.
These lectures from ministers of the crown as to how we conduct ourselves in this house are out of place. We are entitled to ask for information from the government and we are entitled to complete answers, which we have not been getting.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Speaker, the only reason for giving the answer I gave this morning was because of the remark made by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre when he said that the answer given on Wednesday was a flagrant abuse of the rules of this house. We did everything we could to obtain the information for the hon. member as I have mentioned, and I think his intervention this morning is completely ridiculous.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think we have had sufficient discussion of this important matter.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to rule on whether or not my statement is correct. I said it was a flagrant abuse of the rules of the house to give an incomplete and insufficient answer to a written question. The minister says this is quite proper, and I would ask for a ruling from the chair in regard to this matter.


Mr. Speaker:: It seems to me that this matter does not require a ruling from the chair. Perhaps it could receive investigation by the committee on procedure and organization. I think we have had sufficient discussion of the matter, and I suggest we move on.



FRASER VALLEY, B.C.    REPORTED DANGER DUE TO HEAVY SNOWFALLS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Maiher (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister of northern affairs. I wonder whether the minister has received reports in connection with the potential flood danger in the Fraser valley as a result of the recent heavy snowfalls in the mountains surrounding the area.


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, following the tabling of the Fraser river board report I wrote immediately to Hon. Mr. Williston, ministre of lands and forests in British Columbia, suggesting to him that we had the option of either disregarding the report or acting upon it, and I said I thought

we should begin to act upon it. Therefore I asked him to arrange a meeting with me, which was held in Ottawa when he came to the Columbia river treaty meetings.
We have agreed that he and his engineers shall review the situation, and it is rather likely that they will be making an application to us under the Canada Water Conservation Act in respect of the improvement of the dikes in that area. I believe the engineering will take some six months.
With regard to the current snow situation, snow in the Columbia basin area is exceedingly high, some 40 per cent higher than last year. Our current reports in respect of the Fraser valley basin indicate that snow is not much higher than the ten year average.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture?
In view of the fact that the Minister of Agriculture stated on many occasions that he was studying several bills intended to help eastern farmers, can he tell the house if he is through studying one or two of them and could he announce their contents to the farmers while he is completing his study of the others?


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


Mr. Raymond Langlois (Megantic):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. Would the minister tell the house if the government is ready to give federal subsidies, through the medium of the provincial governments, to eastern farmers so they may purchase seed grain early this spring?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sure if the hon. gentleman will put that question on the order paper he will get a very detailed answer.


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Speaker, I have another question which I will put to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. According to a report in the Montreal Gazette this morning a gift of barley has been made to Korea because of a shortage of grain there. Is the Minister
Inquiries of the Ministry of Trade and Commerce ready to do something similar for the eastern provinces if the need arises?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, so far as I am aware there have been no gifts by the government of barley to Korea.


Raymond Langlois: Then who issued the report that 30,000 pounds of barley have been given to Korea because of a severe shortage of grain?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Would the hon. member tell the house if he is basing his question on a newspaper report?


Raymond Langlois: A newspaper report, and I am asking whether or not it is a fact.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is out of order. [Translation]


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct another question to the Minister of Agriculture.
Since the minister does not seem to have any bill to introduce at this time when seeding is about to start, could he assure Canadian farmers that they will not be poorer this year after they have reaped their crops than they are now before seeding?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



WORLD FAIR


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the right hon. Prime Minister a question of which I gave him notice last year? I hope he will be in a position to give me an answer today.
Has the Prime Minister taken a decision about the salary to be paid to the commissioner general and the deputy commissioner general of the world fair?


Mr. Speaker:: This also seems to be a proper question for the order paper.


Georges-J. Valade: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am afraid the hon. member has not been here in the last day

Inquiries of the Ministry or two when we have had considerable discussion on points of order, questions of privilege and everything else. I suggest that he accept the ruling.


Georges-J. Valade: On a point of order concerning the statement the Chair has just made with regard to my absence from the house in the last few days, may I say I do not think the Speaker should make such a remark, because my absence was motivated by an illness. Therefore I do not think such a comment should be made by the Chair. My question was directed to the Prime Minister, and I think the Prime Minister should tell the house what salary he is paying to the commissioner general of the world fair.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is disputing the ruling. The Chair tries to make its rulings impartial and fair on every occasion, though perhaps it does not always succeed. I have suggested that this is a question for the order paper, and the matter of what type of questions should be put on the order paper has been under active discussion for the last few days. I suggest that the hon. member leave it there.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, it might assist in satisfying the hon. member for St. Mary if I were to inform him that there are questions on the order paper relating to the salary of the commissioner general of the world fair which will be answered on Monday.


Georges-J. Valade: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Will the salary exceed that of the deputy commissioner?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I must intervene
again. This is an indirect attempt to ask the same question.



CANADA COUNCIL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State. Some time ago a question was raised in the house concerning recommendations of the Canada council with respect to its financial structure. I would ask the minister to take this question as notice and give some indication to the house of the government's attitude in this regard some time next week.


Hon. Maurice Lamoniagne (Secretary of State):: Yes, Mr. Speaker.



SOCIAL INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I had a question for the Minister of Labour but in his absence I will direct it to the Prime Minister. It has to do with the confusion which has been created with regard to requiring teachers to sign social insurance cards, and is related to an answer given in the house by the Minister of Labour last Monday. At that time the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg asked the minister to make it very clear that it is not an offence for teachers not to complete these cards, and the minister said:
I have made it clear and I shall be glad to make it clear again.
Information I have from the Manitoba teachers' society indicates that up to last Tuesday several school districts in Manitoba were still requiring their teachers to fill out these cards, and that a check of the unemployment insurance office in Winnipeg was made by the Manitoba teachers' society which indicated that that office had received no new letter from Ottawa nor any instructions to prepare a new letter for the districts explaining the error.
Will the Prime Minister assure the house that a statement or directive will go out that will clear up this matter; because apparently Manitoba teachers are still being asked to sign these cards.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, we are very anxious to clear up any misunderstanding that may have arisen in this matter. I will bring my hon. friend's question to the attention of the Minister of Labour, and perhaps he will be able to deal with it on Monday or Tuesday.


Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: I have a question for the Prime Minister arising out of the answer he gave the hon. member for Churchill, in which he said he would discuss this matter with the Minister of Labour and have him bring in a report on Monday. I wonder if, during his talk with the Minister of Labour, he would discuss the desirability of having the minister send out a letter in the near future to the various unemployment insurance districts to clear up this misunderstanding.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Well, Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding, and since the minister is not

here I cannot verify it at the moment, that that has already been done. This is what I should like to look into and report upon on Monday.



EDUCATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Justice concerning a matter which I believe comes under his department.
Does the government intend to implement the recommendation of the "Conseil de vie frangaise" and appoint a conciliation board to settle school disputes regarding cultural matters between ethnic groups and provincial governments?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, since this is a policy matter which the government will have to decide, it will be announced in due course.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question. Has Mr. Justice Dryer, the chairman of the three man board of trustees handling the great lakes shipping problem, informed the government that the role of the board as a three man board is near an end?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Not to my knowledge, Mr. Speaker, but I will have to check with the Minister of Labour, who is not in the house today. If there is anything I can add I will be glad to do so.



REDISTRIBUTION


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, April 16, 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
17, 1964	2287
Electoral Boundaries Commission to provide for the readjustment of such representation in accordance therewith-Mr. Pickersgill (for Mr. Pearson)-Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.
On clause 6-Appointment of chairman, etc.
John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to make a few observations, Mr. Chairman, about the amendment which has been offered by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. In order to recall the background, I would direct the attention of hon. members of the committee to the debate on second reading and to the observations I made in the course of that debate on the subject to which this clause relates. I am afraid I am about to bore the committee by repeating, because I think it is very important that the record should be absolutely accurate, the remarks I made which are recorded on page 741 of Hansard at the bottom of the first column and in the second column. I will try to read this as quickly as I can, because I know it is trying to have these things repeated, and still remain intelligible.
On that occasion, on March 10, I said this:
Next we came to the very difficult problem of determining the composition of the commissions.
I was assuming there, as the committee agreed last night after some thought, that there would be ten commissions.
I think I expressed the view, which I think the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre also expressed, although I am speaking from memory 1 am wrong 1 should like to be corrected! that the experience in Manitoba with redistribution had been very satisfactory. In Manitoba the chief justice of the province, the president of the university and the chief electoral officer were designated in the legislation by office and not as persons. This produced a commission that commanded universal respect and confidence, and whose report was, I think, only altered with respect to one or two names.
I was referring there to the names of constituencies.
In every other respect it proved very satisfactory.
I must say that a good many of us racked our brains to see whether we could find people who, first, this parliament would have the right to designate. It is one thing for the provincial legislature to say that the chief electoral officer of the province should do something, but he is an officer of the province. We might achieve the same thing by getting their consent to it, but the parliament of Canada could not impose that duty upon him by naming his office; at least I would think it would be a very dubious proceeding to try.
However, I do not think that at all rules out the possibility that with the consent of a provincial government the person who occupies the position of chief electoral officer might serve, and serve very acceptably, on one of these commissions, or as far as that is concerned on all of them.

Electoral Boundaries Commission
I did not mean the same chief electoral officer there, but the chief electoral officer in each province in which there is one.
But quite frankly, apart from the chief justice of the province or a judge designated by the chief justice of the province-and here I must say I was very much influenced, as I think were others to, by the Manitoba precedent-it did not seem to us that there were any other persons we could designate who would have the same title and position in all provinces. In any event, what we really wanted was to be assured of impartiality.
After various other possibilities were considered the government finally agreed to put in the bill the suggestion that the chief justice of the province should nominate the chairman from a member of his court; that the leader of the government, the Prime Minister, should nominate one of the members of the commission; and that the Leader of the Opposition, who is an officer of parliament, should nominate the other. I say unreservedly that I have every confidence that no matter who occupies those offices, any person who becomes leader of the opposition in the parliament of our country or prime minister in the parliament of our country would take this responsibility seriously and make the kind of nominations that all of us would feel were appropriate under the circumstances.
I repeat that statement unreservedly.
I do not hesitate to say that with respect to this provision or with respect to any other method which commends itself to the house or to a majority of the house and which seems likely to produce as fair and effective a result, the government will he quite prepared in committee to consider on its merits any amendments to this procedure.
Now, that was the position at that time. I do not believe I need to read the next paragraph, which relates to the representation commissioner, but I should like to read the following paragraph on page 742.
Frankly, sir, up to now this is the most satisfactory suggestion we have been able to think of for arriving at the composition of these commissions, but I hasten to say again that if anyone in any quarter of the house can produce a better method we have an open mind. It is, I say once more, not the special responsibility of the government but the responsibility of all of us to do this in the best possible way.
That has been the position that the government has taken throughout about every aspect of this bill, and which it continues to take about every clause in the bill. It is true that last night I expressed quite strongly my personal preference for the ten commissions, but I would not have considered there was any question of confidence involved if the house had decided to take a different position, so long as I felt it would be workable. That is the position I have taken throughout, and which I continue to take with respect to every clause in the bill.
Now, sir, in the course of debate the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, as recorded at page 762 of Hansard for March 10 last, the same day, took exception-as did

members in other parties in the house aside from our party and the party which represents the official opposition-to any of the nominees being the nominees of leaders of political parties. It is apparent to everyone that the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition are leaders of political parties.
I am sure they are not ashamed of that fact, but personally I do not think, in the discharge of the responsibility suggested by this bill, they would act in that capacity. I think they would act as responsible citizens performing duties entrusted to them by parliament, if parliament decided to entrust those duties to them.
But I also recognize that it is not unnatural for members in other parties to feel this way about it, and perhaps I would feel the same way if I had the misfortune to be in one of the smaller parties.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You will be one day.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If I had that misfortune I might feel the same way as hon. gentlemen did in all three groups in that corner of the chamber, when they expressed themselves about the suggestion in this bill.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: You mean political misfortune.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. member for Bow River has an engaging way of trying to put me off my argument, but I wish to read what the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre said. I think he will not disagree with my paraphrasing of it, when I say he did not think this was the most satisfactory way. He suggested that we should follow the course in Manitoba, which I might say parenthetically is precisely the same or as nearly precisely the same as two things can be, as the course followed by Mr. Frost when he had the commission established in Ontario. If my recollection serves me right, in Ontario it is not the chief justice. It is one of the high court judges, with the chief electoral officer, and a professor in the political science department of Queen's University. So in effect the Ontario commission would really conform more precisely than Manitoba to what is suggested in the amendment offered by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Would the minister permit a question? I know he is padding something, and I was wondering if he would now say whether he himself and his party are in agreement y/ith the amendment moved last night.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would like to make my argument in my own way, as I know the hon.

gentleman would like to make his argument in his own way.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Well, could you answer that question?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Under our rules the hon. gentleman does not have the floor at the moment, and I do not think in the end I will have any difficulty satisfying his curiosity about anything which he has a right to be satisfied about, under our rules.
As recorded at page 762 of Hansard I in fact did exactly what the hon. member for Bow River has just done. I interrupted the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and asked him if I could ask him a question.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What did I say?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. member said "Gladly." Then I did what I have sometimes been accused of doing. I asked a question almost as bad as some of the questions asked on orders of the day. 1 will read it.


Gordon Minto Churchill: What page?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Page 762, at the bottom of the first column and the top of the second column. I said:
I agree with what the hon. member is suggesting in principle,
-that was, that the commission be appointed of designated persons, not designated by name but by the name of their officeas I said earlier this afternoon-
-and as I said also in the last session of parliament when we first debated this. At that time I said I regarded the Manitoba experience as a model but I did not think this parliament could devise a way of following it. I had better repeat exactly what I said:
I agree with what the hon. member is suggesting in principle, as I said earlier this afternoon, provided it can be done. But I would put this difficulty to him and ask him whether he has an answer to it: How does this parliament compel presidents of universities who are not officers of ours and who have jobs to do, to carry out this business for us? It is a very different thing for a provincial government which provides the main alimentation of a provincial university to ask them to do it-and it is a much smaller job, in any case, at least in some of the provinces. Then, of course, the difficulty seems to be compounded in the case of provincial officers such as the chief electoral officer, because all one of the provincial governments needs to do is say it will not allow him to serve, in which case I do not see how this parliament could compel him to serve.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre intervened and said, in what seems to be a question within a question:
May I ask the minister whether that same difficulty would not present itself to the Prime
Electoral Boundaries Commission Minister or to the Leader of the Opposition, if they sought to name individuals connected with universities or provincial governments?
I replied to that as follows:
Presumably they would ascertain their ability to act. It would not be done permanently in legislation. That is precisely the problem.
Then the hon. member went on to say this:
I will agree that the Minister of Transport may have raised a difficulty, but I suggest it is not beyond the wit of members of parliament to And an answer if we are agreed on the basic principle that we should be making the decision here in parliament, not leaving it to two individuals, particularly when each of those two individuals has a party connection, to do a job which we are trying to put on a completely independent basis.
So I urge very strongly that consideration be given, when we get into committee on the bill, to making this kind of change with respect to the manner in which the members of the commissions are to be appointed.
The two points I want to emphasize at this time are that I had said at the very outset, when introducing the second reading of the bill, that I thought if we could find a method of prescribing precisely by office who should be the members of these commissions, that would be a preferable way to do it, but I did not believe it was possible. I did not believe we could find officials in the provinces that this parliament had the legislative competence to oblige to act.
Judging from the amendment which the hon. member has now produced I think he has indicated he agrees with that view, because he does not seek to prescribe the officials. He merely suggests certain categories of people from which a choice should be made, and he also recognizes the possibility that both those classes, in one province or another, might be exhausted and the chief justice would then have to look for someone else. As a matter of fact the amendment makes provision for the appointment of some other person, not by the chief justice alone but by the chief justice in consultation with the representation commission.
The reason for making that suggestion, I suppose, is that if the chief justice selects them from the categories that might be laid down by parliament, there would be no feeling that there should be any check on his freedom of choice. But if he has to go outside those categories I dare say the hon. member must have felt-and I should not seek to interpret him-that the chief justice alone would not just select anybody he liked, in the hope, I presume, of having some reasonable degree of uniformity.
I must say, and I say quite frankly, that the hon. member came to me some time after

Electoral Boundaries Commission this debate and told me he thought he had found a method of doing this. He said that if he had, he intended to bring in an amendment at this time. As I said quite frankly on March 10, I was prepared, and I even went so far as to say the government was prepared-because we had had to take the responsibility for bringing in the bill as originally drafted-if a better method should be found, a method which would be less open to question, to consider it on its merits. That is the position and it is the only position I have ever taken. It is the position I still take with respect to this clause, as with respect to every other aspect of this measure.
I do not think it would be appropriate for me at this stage, until there has been some opportunity, as the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings rightly suggested last night -since this amendment was presented only shortly before ten o'clock last evening-I do not think it would be appropriate for me to indicate any attitude about this until I have had an opportunity of hearing some debate on it.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Give us your views on this. May I ask the minister a question. If the government intends to support this amendment let us know. If the government is not supporting it, let us vote the amendment down and get on with the business.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. gentleman is now proposing a course which seems to contradict the suggestion he made earlier, which was that we should give the most careful consideration to all aspects of the bill before us. I would feel I was acting in bad faith, and not in accordance with what I said as recorded on page 742-perhaps I might read what I said then-


Gordon Minto Churchill: You do not need to read it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps I do not. However, I will not seek to restrain the hon. gentleman when he makes his argument, and I would appreciate it if he would also concede that I have the right to make my own argument in the house in my own way as well.
The most satisfactory suggestion we have been able to think of for arriving at the composition of these commissions is the one before the committee, but I hasten to say again that if anyone in any quarter of the house can produce a better method we have an open mind. It is, I say once more, not the special responsibility of the government but the responsibility of all of us to do this in the best possible way.

In the light of the clear and unequivocal statement I made I do not think I should get up, without having heard any argument, without even having had an opportunity to confer with my colleagues, and take a definite attitude one way or the other. I think I could be accused of bad faith if I said at this moment that the government will accept the amendment or that it will not accept it. I think we should examine this proposal with an open mind. We should examine it to see whether there are any flaws in it and, if there are, we should reject it. And if, after giving it dispassionate and objective scrutiny such as the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre somewhat eloquently, I thought, recommended last night should be given to this measure as a whole, we decide it would be an improvement on the present proposed arrangements, we should accept it.
I must say I have no doubt that if we do accept the bill as it now stands the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition will make the kind of appointments to all these ten commissions which will commend themselves to all reasonable people. That is my opinion, but it is obviously not the opinion of every member of this house. At any rate, some doubts have been expressed about it in certain quarters.


Mr. Starr:: Well, let us have a vote on it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If we could have all these doubts resolved in all quarters of the house it would undoubtedly be better, as it would with regard to all aspects of the bill. But before I decide what my own attitude should be I would like to hear the views of some of the other hon. members. I should like to hear them indicate whether they see any defects in this proposal or whether they see any advantages in retaining what is recommended in the original bill.


George Clyde Nowlan: I have to leave in a little while and I shall not be here at one o'clock. I hope this matter will not be determined at that time if it comes to a vote, because I have strong feelings in the matter as I suggested last night.
I think the provision now in the bill is a good provision. It is not perfect, of course; nothing in this world is perfect, but it is as good a provision as could be incorporated in any bill dealing with such a contentious matter. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre said last night that it savoured, perhaps, of politics which he was trying to avoid. He wanted to avoid political partisanship in

these matters. Well, I do not think it is possible to avoid at least the semblance of partisanship when you are dealing with something political-and I am using the word in the best sense now, with a small "p". There has to be some, and it cannot be avoided no matter what semantics are used when framing the legislation.
I think the clause before us is as good as any clause that could be prepared. Like the Minister of Transport, I should be glad to hear any arguments which might be advanced by hon. members generally in favour of a change, other than the wish to avoid politics which, I say frankly, is impossible superficially. I have no doubt that a change would be more pleasing to the feelings of hon. gentlemen in the farther part of the house, and one can understand this wish that either they should be recognized or that somebody else should not. But these are the facts of life, the facts of our political life.
We have a Prime Minister who is an officer of the house and a Leader of the Opposition who is also an officer of the house, and they are the only ones in this category. I agree that whoever occupied the office of prime minister or leader of the opposition would exercise the authority given to them under this provision in a manner which would be entirely creditable both to themselves and to parliament, and we can be entirely confident that they would make the best choice possible in these circumstances, even though the choice might prove disappointing to someone or other. After all, whether right honourable or not, they are both honourable gentlemen. They have the spotlight on them. They have an obligation to the nation as well as to their parties.
This amendment-I spoke of it rather lightly last night-is trying to escape politics as such. But we are not going to escape at least political association or affiliation. There is nothing bad about this. Indeed, I hope everybody in Canada, outside, possibly, the clergy-and I am not so sure even about them-has some political association or affiliation or at least a political interest; and if you are going to choose people who are entirely removed from that you are going to get political noodles or something like that; I was about to use a term which might not have been in keeping with this occasion.
This amendment names certain official categories in the service of provincial governments. I agree with what was said by the minister about the difficulty of ordering them to serve, or even asking them to serve. Which
17, 1964	2291
Electoral Boundaries Commission people are listed? There is the provincial chief electoral officer. There is the surveyor general, whoever he may be. There is the registrar of vital statistics, who is sometimes a nurse. Then the proposal speaks of those holding "similar offices". If that does not take in the whole gamut from a caretaker to the president of the council, I do not know what does.
Then you get a greater disparity in the section below; you get college presidents, college teachers, college instructors; and finally, if you cannot get one of those you pick out anyone you like. The load is put on the chief justice of the court. That is one of my chief criticisms of this amendment, and I think the Minister of Justice should express his opinion on this matter. I do not think the chief justice of any superior court, or any inferior court, should be put in the political position where he is ordered by this parliament to make choices within the whole field that is mentioned here.
This provision is not so wide in the bill that we have before us. He makes a choice from his own court or another court, but it has to be a judge, someone who is theoretically and legally under his control. But when you go beyond that and, as I said, take in everybody in the province whatever his political leaning, you may inadvertently make the most partisan appointment.
I think the chief justice is further removed from politics than many of the people mentioned in this amendment. Many of these officers are appointed for political purposes or political award. Perhaps some judges are, too, from time to time; but they have other qualities as well, and they become divorced from politics to a much greater degree than people in provincial governments. I am not speaking of any particular provincial government, but this refers to all provincial governments. I know from my own experience in Nova Scotia that in the past we did not have as strict a standard of civil service appointments as you might have in the national government.
I do not think it is a good thing to include everybody in the employ of the provincial government. It would possibly enable some provinces to get representation which they otherwise might not get; but if the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition made the choices that I know they would make-and I am not speaking of the present occupants of those offices, although I certainly would include them-their choices and selections would commend themselves to the

Electoral Boundaries Commission people of Canada and this on the whole would be much better than making appointments from the classes which are prescribed here.
If this amendment were accepted you could go off into the deep blue, go as far as you liked and choose anyone. This is not any improvement; it is not any addition to the bill now before us brought in by the government. I say it is a derogation of it; it is a weakening of it. It is wrong to put the chief justice of any province in the position in which this amendment would put him if the house should see fit to implement it.
I hope the Minister of Justice will give us his views on this matter. I think there has been altogether too great a tendency to impose this kind of load upon the judiciary. They are involved in many things; from time to time they are concerned with labour matters, and so on and so forth. These things, if they do not bring them into disrepute, at least bring our judiciary into critical arenas, and we should lean against this happening as much as possible. Here is one opportunity to do this. We appoint a chief justice or some person designated from his court. I do not think we can avoid that. It guarantees impartiality. But it is not an incursion or excursion into the field of provincial politics, as would be the case if this amendment were accepted.
Mr. Chairman, I have spoken longer than I anticipated, but I have expressed my own feelings on this matter and would like to hear the argument as to why this amendment should be adopted in preference to what we now have before us, other than the fact that presumably because you have political officers making the appointments they will be political, partisan appointments, which frankly I do not believe.


Mr. Barneil:: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the hon. member for Digby-Annapo-lis-Kings would permit me to ask him a question.


George Clyde Nowlan: Yes, if I can answer it.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: When the hon. member was speaking he expressed confidence in the honourable intentions of the prime minister and the leader of the opposition whoever they might be, I would like, however, to ask the hon. member if he has ever heard of Caesar's wife.


George Clyde Nowlan: What was her name?


Mr.   Lefaoe@: Mr. Chairman, I wish to speak for only a moment on this question. It is not an earth shaking question, and I do not


think it should occupy too much of our time. However, I think we have had some lengthy speeches on the matter without any arguments being put forward. I do not think we have heard any arguments for the bill as it stands, in reality. The integrity of the leader of the government and the leader of the opposition is not in question in the amendment. What is in question is the image that is given as far as the whole matter of the setting up of these commissions is concerned. As I say, the integrity of either the leader of the government or the leader of the opposition is not in question.
I believe that what we have failed to do here is recognize that it is the people of Canada who will get the image of what is going on in the house and what we are trying to do. I think this is the point. I do not think it is right to talk about the load being carried by the judiciary, because anyone who is given the responsibility of picking these commissioners will have the same problem. The categories are wide enough here so that there should be no problem in obtaining the type of individual who would do the job well.
I say again in closing, Mr. Chairman, that the question is the public image we are trying to protect, and there is no reflection upon the integrity of the leader of the government or the leader of the opposition.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Chairman, I should like to take advantage of the minister's statement that he has an open mind on this matter, to express very briefly a few of my own personal thoughts on this amendment, and suggest to the committee that we should leave the bill as it is and not accept the amendment.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Ronald Basford: 
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, first of all I should like to say that I appreciate in particular the statement made by the hon. member for Cariboo. In a very few, well chosen words he pinned down the issue very neatly. What we are concerned about in this amendment is not the integrity of the Prime Minister or the Leader of the Opposition, or of any future prime minister or leader of the opposition. What we are concerned about is the image of this legislation in the eyes of the Canadian people. It is not good enough just to have legislation which we think achieves impartiality; there must be the appearance of impartiality to the people of this country.
I am satisfied that it will not appear that way to the people of Canada if they know that two of the members of each of these ten commissions are going to be chosen by persons who happen to be the leader of two of Canada's political parties. 1 accept and underscore the statements of confidence in the holders of those positions which have been made by the Minister of Transport but as the hon. member for Cariboo said, that is not the issue. What we are doing in this piece of legislation as a whole is commendable; we are trying to take redistribution out of partisan politics and put it as far away from partisan politics as we possibly can. We have not done that if we still provide that two of the commissioners in each of the ten commissions are the nominees of the leaders of Canada's two largest political parties.
I suppose it was fair comment for the Minister of Transport to make, that the view
2294	HOUSE OF
Electoral Boundaries Commission I expressed is a natural view tor one who sits as the member of a smaller party. It is always hard lor us to imagine what we in this party would be like if we were members of a larger party, or what the Minister of Transport would be like if his party became a splinter party. This may happen some day, of course. But I submit that we are presenting this proposition not because those of us down in this corner happen to be in parties which have no say in this matter. I submit we are presenting this as a matter of principle because we feel that the whole business of redistribution should be taken as far away from party politics as possible.
I was interested in the comments made by the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard. He does not like my amendment because he says we would be buying a pig in a poke. He does not like it because we would be abdicating our responsibilities. I ask him, what does the present bill do but just that? According to the terms of the bill, if my amendment is not accepted, we have not the slightest notion what persons are going to be chosen to fill these two positions. All we know is that the Leader of the Opposition will pick one of them-and I say to the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings that he might pick a nurse, but what is wrong with a nurse?-and the Prime Minister will pick the other. Surely this is buying a pig in a poke and abdicating our responsibilities.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: You have not much respect for one of the officers of the House of Commons if you believe that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Apparently my hon. friend, owing to the interesting conversation which he is having with his seatmate, has not heard what I said or what was said by the hon. member for Cariboo. May I say again that the issue is not the integrity of the Prime Minister or the Leader of the Opposition. As the Minister of Transport said, there is no question but that they would make choices which would seem to us to be appropriate choices. Our whole point is the image of this procedure in the eyes of the Canadian public. We feel that this image is not the non-partisan image it ought to be if two of the appointments are made by the leader of political parties.
The hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard wonders why in my amendment I have indicated the categories I have set out, and he had some derogatory remarks to make about provincial chief electoral officers, registrars of vital statistics and surveyors gen-

eral. I suggest that these are people who are versed in the kind of information required for the drawing of the maps which will be needed for the job of redistribution. I suggest that an even stronger argument is that what we are drawing on is experience. The only experience we have had in Canada of boundaries being drawn by impartial commissions is in Manitoba, where that has been done for the entire province, and in Ontario where it has been done for part of the province. In both these cases the people appointed to do this work have been the very kind of people suggested in this amendment. In Manitoba we had the president of the university, the chief justice of the province and the chief electoral officer for Manitoba. In the case of Ontario, as already indicated by the Minister of Transport, they had the chief electoral officer, a judge of one of the high courts and a professor of one of the universities. Surely our experience in this field is a guide that people in these positions can do the job and can do it well.
The hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings seems concerned about putting this kind of responsibility on the chief justice of a province. I find it very difficult to see how he can draw a line and say that it is wrong, that it is something the Minister of Justice should be concerned about when we ask the chief justice of a province to name three members of the commission. Then he says it is perfectly all right for the chief justice to name one of the members, and even to name himself. That is the way the present legislation reads, Mr. Chairman, and that is the way my amendment reads. I submit that if the task of picking the chairman of the commission for a province is a proper responsibility to lay on the chief justice of that province, it is likewise a proper responsibility to ask him to name the other two.
I suggest that this amendment meets the conditions laid down by the Minister of Transport on March 10 when he said that if anyone could come up with a formula which would provide for the appointment of these people on terms that could be set out in the act, such a formula should be considered. I confess that the night he posed the questions to me I found it difficult to answer them at that moment, but I submit that as a result of the discussions we have had since we have come up with a formula that does get away from the appearance of partisanship and does provide categories of people with experience. I submit this is the kind of thing we should do so that we will

go all the way in redistribution and make it a completely non-partisan proposition. I hope that before long there will have been enough discussion about the matter so we can make a decision on it, but I suggest that this amendment does meet the points that the Minister of Transport set out on the 10th of March and that it should be adopted.


Mr. Nielsen:: Will the hon. gentleman permit one question? Does he suggest that individuals in the categories he has listed in his amendment would be completely devoid of any political feelings at all and that this would therefore ensure that no political considerations would be present if such people were appointed to the commissions?


Stanley Howard Knowles: It has been our experience in this country that people who spend part of their lives in highly partisan activity but who are then appointed to positions such as judges do manage to become impartial in their judgments despite their past partisan political activity. I think it is possible to get people of this type to do this job. In this whole discussion I have cited the Manitoba experience. People like to twit us once in a while about political considerations, but look what I am approving. I am approving of a commission which would have on it the chief justice who, when he was in politics, was a Conservative. With regard to the president of the University of Manitoba, those of us in Manitoba know what his politics happen to be.


An hon. Member:: What are they?


Stanley Howard Knowles: He does not belong to our party, and he is not a Conservative. The chief electoral officer of the province has been a civil servant for a long while and I doubt that he has any political connection. Certainly I think the example there answers the hon. member's question, that no matter what political connections people may have had in the past the best chance we have of getting people who will do an impartial job is to choose people in these categories.


Michael Starr: May I ask the hon. member a question? From his own knowledge can he refer us to any commission or board set up by a government in the past where only the chairman was nominated by the government and the chairman was allowed to select the other members of the commission on his own initiative?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I do not know whether there are any such examples, but I do not think
17, 1964
Electoral Boundaries Commission that invalidates this proposition at all. This proposal is that the chief justice name the chairman and that there be a set group from whom he must name the chairman. That set group consists of the judges of the court over which the chief justice presides. Then we give him the authority to name two more commissioners from categories A and B as provided in the amendment. I suggest that this provides sufficient safeguards.
I draw the attention of the hon. member for Ontario to the fact that if it is not possible to make choices from these categories, because people are not available or do not accept, and a choice has to be made outside of these categories, we change the person who shall make the appointments. The appointment is then made by the chief justice of Canada with the concurrence of the representation commissioner. This provision is necessary, of course, because we have to provide for all contingencies.


Mr. Deachman:: Mr. Chairman, I would object to the hon. member's amendment on two grounds. First of all, I think it is overcomplicated. It is like the plans for assembling a scale model of the Cutty Sark. We do not need anything as complicated as that. In the second place, in my opinion his categories, which are one of the complexities, do not provide for the choosing of people who are likely to orient themselves toward a task of this kind. It is hard for me to envisage a surveyor withdrawing his eye from the cross hairs of his telescope to take up this task. I think it would be far better to leave it in the hands of the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister to select people whom they know have dealt with the complexities of an election in the past because there is no more complex organization of voluntary persons in the country. I think this is the best way to let it stand.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, I am very much interested in the debate which has taken place so far this morning, and the indication from members on the government side that they are not fully in accord with the apparent stand taken by the Minister of Transport, who seems to us to be inclined to support this amendment. The Minister of Transport covered the field rather widely a little while ago, and I hope I will have the same latitude from the chair.
I want to express my disappointment with regard to the attitude of the Minister of Transport on this matter. I think members on both

Electoral Boundaries Commission sides of the house have been trying to approach this problem without acrimony and in an endeavour to make a serious study of one of the most important pieces of legislation that has been brought before the house in the time that I have been a member. There is general agreement to change the old method and to do the contentious job of redistribution by means of a commission. As I said the other day, having reached agreement on that important matter we should be prepared to go carefully with regard to some of the other matters that are coincident upon having the work done by a commission.
In his speeches at the resolution stage and on second reading the Minister of Transport put on the record some sentences which were very important and which will have some historic significance as time goes on. He drew our attention this morning to something he said on March 10, and I should like to repeat it. As found on page 743 of Hansard he said:
We do not intend to regard the bills-
He was talking about the two bills at that time.
-as government measures except technically. Because technically they are government measures .. .they are taken up in government time and are introduced by a minister of the crown. However, we feel that the collective wisdom of the house should be brought to bear on this problem and that any good suggestion from any quarter should be incorporated into these measures without any thought of partisan consideration. We will welcome improvements from any quarter of the house.
The minister was quoting at that time from a previous speech he had made and he went on to say:
I want to reiterate that statement.
Then the Leader of the Opposition said:
A most commendable statement.
We all thought it was at the time. The minister said he would welcome improvements from any quarter of the house. At different times as the debate has proceeded he has said that these things will be decided by a vote of the house.
What disturbs me with regard to the Minister of Transport is simply this. Yesterday the hon. member for Bow River and I put forward an argument in favour of a central commission which would have supervision over subcommissions in the provinces. Instead of being favoured with a discourse of half an hour such as the minister gave this morning in regard to the amendment put forward by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, we were, I felt, brushed aside. I

thought that the points we made and put forward in all seriousness last night should have been dealt with as the minister dealt with the amendment now before us. Why did he not say then "These suggestions deserve earnest consideration; let us take time to have another look at them"? Instead of that procedure he gave a short statement, the chairman put the clause to the house, and the clause passed.
Well, that is not the way I thought this particular bill would be considered by the House of Commons. As soon as we start discussing some of these aspects we see articles in the press to the effect that we have certain motives. If we want something done about the tolerance figure, it is because we have some motive in mind. If we want one commission instead of ten, it is because of some partisan political motive.
I have no partisan political motive in connection with my attitude on this subject. Some of the things I said yesterday were contained in a speech I gave over the radio over 12 years ago; they were reported in the Winnipeg Free Press and the Winnipeg Tribune and can be read there. Unfortunately I did not get a chance to put them on Hansard. I have not changed my position with regard to some of these things in 12 years. This attributing of motives to us is one quick way of arousing partisan feeling.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker-


Gordon Minto Churchill: I am not saying that the Minister of Transport has done that at all.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I just wanted to make that clear.


Gordon Minto Churchill: No, no; the Minister of Transport has been fair about this. I hope this situation will continue to prevail. However, in my opinion he has been skating on rather thin ice this morning in the inconclusive way in which he dealt with the amendment which is now before us.
I want to say a word or two about what the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has recently said. I hope if he replies, and uses the phrase he used yesterday, he will explain what he means by it. According to Hansard for yesterday he said that he understood my motive in suggesting one commission instead of ten. I believe the hon. member should explain a statement like that rather than leaving it unexplained to appear as if there were something sinister about it.


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


Gordon Minto Churchill: Yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will he please believe me when I say there was nothing sinister in that suggestion at all? I understood his motive as being one that would tidy things up; I think I used that phrase. I was not suspecting his motive at all when I made that remark.


Gordon Minto Churchill: That was the interpretation I placed upon it, but people reading Hansard might place a different interpretation upon it.
I am not lodging any further complaint.
However, in the course of his remarks this morning in support of his amendment the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre stressed the necessity of presenting an image of impartiality to the Canadian people in connection with this legislation; that we must extract this legislation from partisan politics. He is of the opinion that if the nominations to the commissions are made by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition representing the two major political parties of this country, there will be a suggestion of partisan politics.
I hope that very soon somebody will define partisan politics. We are running into a great deal of criticism with regard to parliament from some uninformed people. We hear a lot in this house about partisan politics, but it is time that phrase was defined.
I believe it is quite wrong for members of this house to object to the clause in the bill under which authority will be given to the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition to make appointments, and to object on the basis that there might be a suggestion of partisan politics. I believe such suggestions create a wrong image of parliament. The people who are making these suggestions about creating a wrong image of parliament should consider the fact that if it is suggested that because the leaders of the two great political parties are given the privilege of making appointments there will be then something a bit sinister about it, then it follows that there is something wrong with everything and you get down to the position where you need to get rid of all political parties and destroy parliament.
We have heard some of these suggestions by people commenting in the news media. In the final analysis these suggestions come down to getting rid of parliament. What do these people want to substitute for parliament? I think members of parliament have
17, 1964
Electoral Boundaries Commission to be careful about this. The Prime Minister of this country, the leader of the Liberal party, has the respect of parliament. The Leader of the Opposition, the leader of the Conservative party in this country, has the respect of parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I did not realize my speech was so earth shaking that it affected the lights of this building.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The road to Damascus.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I feel that these gentlemen have the respect of parliament. We differ and differ vigorously with regard to certain matters, and why not? We are not namby-pambies. The great advantage of parliament is that we have an opportunity to reply. If we had the same opportunity elsewhere we would all be very happy. We have people criticizing us, and if we ever get a reply it is buried on page 36 of the newspaper or something like that. Here you have an opportunity to reply and there is vigorous debate. I can differ with the Minister of Transport every day in this house-


Michael Starr: But you do not.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Yes, I do. About once a week I do differ with him, but I can differ with the Minister of Transport in this house and that does not say I do not have respect for him as a parliamentarian and as a gentleman. We are entitled to differ here-


Stanley Howard Knowles: He might use that in the next election.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I do not mind if he uses it. I have invited him to come out and run against me in Winnipeg, but he seems content to remain in Newfoundland.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I reciprocate the invitation.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Coming back to what I started to say, the members of parliament who criticize what they call partisan political strife are in effect criticizing this institution. They are downgrading it, and they are playing into the hands of the people who want to destroy this institution. I point that out to those who have said things like that in this house.
I disagree quite frequently with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre who, nevertheless, has a great deal of experience in this institution. I believe this is where the hon. member should take thought about what he is doing when he suggests here, for the consumption of people across this country,

Electoral Boundaries Commission that if we give the leader of the Liberal party and the leader of the Conservative party the opportunity to make appointments to this commission we are creating in the minds of the people of Canada an image of partisan politics, and that there is something wrong about it. I think the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre should correct his stand on this. What is required in this country is respect for parliament, and that carries with it respect for the leaders of these two great parties.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Obviously some people in the left hand corner of the chamber have no respect for the leader of the Liberal party or the leader of the Conservative party, but there are millions of people in the country who have, while their supporters are not very numerous. I suggest that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre should revise his thinking on this, rather than lodge the suspicion that if these two gentlemen are given the privilege and the job of appointing people to these commissions, then something underhanded will be done.
I think he is reflecting on our method of government. Even if you do not like the gentlemen concerned, it is better to accept the fact that the people of the country have given them these responsible positions. You support the institution of parliament by so doing, and you support the party system within our parliamentary democracy.


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


Gordon Minto Churchill: Yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Why are we taking the drawing of our constituency boundaries out of the hands of a parliamentary committee and putting it in the hands of an independent commission, something we all support including the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre? Is that downgrading the processes of parliament and saying there is something wrong with parliament?


Gordon Minto Churchill: No, I do not think it is by any means. Parliament in the past has found it an extraordinarily difficult task to draw the boundary divisions in this country, and there are historical incidents when advantage was taken by one party over the other in the drawing of those boundaries. It is agreeable to parliament in this day, as has been mentioned on many occasions, to have this onerous job performed by a body out-
	IJijR

side parliament because we are mixed daily in controversy here, and there is the striving for party advantage at the polls with which I am not in disagreement at all.
As the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings said, everybody in the country should be interested in politics and should belong to a political party. I do not know why we have so many thousands of people who take no interest in politics. It is here in the House of Commons that their future is determined. This is where the decisions are made with regard to war and peace. This is where the decisions are made with regard to economic progress and economic decline; and how people can say "Oh, I am not interested in politics" escapes me completely.
Everybody in the country should belong to a political party and try to get their views advanced through that political party. To stand on the sidelines, to let others carry on and then complain is not good citizenship. Therefore we must remove this phrase of partisan politics from our dialogue if it carries the connotation that there is something terribly wrong about it. There is nothing wrong with it at all if it is not carried to the extreme. It is a conflict of parties in this state having different philosophies of life, and if the people are content to have one party in power at one time and another at a later time, that has been proven to be a better method of governing a democracy than killing off your leaders at different intervals and putting in somebody else.
Having said that, I wish to say that the amendment is absolutely unnecessary. Once again I draw attention to the experience in this field which Great Britain has had for over 20 years. It established four boundary commissions, headed by the Speaker of the House of Commons, supported by the registrar general for England and the director of ordinance survey. That gives three members and then there are two appointees, one by the secretary of state and one by the minister of health. They are both political appointees. Those boundary commissions were set up by the Labour government in 1944-


John Whitney Pickersgill: It was the coalition government.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The coalition government, in 1944, and the act was amended in 1947 and consolidated in 1949. The Labour government had control for a certain period and the Conservative party in England has had control for a certain period. They have not changed the basic factors with regard to
22S9

the boundary commissions, except that in 1958 the government of that day saw fit to remove the registrar general and the director general of ordinance survey from membership on the commissions and make them officers of the commissions, in other words the technical experts. Also in 1958 they named a judge as deputy chairman of each commission.
That is the practice in a country which is politically mature, and both the Labour party and the Conservative party have agreed with that method. They have been content to have members of the boundary commissions appointed by the government of the day. Why do we have to withdraw from a system like that which has proved itself successful in England? Why do we have to get this watered down version that is proposed in the amendment put forward by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre?


John Whitney Pickersgill: So that it will be on record at this point, will the hon. gentleman permit me to ask him if he would feel it satisfactory if, by the terms of this bill, the other two members were appointed by the government of the day?


Gordon Minto Churchill: It is not suggested in this bill and I am not suggesting it now. Frankly I do not think it would make a great deal of difference, because most people appointed to responsible positions in this country conduct themselves in a responsible fashion. I know the Minister of Transport just threw that in as a little diversion.


John Whitney Pickersgill: No. The hon. gentleman had commended the British practice where two of the commissioners are appointed by ministers of the crown.


Gordon Minto Churchill: My point was not so much that they are appointed by the government as that they are appointed by political parties, which is the objection raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, but I like the present provision in the bill whereby the prime minister and the leader of the opposition have the power of appointment.


The Deputy Chairman:: Order. It being one o'clock I do now leave the chair.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: In reference to the debate this morning I wish to make it very clear
17, 1964
Electoral Boundaries Commission that I am against the amendment. I am sure the minister expected that I would be against it. I want to tell the committee why I am against it. In the second place I wish to refer to the question I posed to the minister before the recess. He circumvented it so well and expressed himself in so many words that unless I read, tomorrow, what he said I am sure I shall not be able to comprehend him, and neither would anyone else. And even then I doubt whether we shall be able to understand him.
As to the amendment, I should like to congratulate the two supporters of the government, in particular the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard and I should like to incorporate the argument they put forward. First of all, let us remember we are asking the chief justice, under this amendment, to make certain appointments to the commission from among certain classes of people. Now the chief justice of a province is the highest judge in that province. Not only is he head of the courts but he is head of the judiciary in the province. He is appointed to that position not only because he is learned in the law but because he is a man of many parts, able to get along with his brother judges and with people generally; a man with experience of public relations, able to understand humanity and its workings. One of the fundamental things about the judiciary is that it must at all times maintain its independence. It must be completely independent of politics. It must be above prejudice. To ask a chief justice to make certain appointments which are bound to be somewhat political in their nature, whether we like it or not, is to put him in the position of making political appointments. We are shirking our responsibility, if we do so-either our responsibility for setting out clearly in the statute who we want to appoint, or the responsibility for making the appointments ourselves. In Canada the judiciary has been above reproach. The traditions of our bench have no doubt come down the ages from Britain and the common law of the Anglo-Saxons. It is on this basis that I say we should not place the chief justice of any province in the position contemplated by the amendment.
In the second place, we are lucky to have in Canada at this time-and I see him seated in the gallery, now-one of the most able chief electoral officers it would be possible to find.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.

Electoral Boundaries Commission


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: In my personal association with him I have always found, him very cooperative, whether in correspondence or in personal discussion. But let us remember- and this goes to the root of the amendment and of the bill itself-that if we give too much authority to one person in such a matter as this we could arrive at the rule of people, not the rule of law. As long as we have the services of the gentleman in question we have, probably, built-in safeguards. But I pose this question to the Liberals- and I know they would not want this to happen: Supposing there were a Conservative government in power in the future, and supposing in the near future there was to be a redistribution, and supposing the chief electoral officer was newly appointed, and supposing there was some lobbying between a Conservative minister and that chief electoral officer, what position would they take? I know no Conservative minister would engage in such a thing, but my point remains that we must always remember we are preparing law for the future.
I say that in this bill-and the amendment makes it worse-we are putting too much responsibility on one man. The minister said yesterday that if there were any difficulty we could refer it to the chief electoral officer of Canada. That is how we were to have the same procedure in each of the ten commissions. I am still not satisfied, and the position is only made worse by the amendment. Who is the boss of these ten commissions? I hope the minister keeps an open mind on that, too. Even though a number of sections have been passed very quickly-and the hon. gentleman's supporters said "carried", "carried" let us not hurry too quickly in this regard because we are dealing with something which will affect the future; and once law and precedent have been established they are most difficult to undo, it seems, even through parliament.
I certainly feel we are placing too much responsibility in the hands of the chief justice. As to the categories of people named in the amendment, I have nothing against the staffs of universities. But this proposal forces a chief justice to say: I must choose someone from a particular staff. I think that when we are dealing with a federal redistribution of constituencies we should look for personnel who are on a Canadian, a federal level. We should not now set up a commission on which we have provincial representatives, such as the provincial electoral officer, whoever he may be. To my mind his job is

to look after the constituencies in a provincial matter. Why bring him into the picture on a federal redistribution; why make him an officer? We are supposed to be setting up an independent body, and I do not think this gentleman, whoever he may be, could be considered to be independent. There may be cases where it will work very well, but there could be the exception to the rule and, once again, you may be having the rule of people and not the rule of law. The only protection we have in so far as concerns making this an independent body is that we can spell out in the law what we are going to do; otherwise people in the future, or people now, may cause a miscarriage of justice.
I think the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre said something this morning to the effect that justice must seem to be done. I do not think justice should seem to be done; justice should be done. This is important. You cannot have an independent body unless the law is such that the jurisdiction is spelled out very carefully so there will not be any miscarriage of justice.
The second point I want to deal with is this. I may be getting into a field of some sensitivity here. I do not think I have ever been one of those, and I hope I never will be, to hurl reproaches or recriminations at any one person; but I say frankly to the minister that if he had been really fair this morning-I was going to use the word "honest", but that would probably be unparliamentary because it would impute motives -he would have told us that as early as last night he had made up his mind that he was going to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. In fact, I sometimes wonder as I see the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre sparring away with the minister, why they just spar here in the debating chamber, because they are really sleeping in the same bed when it comes to negotiating on this sort of thing.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I am not so sure that I haven't hit the nail right on the head, because listening to the minister this morning you never heard so much padding in your life. There is only one other minister who can speak like that, and now we have two of them in the house who talk in this way. When I asked a question he said, "You are interrupting and putting me off my remarks". He did everything but answer the question. This morning the minister was padding away, in order to change his mind, and so he could

explain to the members of this house, to Canadians at large and to the caucus of his party when it meets that he had changed his mind. The reason he has changed his mind is that he has been sold a bill of goods by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. In fact, I do not think they were even sold a bill of goods; they have been in partnership on the whole thing right from the beginning.


An hon. Member:: Shame.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Somebody yelled, "Shame", and my answer to that is, it is a shame because it is going to usurp the workings and functions of this house. This is not my personal opinion; I have talked to a great many people about this, as I told you this morning. There is a feeling in this house that there is a great deal of justification for what I have said. If there is, I think the minister should clear up this matter because they have a long session ahead of them; there are some very tedious problems to be debated, and if the minister undermines the confidence of this house, as the person who takes responsibility on that side of the house, because many of us believe he is more powerful on that side of the house than the Prime Minister himself-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the hon. gentleman would permit me to ask him a question. Do I understand from what the hon. gentleman has just said that his conduct on any other measure before the house would be influenced in any way; that his judgment would be affected in any way by anything that happens with regard to this bill?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I am very happy to answer that question, Mr. Chairman. No, that is not my point and I am sorry the minister mentioned it. Here is my point.


An hon. Member:: Ah.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: You may say "Ah", but because of the conduct of the minister at this moment we will always place him in that category and will feel he is guilty of this type of conduct on every occasion; and this will undermine the very workings of this house- that is my answer to the minister. I would like to read what he said. What is the justification for the charge I have made? Let us read the very words used by the minister himself, which are to be found on page 741 of Hansard, the fourth paragraph of the right
17, 1964
Electoral Boundaries Commission hand column, if anybody else wants to follow them:
After various other possibilities were considered-
This is dealing with this problem:
-the government-*
He did not say himself; he said the government, and that means, if anything, to me, the cabinet.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is right.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I continue:
-the government finally agreed to put in the bill the suggestion that the chief justice of the province should nominate the chairman from a member of his court; that the leader of the government, the Prime Minister, should nominate one of the members of the commission; and that the Leader of the Opposition, who is an officer of parliament, should nominate the other.
He said "after they gave it some consideration". After they gave it a year's consideration. He said he has been making studies of what has gone on in Australia, Great Britain and other countries-probably the United States, although I do not know how they work redistribution down there. But after giving it that kind of consideration they came to this conclusion. He no doubt led the cabinet in this regard. I know he cannot disclose what goes on at cabinet meetings, but he as the Minister of Transport is the spokesman, the one they know has the special skill to steer the ship of state and this bill through this parliament. He has been chosen by the grand old Liberal party to do this. He was no doubt steering the cabinet. No doubt he said, "Don't worry about it; Pick will do it"; and Pick was supposed to do it because the government chose him to do the job.


Mr. MacEwan:: They got a "Pick" in a poke.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: They then considered the matter. He left it out very carefully at the time of the resolution-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Second reading.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Second reading; I am
glad to be corrected in that regard. He left this out, either intentionally or unintentionally. I want to be fair to him but I do not think I will be quite as charitable as was the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre. Perhaps he is more sophisticated because he has been here longer than I have. Instead of sweeping these things under the table I say to you, sir, that you have to make up your mind. You made the statement this morning that we would have time for consideration in this regard. The consideration

Electoral Boundaries Commission you meant was not from this side of the house; it was to worry whether you could get the whip to whip these boys into shape and get them to do something that the government had approved some months ago.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, the hon. gentleman was kind enough to say that he wanted to be fair. I wish he would read the sentence that begins at the bottom of the page. I refer to the last sentence on the page beginning, "I do not hesitate to say". That is what I said, and I would ask the hon. gentleman to read those words.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: All right, I will read it all so there will not be any question about it. Mind you, there is always a question when you are reading the words of this distinguished and illustrious minister:
I say unreservedly that I have every confidence that no matter who occupies those offices, any person who becomes leader of the opposition in the parliament of our country-[DOT]
That means he has confidence in Mr. Dief-enbaker or any other future leader of the opposition, of whichever party-


James Edgar Walker: Or yourself.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: That is right; you are absolutely correct. That is the nicest thing that has been said to me all day.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Do you want to withdraw?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I am quite certain that the same tactics as have been used-I do not want to go off on a tangent-on others will be used on me, and I do not know whether I want to lie on that bed:
-or prime minister in the parliament of our country would take this responsibility seriously and make the kind of nominations that all of us would feel were appropriate under the circumstances.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is the next sentence that I should like the hon. member to read.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I know, and I am coming to that. Don't get excited.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am just getting intoxicated by my own words.


An hon. Member:: That is not unusual.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I read a speech made by this minister four years ago, and when I read it I was drunk.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I continue:
I do not hesitate to say that with respect to this provision or with respect to any other method which commends itself to the house or

to a majority of the house and which seems likely to produce as fair and effective a result, the government will be quite prepared in committee to consider on its merits any amendments-
That is, we were going to consider them in committee.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is where we are now.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: But they considered it before we reached the committee stage; they had made up their minds. So we might as well talk for days, or stop talking because the minister has made up his mind. If he was wanting to be fair this afternoon he would stand up and say that he had already made up his mind because he is in partnership with the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre.


Some hon. Member:: Oh, oh.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I am sorry, I mean Winnipeg North Centre. I correct that.


Mr. Hellyer:: You do not even know in which direction they are.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I always have trouble with south centre and north centre, but I certainly meant north centre there.
Now, I know that the minister always puts safeguards in his phrases, and he did that when he said he would do it in committee. He thought that something might happen and that he had better put in one of his safeguards in the last sentence of one of his paragraphs. He intended that the clause in the bill would stand and to lead the Conservative party, the official opposition, to believe that he would support the official opposition and the government throughout on that particular clause, making no change. This may be imputing motives, but I think that there may be some ulterior motives in this respect. Because if we are to have an independent commission I think we will have a better chance to achieve it under the old clause than under the new. I can see why they want it, because to date there is still the provincial government of Saskatchewan to be considered. Whether they call themselves the C.C.F. or the New Democratic party they are the same, because in their ballots they include both. It is a catch-all phrase for the party.
I know that on the national level we do endeavour to get independent people in the civil service. I do not know what goes on in all the provinces, but perhaps there is not quite so much care taken in this regard. We have trouble with our negotiations; and surely we have enough as it is, with the contributory pension plan and various other plans. So let

us keep it on a federal level and appoint people to the commissions from the federal level. I re-emphasize once more that a judge is an officer of the court, that a clerk is an officer of the court and that a barrister is an officer of the court. Although we forget this on many occasions, we in the House of Commons are officers of the House of Commons. And above all, owing to our unique parliamentary system which has been adapted from the British system, the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition are key officers of the House of Commons.
The minister himself says that he has absolute confidence in the men now occupying those places and the men who may occupy them in the future. Keep the judiciary out of politics; but I do not think you will keep politics completely out of any commission. Let us make it an independent commission by law. Instead of making it a rule of people, let us make it a rule of law.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Chairman, while the hon. member for Bow River was creating and then dissolving partnerships between the Minister of Transport and either the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre or the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, I was wondering about the first question which he put to the committee, as to whether or not the designation of the chief justice of the province was likely to be interpreted as placing the chief justice in a situation to act in a political fashion.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I did not suggest that he would act in any political fashion.


Guy Favreau: No, but that it might be interpreted as such.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I did not even go that far.


Guy Favreau: I am glad that the hon. member for Bow River admits that he did not go that far and did not intend to go that far, because as far as I am concerned, if this amendment is accepted-and I shall give my views on it in a few moments-the very fact that parliament will have designated the chief justice of a province for the purpose of choosing the officers of these commissions is, in my view, an indication and clear proof of the full confidence of parliament in the objectivity and lack of partisanship, to the judicial sense, of these persons who hold so high an office.
I think it would be a great compliment on the part of people engaged in politics, as we all are here, to rely on the chief justices of the provinces to make appointments which
17, 1964	2303
Electoral Boundaries Commission otherwise, even if we attempted to act in the most unpartisan and objective fashion, might be deemed by other people to be tainted with political considerations. It is precisely for this reason that in cases where certain difficulties between, for example, unions and employers have come to the point where they are almost insoluble that very often the confidence in the objectivity of the judiciary which parliament has prompts government to appoint one of our justices to solve the difficulty or controversy in question. I think it is a recognition of the complete independence of the judiciary when we leave it to them to perform such functions. In my view, this measure would remove all politics and political considerations from the appointment of the persons concerned.
A few minutes ago the hon. member for Bow River made reference to the fact that with regard to this amendment the Minister of Transport and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre might have been sleeping in the same bed. But all beds set aside, and duly noting that I was not here yesterday during the discussion and that therefore I am not aware of any position taken on the point, if I were asked my own view on the matter and were asked to choose between the formula which we the government have approved in clause 6 of the bill presented to this house and that which is reflected in the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, I would choose the amendment.
My view is that this would remove all political connotations from the appointments which are to be made, and in its application would render the act completely objective and free of all controversy.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Would the minister permit a question. May I ask him whether he has lost confidence in the Prime Minister of this country and in the Leader of the Opposition, when he talks of removing all political connotations?


Guy Favreau: I must say one thing, and that is that my confidence in the Prime Minister of this country has never been greater than it presently is, and the more we go on the more do I find extraordinary and wonderful justification to continue in my confidence.


Mr. Lambert:: Why don't you get down to the office of the Prime Minister?


Guy Favreau: But I must come back to one thing which has been said, namely that

Electoral Boundaries Commission to the extent there is any possibility oi removing any doubt as to the permanent objectivity of certain decisions, we should act in a way to remove such doubt.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Who is in doubt?


Guy Favreau: I agree with the words
uttered by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre to the effect that not only must justice be done, which we know would be done if the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition appointed those people, but throughout the country it must be apparent and obvious that justice is being done, and this is precisely what this type of amendment will do. Because I am a new politician and still quite earnest in this field, I take this opportunity to note how useful are these discussions in committee. I think it is all to the credit of parliament and our parliamentary institutions that we should be able, in the way that we do, to exchange ideas and suggestions and to agree to accept suggestions emanating from any party on the occasions of these discussions in committee. These discussions go a long way toward asserting what we are trying to assert continuously, the triumph of democracy and the reflection of the deep thinking of all the people of the country in our legislation.
If an amendment such as the one which has been suggested is accepted I think we will have gone a long way in that direction. It does not mean that the government was wrong. The government suggested a formula which it thought was right. One which in my view is better and more flexible is now suggested, and there is no reason why we should refuse it. I know the vote will be completely free. I am speaking for myself at present but these are my views. If the amendment should be accepted I would suggest to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that he might want to introduce certain amendments in it. For instance, instead of limiting the power to appoint or to choose to the chief justice of the province I think it might be appropriate if there were a reference also either to the associate chief justice, a position which exists in certain provinces, or to the acting chief justice so as not to limit the appointment power at any given time. When appointments are to be made the chief justice might be absent or sick or incapacitated for some reason.
Second, may I suggest that if the amendment should be accepted it should also be modified so as to provide for the choice to be made not only from the court over which

the chief justice of the province presides, which is usually the court of appeal, but also from any court of superior jurisdiction with authority within the province. For instance, in the province of Quebec, as is the case in Ontario and most other provinces, the chief justice of the province is the chief justice of the court of appeal. The number of judges of these courts is limited to six or seven or eight. If the power to choose were widened to allow the chief justice to choose from among the justices of any court of superior jurisdiction within the province you would have a much broader field from which to choose. There might be a provision in the latter case, of course, for the chief justice of the province to consult with the chief justice of any such court of superior jurisdiction from whom a judge would be chosen. These are my views and they are very respectfully submitted to the committee.


Norman Platt Lambert: Mr. Chairman, we have heard a delightful exercise in tightrope walking by the Minister of Justice in trying to establish some kind of logic in respect of the government's, volte-face in this regard. I say this because we know what their position was, and their stand was such that the Minister of Transport even went to the extent of having the bill printed a second time with these provisions. Now we have certain amendments put forward by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and I want to consider them in some detail. I do so because I think there is some defect, particularly in subparagraph (a), in that those named are all provincial officials. How on earth we can direct the chief justice of a province to pick one of a number of judges of his court I do not know.


An hon. Member:: Require.


Norman Platt Lambert: Definitely. It is a named class. Later on we see that there can be no more than one from the class enumerated in paragraph (b), so in the case where a provincial government prohibits any of its officials from assuming the duties under paragraph (a) we then have a direction that the chief justice may pick anyone that he sees fit. Why not say so simply in the first place? To me subparagraph (a), with the restrictions imposed upon it by the proviso in subparagraph (b), is nonsense, and really what you have is a direction that the chief justice may pick anyone.
After all, in some of the provinces the chief electoral officer is the clerk of the legislative assembly and it is quite apparent to me that many provincial governments will not have the clerk of their legislative assembly involved

in the determination of the representation in this house. The surveyor general of the registrar of vital statistics are again provincial officials. They may or may not exist under those titles, but there are holders of similar offices. But a further point arises. If a province refuses to let any of these officials act in this regard then the chief justice may pick anyone.
In any event, I come back to the argument put forward so ably by my colleague, the hon. member for Bow River. The Minister of Justice has referred to the chief justice of the province, the associate chief justice-I think he has the province of Quebec in mind -and the acting chief justice. Why pitchfork them into the arena of the representation of the House of Commons? This is not a duty envisaged in the appointment of a chief justice. All too often we have heard that the role of the judges of this country should be limited more and more to the courts. When the Conservatives were in power I recall hearing hon. members on the opposite side saying that we were adding more and more to the duties of justices. It will be interesting to see how they justify this departure from the principle they insisted on before.
In the event that there is inability on the part of the chief justice of the province to complete nominating the representatives of the commission, then we bring in the chief justice of Canada. I must say that I find it somewhat strange that the chief justice, the senior puisne judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, should be ultimately in the position of naming anyone he may wish. This is what is envisaged in this legislation as a possibility, and if you are going to provide for it as a possibility you must accept it as a justifiable one. I suggest to hon. members that this should not be the case.
Turning to the qualifications of the third member I find the clause reads,
(b) the president or other similar officer of or a member of the faculty of, a university, college-
What is meant by "college"? Is it a junior college?
-or other educational institutions providing courses at a post-secondary school level in the province;
Does this mean an instructor, an assistant professor or some minor member of the staff? After all, the provision is there. We know very well that a number of people on the staffs of universities do hold strong, vocal political views. This clause of so-called political purity, as advanced by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, therefore falls to the ground If he seeks to justify the amendment he is
Electoral Boundaries Commission making by removing any question of partisanship by changing the provisions of the legislation in connection with nomination by the Prime Minister.
I would say to the Minister of Justice that in discussing the qualifications, capabilities or impartiality of the Prime Minister or the Leader of the Opposition, one must not consider the personalities of the right hon. gentlemen who are now occupying those positions. If you do this, you may be merely legislating for the next five years. One must consider the impartiality and responsibility of the holder of the office. I feel, therefore, that his rather passionate exhortation on the responsibility, ability and so forth of the present Prime Minister was not really germane to the discussion we are having today.
I did not have the privilege of hearing the Minister of Transport say why he had now changed his mind. He had been most eloquent, most persuasive. The Minister of Transport seemed to be in a very conciliatory mood during the previous session of parliament when he was discussing the proposed legislation. I thought at the time I might suggest other types of nominees, but there were certain difficulties. I did not agree with the idea of ten provincial commissions because I thought one commission divided into subcommittees could do the job just as well, and we would not have nearly all this difficulty. At that time the minister was in a very conciliatory mood, and I would suggest this is one more proof that when he adopts this attitude we must be more than ever on our guard because we will have a quick reversal of position. Perhaps since he has become Minister of Transport he has learned to shift gears very rapidly and can go into reverse gear very quickly. This is certainly a case where the Minister of Transport, if he now accepts the proposed amendment by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre-


John Whitney Pickersgill: North Centre.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I see no similarity between the two members.


Norman Platt Lambert: -North Centre, will have made a quick shift. I do find it extremely difficult to see any logic in the arguments that are said to be advanced by the Minister of Transport when he shifts from one position to the other. After all, the government must take its responsibility, not lightly, when it advances a bill. They should not say, "All right, here is our bill; we will amend it here, there and everywhere." As the minister knows, there are limitations to the amendments to bills. Are we to get into a position

Electoral Boundaries Commission where this bill is going to be amended out of any similarity with the bill that was originally introduced? The government must have assumed its responsibilities with due regard for the consequences, and having done so it must stand by the principle it has enunciated in the bill. I am quite interested, therefore, in ascertaining why there is now all this change.


Mr. Brewin:: I do want to comment on the remarks we have just heard from the hon. member for Edmonton West. It would seem to me very reasonable for an opposition party to welcome what is called a shift or a volte-face on the part of the government. I, for one, would like to commend the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Transport for being willing to concede it is possible their original ideas could be improved upon. So far as I am concerned, that is the function of the committee. Why they should be castigated for doing what is sensible, doing what is consistent with the privileges of the members of this house, I do not understand.
Furthermore, I want to say to the hon. member for Edmonton West that his remarks illustrated to me the less attractive features of the profession which he and I both grace. In other words, he produced a skein of so-called logic which really had no practical sense in it at all. I know this is part of the function of my profession from time to time, but I only hope that the members of this house-I am sure they are-are sufficiently intelligent not to be taken in by these appeals to this-well, I was going to call it phony legal sort of logic.


Norman Platt Lambert: Will the hon. member wear his own sack cloth and ashes?


Francis Andrew Brewin: With regard to the objections that were suggested, first of all he said this would be imposing a heavy responsibility on the chief justice. The most famous judges in England, the lord chancellors, have had wide powers of appointment in all sorts of fields.
Those whom we want for these jobs are persons highly qualified by their judicial knowledge, gained through the discharge of their non-partisan duties. Who better are there to do these jobs than the chief justices nominated here?
It is sometimes true, as the hon. member has said, that legislatures impose unreasonable tasks on the courts, but surely no one suggests that the making of this particular appointment is going to tax the faculties of our chief justices beyond endurance. In my own view, knowing some of them, they will

probably be very happy to have this incursion into the field of appointment in such an interesting realm.
It is always easy to find difficulties; and instead of worrying too much about the difficulties suggested by the hon. member for Edmonton West, I think the changes suggested by the Minister of Justice, if my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre accepts them, and I suspect he will, should be adopted. The amendment is a definite improvement and I commend the government for its willingness to accept it.


Mr. More:: I only wish to take part briefly once more in this debate. I am not going to hold anybody in suspense. I shall tell you right now I will not support the amendment. It will not take me as many words on Hansard to make my position unclear as it did the Minister of Transport this morning, because on whatever he said anyone could draw his own conclusion.
Perhaps that criticism is welcome to him. I am new in this field and I might adopt some of his tactics if I wanted to stay, but I do not feel in that mood today. I speak only for myself and on a non-partisan basis. The amendment has brought forth violent discussion and I cannot agree with it.
In spite of what the Minister of Justice has said I think by adopting the amendment we would put our chief justices into a position where, though acting to the best of their knowledge, judgment and courage, they would be subjected to criticism that might reflect on the judiciary as a whole. I have great respect for our judiciary, as I believe do all the people generally, and we have enough attacks on our institutions of democracy without throwing the members of the judiciary into a position where they might be open to a lot of criticism.
Having regard to the background of the members of the judiciary, I have always felt they were political. Lawyers have a special adaptation to active politics, and in most cases members of the judiciary have been appointed by the governments of the day because they were active in politics, and probably were friendly to the government of the day. However, that does not happen to be the case with regard to the appointment of the chief justice of Saskatchewan. Under the Conservative government a Liberal appointee was elevated to that high position, and I have not heard criticism of that action from anywhere in this party. This man had the ability required, and his associates and the party generally agreed with his appointment.

I will not support the amendment because I see in it a pitfall and an opening for criticism of the judiciary.
Another reason for my opposition to the amendment is that in spite of the good intentions of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, I have no knowledge of the feelings of the public with regard to the present provisions of the bill, and that they will have doubts if the commission is not removed from politics. The hon. member has produced no evidence to that effect, and I believe this is a figment of his imagination that suits his own purpose.
I decry the innuendo and insinuation contained in what has been said in support of the amendment, and in the amendment itself, that here in the highest tribunal in the land there is an implied reflection that the prime minister and the leader of the opposition, acting in a responsible manner as officers of the house, would not do a proper job. I do not have any of these doubts. They deserve our respect, and we should not do anything that would add to the widespread criticism of the operations of parliament.
I read the speech which the Minister of Transport made outside the house and I say this kindly, that I think he became a party to the widespread criticism of the house. Yet he usually is one who is most busy in the debates, hurling charges back and forth, and appears to take a delight in them. When I came in here as a new member I was surprised to look across the aisle and see mature members of the house acting in a manner which I would not choose to follow. If I did, I do not think I would gain much respect from my constituency, the country and the house.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Would the hon. member permit a question? Did I hear correctly that he referred to the Minister of Transport as the spiritual leader of the house?


Kenneth Hamill (Ken) More: Well, he puts a lot of spirit into it. He is not always rising to speak, in fact sometimes he is sitting down. He started off rather unkindly in his reply to the hon. member for Bow River, but quickly caught himself, knowing that several times he himself has interrupted much more than the hon. member for Bow River.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am not as good at it.


Kenneth Hamill (Ken) More: You are very good at it; I give you full credit. Nothing should be said in this debate that would reflect on the operations and the officers of the house, and we 20220-147
17, 1364
Electoral Boundaries Commission should do nothing that would leave the way open for criticisms which would do injury to our courts of law. On this basis I am not prepared to support the amendment.


Mr. Pugh:: After listening to the hon. member for Regina City I shall begin exactly the same way and say I definitely am not in favour of the amendment. My reasons run parallel to those of other hon. members who have expressed themselves against it. There seems to be a lot of worry about imposing this extra work on the chief justice, but I do not think it is a question of work. It is a straight political matter that should not be put in any chief justice's hand. If he were choosing among his own justices for one appointment, that is all right. I would go so far as to agree with that; but when he is going to step down and choose from other categories of people, that is going too far. No chief justice should be put in that position. Any chief justice could exercise the power properly and do the job admirably, but I still maintain he should not be placed in that position.
The amendment outlines the categories of people and says the choice must be made from:
(a) the chief electoral officer, the surveyor-general or the registrar of vital statistics of the province or the holder of any similar office in the province;
Then there is an additional category. But why pick out these people? They are no doubt good civil servants, but in every province, as between one province and another, there is bound to be divergence. The point has also been made, and I think it is well taken, that in any of the provinces there might be a restriction imposed. I do not believe any government would really want its people to be placed in the position contemplated by the amendment. Then we have university presidents from among whom the selection may be made and, after that, anyone in a number of positions. It is here, it occurs to me, we would run into real trouble, because in many of the provinces members of the commission would be chosen from that last category. If a chief justice had to pull someone out of a hat he could do it admirably, no doubt, but I do not think he should be put into that position.
It is somewhat extraordinary to me that the Liberals should consider accepting the suggestion made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre to change the methods of the appointments. The suggestion behind the amendment is that the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition are two

Electoral Boundaries Commission politicians only. I resent that suggestion and I feel it is misleading. I think the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition of the day are more than political heads. They have a responsibility to the people and to the House of Commons. They have worked their way up, and are responsible men. In addition, there is an overriding factor: They are officers of this house and as such they hold a responsibility which is not lightly assumed. Before we even think of changing the arrangements now contemplated we should ask ourselves what improvement could be brought about by placing the chief justice in the position of naming these two appointees. I believe one would get better appointments from the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. Let us remember that the chief justice is already appointing the chairman from among his own judges. For these reasons I cannot support the amendment.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I shall not yield to the temptation to reply again to some of the arguments which have been put forward, but I think that one or two points made by the Minister of Justice do call for comment.
The hon. gentleman raised two questions of detail concerning my amendment. If I may take the second one first, he said he wondered whether the category from which the chairman of each commission was to be drawn should not be enlarged. May I point out to him and to the other members on the government side that in making the suggestion that-
-the chairman of the commission for a province shall be appointed by the chief justice of the province from among the judges of the court over which he presides-
-the words I used are exactly the opening words of clause 6(1) of the bill which the government has presented to us. In other words, I did not alter in my amendment the arrangements for appointing the chairman. So if the Minister of Justice thinks that this provision should be enlarged I suggest he should do something about it himself.
The hon. member for Edmonton West says he got some inspiration from the hon. member for Bow River. That is good. Maybe we can make an all-party deal out of this, yet. I would be happy to agree to an amendment, or subamendment to my own amendment, along the lines indicated by the hon. gentleman if I could do so by unanimous consent, though it seems to me that since there is not unanimous consent to the amendment it might not be possible to secure agreement for making an alteration. But if an amendment

were to be proposed in the first few lines, those lines having been taken from the government bill as it stands, I would be happy to have them changed either by altering my amendment, with unanimous consent, or by the minister proposing a subamendment to which I would be glad to agree.
The other question the minister raised was whether or not authority to make the appointments should be given not only to a chief justice of a province but in some cases to an acting chief justice or an associate chief justice. I cannot see that this is necessary, though I bow to the wisdom of the hon. gentleman in this matter. In the amendment which I have put forward provision is made for the contingency of there not being a chief justice to carry out the functions proposed, so I do not think there is much validity to the objection the minister has raised. As to the other point, it is up to him of course to decide whether or not the government's own plan for the appointment of the chairman should be altered.


Mr. Nugent:: I should like to say a few words at this point. At first glance, the amendment moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre may seem to have a little merit. I am sure that if one does not think deeply about it the suggestion that the matter should be removed still further from politics is one which seems to be in keeping with the general feeling of the committee, that we should as far as possible remove the question of electoral boundaries from political machinations.
However, I wonder whether the hon. member really believes that his method is likely to achieve the desired effect. I should not have thought it would be necessary to remind the hon. member that judges in the provinces are usually political appointments, that when they are promoted to the office of chief justice it is usually a political appointment and that no matter how long they may have been on the bench and no matter how nobly they may strive to become non-partisan, for most of them it is almost impossible to erase their backgrounds from their minds. It would be almost impossible for them to take away from their judgment and experience the fact that many of their friendships have been formed over long years of political partisanship. When their duties involve a question dealing, as it does, with electoral boundaries, it would be humanly impossible not to think that in any appointments which were made the chief justice of a province must, almost certainly, reflect the political background which, as a public official-


Mr. Winch:: Is the hon. member questioning the integrity of the justices of Canada?


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: I am sure that if the hon. member for Vancouver East will hear me out and, indeed, if he had been patient enough to listen to exactly what I was saying rather than try to misread it, or mishear it, he would not be under any such misapprehension. For the education of that hon. member I will try to review briefly what I was just saying.


An hon. Member:: Dispense.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: I was saying that no matter how well intentioned the chief justice is, no matter how long his experience on the bench, no matter how judicial he may have become in his outlook, and no matter how objective he tries to be, it is a fact that he has a political background. I suggest it is only human, when the chief justice is looking over the possible candidates for such an appointment, that those of his acquaintanceship are likely to be those of the same political background as himself. In fact, I cannot conceive of the type of people, the calibre of people who would be required to serve on these commissions not having had considerable experience in public affairs. Certainly I think all members of this house would judge their competence on the fact that potential candidates had gained some experience in political affairs, had taken at least that much interest in the government of their country that they would likely have affiliated themselves with one political party or another.
This is not suggesting that the judges are unfair or that they are not honest. It is, I submit, no reflection in any way on their character, their integrity or on the manner in which they would attempt to carry out their duties. But I do suggest to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that he has deluded himself if he feels that this method is going to remove completely the political flavour. I suggest that it is impossible, bearing in mind that environment which pervades in most localities and the fact that public spirited, public minded men do take an active interest in politics, to avoid a political flavour being introduced in this respect. Personal knowledge of the qualities of the people who might be available for the job would be a factor which anyone would take into consideration when making an appointment, and an appointment made by the chief justice of the province would likely be someone of the party which originally appointed him; would likely be from among that circle of acquaintances that 20220-1474
17. 1964
Electoral Boundaries Commission he knows best and in whom he has the most confidence. 1 suggest that-


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. member a question at this very point? Is the hon. member suggesting that an appointment to this particular job of redistribution would be more political if made by a chief justice, or a justice, than if made by a prime minister or leader of the opposition?


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: I will come to that point, Mr. Chairman. I want first to put in perspective the amount of non-partisanship there would be; or, to put it another way, to try to tell the committee why I think that merely because the appointment would be made by a chief justice is no guarantee that it would be entirely devoid of political character. As I say, acting with the utmost honesty, taking his duty as seriously as he could and trying to be as fair and unbiased as he could, the natural factors that would influence him in regard to this appointment would show a political tinge simply because he is going to appoint those people he knows to have the ability; he is going to appoint people he knows to have taken an interested part in the country's affairs. I say this will be so simply because the majority of those people with whom he is most closely acquainted and of whom he has most experience will have the same political background as himself. The odds are going to be that if he is a Conservative chief justice his appointments will most likely be Conservatives, and if he is a Liberal, his appointments will most likely be Liberals.
I say that the pressure will be-not the political pressure but the pressure of his background-his knowledge of people, and his circle of acquaintances will put the odds this way. How the hon. member for Vancouver East can suggest that by pointing out this fact I am in any way making light of judges or impugning their honesty or integrity, I cannot understand. Certainly we all know human behaviour. There are certain psychological pressures; there are certain factors which influence judgment and we must be realistic enough to recognize this fact. I am not saying it would be impossible, by any means, to avoid this. I am sure, from the judges and chief justices I know, that these gentlemen, especially after a few years on the bench, spend most of their years trying to learn to be really judicial, trying to block bias and prejudice from their minds. They have much experience in overcoming friendships with barristers and old acquaintances in cases with which they have to deal.

Electoral Boundaries Commission Also, those people are the first to admit to me that no matter how long they serve, no matter how hard they strive, they find it impossible to overcome completely this tendency.
I submit, Mr. Chairman, that the chief justice who is going to have to make these appointments will be quite as well aware of these tendencies as I am. I submit that it is going to place him in a very difficult and awkward position. I believe that the natural reaction of the chief justice in selecting his appointments will be, knowing that his circle is limited and knowing that he might be tempted because of his background, etc., to make the error of putting in people who are politically partisan in respect of one party, to attempt as an honest man to overcome this by consciously striving to put on the commission a Liberal and a Conservative. In other words I believe-and I could be in error, but I do have some experience with judges and am acquainted with them and the way in which their minds work-and I have been quite close to some of them for a long time and have had many opportunities to hear them expound the difficulties of trying to keep judicial-I believe that judges are very practical people, and that if the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre had a little more experience of the courts and our judges he would know, or suspect at least, that in order to make certain they are being fair, to make certain they are not unconsciously prejudiced to one side or the other, would probably admit to themselves that the political pressure is on one side and that the only way to balance it is to make sure that they appoint one whom they know to be a Liberal and another whom they know to be a Conservative.
I suggest this with much sincerity to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. In this way I think a judge will believe he has discharged his duty to be neutral by making two such appointments. He would appoint a very capable man from each party, who would have the effect of cancelling each other out, and would create much more confidence in the neutrality of the appointees than would be the case, were they merely selected from the group suggested by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.
If my reasoning in this regard is not folly we are faced with the fact that the amendment amounts to this-that we should have a political, partisan appointment made by the chief justice of the province instead of by the leaders of the two parties in this house.

I cannot for the life of me justify this amendment on that ground. While I have said that chief justices, once they are appointed, strive to rise above partisan politics and become judicious in their outlook and neutral in their behaviour, although they do not become completely successful in this regard there is no doubt they do become a little removed from the scene and their contacts become a little old. They become a little out of touch with the people operating on the political scene no matter how much they remember those who in years past were the most influential, most important and perhaps wisest men in matters political in their area. Therefore my objection to substituting the chief justices for the leaders of the parties is that these men are out of touch. They are not so likely to know today's conditions; they are not so likely to know the various problems; they are not so likely to know the growth of communities, etc., as well as the means of communication in electoral districts; and therefore the people they choose are not so likely to be so well chosen or to be the best chosen as would be the case if the appointments were made by our political leaders, who are up to date on the situation.
The next point I want to make is that if this method works the way I think it will work, should we adopt the amendment, it would put the chief justice in the position of making two partisan political appointments, and to that extent he is mixing in politics. He is taking part in political questions in the community in a way which is contrary to his experience and training on the bench ever since his appointment. I do not think we should put the chief justices in that position. I do not think it is a role they would relish, and as I have said I do not think, because of their removal from the political scene, that they would make as good appointments as those who are presently acquainted with it.
With regard to the classes of people suggested by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre who might be chosen to fill these three posts, once you start to limit a very small class and give a very small choice to the chief justice you are going to suffer somewhat in quality. I am not sure that at this moment I can outline all of the qualifications which might be thought most suitable for members of these commissions, but certainly no one would question that intelligence would be one. They should also be well acquainted with the province. The fact that they have political experience demonstrates their interest in government, whether on the provincial,

municipal or federal level, and this would certainly be an important factor. Do they take their duties seriously? Have they worked hard at them? Once we start to impose qualifications and to seek people who have the most qualifications under each one of these tests, we automatically limit to an ever narrowing degree the choice which a chief justice has in his province.
If we are prepared to accept a group or class of people, such as university presidents, etc., and limit choice to this class, we are going to leave little or no choice. We are going to subordinate all of the qualifications which I think might be most valuable to the commissioner to the qualification of belonging to one particular class. For the life of me I cannot see that being the president of a university is a necessary indication that he has the proper qualifications for this type of job. It may be he is ideal, but it certainly does seem to be putting the cart before the horse in limiting the field in this way, and to say that we should pick from a class of people chosen for some purpose other than their suitability for this particular job. First things come first, and I suggest that the most important qualifications are those I have outlined. It is their fitness to handle the job, not their position in the community. All of this I submit is suggested in the amendment of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, because he wants to put on the appearance of less political partisanship. I repeat that I think the objective here is to put on the "appearance" of less political partisanship, not to make it less political.
For the reasons I have outlined I cannot but come to the conclusion that the appointments on either side would cancel out-and all of this for what? I am not sure that I follow that type of reasoning. I think the people of this country are quite used to the fact that matters political are usually handled by the politicians; that when appointments are made by one party or another-especially if appointments are made by one Liberal and one Conservative-we are going to have two people appointed who will be watching very closely that the rules are followed and that things look good as well as are good. Neither one is going to dare press for a political advantage for his party because he knows that the other is going to make sure that this is known to the public. I suggest it is somewhat akin to the argument about outlawing the communist party. Should we outlaw it or have it where we can watch it?
17, 1964
Electoral Boundaries Commission
That is what we are doing here. Political partisanship is open and aboveboard. The motives and actions of these people will be in full view. There is no doubt that they are partisan to one side or the other and that they are going to be most carefully watched for that very reason. Their motivation does not have to be sought for because their actions are going to be examined most closely. I suggest that by this method, putting them out in the open instead of erecting an artificial fence around them, we get a realistic approach to the problem.
There is one other possibility, of course. I have not studied the amendment closely enough or perhaps do not know the country well enough to be sure that there are enough possible choices from among the categories listed. It might be that a chief justice would not be able to find the requisite number of candidates in that province who would come within these categories. Before the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre objects too strenuously, I suggest that these people have to be ready, willing and able to serve, so that to say that the number is surely sufficient in each province does not go quite far enough. I suggest that possibly only 10 per cent of those in these categories would even consider accepting an appointment to serve on such a commission. If you are going to restrict the categories unnecessarily from which the choices can be made you are likely to find yourself faced with an unsolvable defect by reason of this amendment.
Let me make one further point about the agreeability of such people to serve. I cannot see that it would make the people appointed any happier to be appointed by the chief justice. If the chief justice is a Liberal and a Liberal is appointed, even though the chief justice is supposed to make non-political appointments I am sure the appointee is going to feel a little uncomfortable about his position on the commission. The same is true of his cohorts on the commission.
I suggest there is nothing that would make a man serving in such a position feel more comfortable than to know that his appointment had been made by a leader of a political party because of his qualifications for the job and that no one was going to expect him to be anything but a Conservative, if he was one. I am not suggesting that because a person appointed is a Liberal or a Conservative he is going to put his party first. I know there are many in all parties who would strive to their utmost to rid themselves as far as possible of any political bias, who would

Electoral Boundaries Commission study objectively all the problems that will have to be faced by the commission, who would, I am sure, give of their utmost, and who would try to adopt a judicial attitude. However, for the same reasons I have referred to in regard to the inability of the chief justice to rid himself of any possible bias or prejudice it would be that much more difficult for the man appointed. Certainly if he has never had any experience on the bench in trying to acquire a judicial mind and an objective outlook he is likely to be still highly partisan in his method of approach, no matter how hard he tries to be otherwise. I suggest that any honest man who is appointed is going to be aware that he will be incapable of becoming completely objective and non-partisan.


Harold Edward Winch: Could the Leader of the Opposition be non-political?


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: I am afraid the hon. member for Vancouver East is a little slow this afternoon. By that I do not mean to imply that this is unusual but I have noted it particularly today from his questions to me. I have not suggested that an appointment either by the Prime Minister or the Leader of the Opposition would be non-partisan. I am quite sure and have every confidence that these gentlemen would have the good sense to pick people who are party supporters. From their experience over the years I am sure they both believe that in each province they can get the very best people for this kind of job from within their own parties, and do not have to look elsewhere.
I was talking about the viewpoint of the person who is appointed. I have said that the people appointed, no matter how hard they try to be objective, do not have judicial experience and will not be able to rid themselves of some partisan feeling. I suggest it is rather a weight on the conscience of a person who is trying very hard to do a good job to feel that he may not be entirely rid of bias. I suggest he would feel a lot more comfortable if he were appointed by one person and his opposite number had been appointed by the other. He can say to himself: I am trying my best to get rid of prejudice and I have not quite succeeded, but my friend over there who is trying just as hard has not quite succeeded either. So we would hope that the amount of prejudice left would balance out.
I suggest this is a very healthy attitude to take. It is a healthy and honest state of mind. I suggest that we defeat the proposed
[Mr. Nugent.1
amendment so that we will have greater scope to place emphasis on appointing those most qualified without restricting ourselves unnecessarily to a small number of people.
I suggest we do not put the chief justice in the position of having to make such appointments, which would make him feel uncomfortable and which he would not want to make. I suggest that if we get rid of this amendment the people who are appointed are going to be happier with their appointments. In the eyes of the people of the country the approach will be a more honest one and it will be a more honest approach so far as the appointees are concerned. They will have a healthier attitude toward their job, a healthier atmosphere in which to work and I think we will get the kind of people we want on these commissions. Therefore I hope we will defeat the amendment.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Chairman, when I spoke previously I referred to the fact that in my view the scope of the amendment should be broadened, if it is to be accepted, so as to allow the chief justice of the province to choose the members of the commission not only from among the members of his own court but also from among the members of any court of superior jurisdiction appointed for the province concerned. I also referred to the fact that it might be advisable, in the event of the disability, incapacity, absence, sickness or otherwise of the chief justice, to provide for the acting chief justice to act in his stead. In order to cope with this situation and to make the necessary provisions I move the following subamendment:
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.
"2. In the event that there is no judge of the court over which the chief justice of the province presides able or free to act as chairman of the commission the chief justice of the province shall, after consultation with the chief justice of any other superior court in the province, appoint a chairman from among the judges of that other court, but where for any reason no appointment of a chairman or of either or both of the two other members other than the representation commissioner is made within the time provided therefor by this act the Chief Justice of Canada or in the event of his absence or incapacity the senior puisne judge of the Supreme Court of Canada shall make the appointment or appointments from among such persons resident in the province as he deems suitable.
3. A reference in subsections (1) or (2) to the chief justice of a province, includes a reference to the acting chief justice of the province or any

person performing for the time being the duties of chief justice thereof;"
And that clause 2 of said amendment be deleted.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I wonder if the minister would care to explain what he means by that amendment?


An hon. Member:: Do you want it in four letter words?


Guy Favreau: If I had somewhat less confidence in myself, especially after the speech I made a few minutes ago, I would really work up an inferiority complex after the question put by the hon. member for Bow River. I thought I had explained that the first subparagraph of the amendment to the amendment means that henceforth the chief justice of the province, who normally and in most provinces is the chief justice of the court of appeal, will not in his choice of a chairman be limited to the members of his own court, which is always rather a limited one in number. He will be able, after consultation with the chief justice of any court of superior jurisdiction rendering justice within the territorial boundaries of the province, to choose from among the members of that superior court, whose numbers are always greater than that of a court of appeal.
The third subparagraph of the amendment to the amendment provides that in the absence of the chief justice himself, either the person appointed as acting chief justice or the person acting in the name of the chief justice, will be able to perform the same duties.
The last paragraph of the amendment deletes the second clause of the original amendment because there is no longer any requirement to renumber the paragraphs. Now, we have paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 4 as we had before.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: That was clear.


Kenneth Hamill (Ken) More: I do not believe the subamendment improves the situation at all. I think it passing strange that all of a sudden, instead of having the Minister of Transport piloting this bill through the house, his duties seem to have been taken over by the Minister of Justice. Perhaps the reason is that the Minister of Justice has a little more courage now than the Minister of Transport has, because the Minister of Justice was frank enough to state in clear terms his position on the amendment. We have not had any such statement from the Minister of Transport. It would be very interesting to all of us to have a statement as to just what his position is now with regard to the amendment and the subamendment.
17, 1964
Electoral Boundaries Commission
The bundling which is evident between the C.C.F. or N.D.P. and the Liberal party is passing strange. I have not a suspicious nature at all but after observing what is happening during this debate there would seem to be some substance to the suggestion made earlier by the hon. member for Bow River. During this debate we had two members of the Liberal party speaking against the amendment. I noticed that when they sat down they both received a round of applause from the other members of their party for the views they had expressed. It seems to me they must be just as confused about the stand the minister is going to take as we are in the official opposition.
As I say, the bundling between these two parties is passing strange.


Harold Edward Winch: What is wrong if it is right?


Kenneth Hamill (Ken) More: Let us bring it out in the open, instead of having all this nonsense. Let the house leader get up and say that after consultation with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre this deal was made. Then we would know exactly where we are. I am talking about the Minister of Transport.
I say this bundling is quite strange and quite interesting because the leader of the C.C.F.-N.D.P. has just returned from Saskatchewan. I am sure he was not out there bundling with Ross Thatcher. If there was any bundling between these two parties, I do not know whether it was with the C.C.F. part of the Saskatchewan group or the N.D.P. part, because there are two groups. In fact, practically speaking, there are three groups. It is a very interesting situation.
In some earlier remarks I made I expressed confidence in the courts of this country and in the personnel of those courts. However, I am quite frank to admit that I believe possibly 100 per cent of these men had an active political background and were appointed under their respective governments not only as a result of their political activity but because of their ability at the bar. However, they have been appointed and have been impartial. In my opinion, the amendment is going to place many of these judges in an awkward position. Even if they fulfil their duties as earnestly as they possibly can and as impartially as they can, they may still be judged for political activity. To me, this is very bad.


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


Kenneth Hamill (Ken) More: When I have finished. This is a very bad precedent for us to set at this time.

Electoral Boundaries Commission This is a federal responsibility and provincial officials should be left out of it. It opens the way for some criticism to be levelled at the members of our courts, and by insinuation and innuendo-I do not know two better words to express it-the adoption of this amendment reflects on the integrity of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. It reflects on them because it is based on the fact that we do not trust them to fulfil properly their functions as officers of the house.
We already have sufficient criticism of this institution, and we should be on guard against helping to extend that criticism. I have been amazed with the stand taken by the two government frontbenchers, and it is apparent that the Minister of Transport is now very quiet, very reserved and has very little to say.


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


Kenneth Hamill (Ken) More: Yes, certainly.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My question is based on the concern of the hon. member for Regina City lest by asking the justices to make these appointments we are involving them in something that is political. How does he square that concern with his acceptance-and I accept it too-of the government's main proposal, namely that the chairman of each of these commissions shall be a judge, perhaps indeed the chief justice of the province, and that he shall be concerned with the actual drawing of the boundary lines?


Kenneth Hamill (Ken) More: I do not have any trouble at all in that regard. The mind of the judiciary to analyse and judge propositions is better than that of ordinary persons.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Then does not the hon. member think the mind of a justice is capable of impartially picking people to do a fair job?


Kenneth Hamill (Ken) More: I do not suggest that is not so. I said "consciously and impartially to the best of their ability". I am talking about the judgment of the people of Canada.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Now, no innuendo against the judges.


Kenneth Hamill (Ken) More: There is no innuendo at all, and I make that clear. What I am saying is that if a justice makes an appointment, and the actions of a commission of which his appointee is part are not acceptable to the people of any area, then they are going to point a finger at that justice. This is a [Mr. More.l
logical assumption. So far as the officers of the house are concerned they have a right to be subjected to such criticism if it is necessary, but I do not think it is right, fair or proper that the judges of our courts should be put in this position.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Chairman-


Harold Edward Winch: I understand you are talking it out until five o'clock?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I rise on a point of privilege, Mr. Chairman, since the hon. member says we are talking it out until five o'clock. We have just had a long subamendment presented by the Minister of Justice, but just because an arrangement or marriage has been made between the government party and the hon. member's party, there is no reason to point the finger at us.


The Chairman:: The hon. member for Yukon has the floor and should not be interrupted.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Bow River took the words right out of my mouth. I was about to say we have witnessed a very curious but entertaining spectacle this afternoon when, having been pressed by the hon. member for Bow River, the Minister of Transport refused to confirm what he had led the house to believe on a previous occasion, when his words were recorded at page 741 of Hansard. But it seems he is somewhat smoked out now by the Minister of Justice, and perhaps this is the minister's way of getting back at the Minister of Transport for his lack of co-operation in assisting the government house leader in properly organizing the business of the house.
I think maybe the Minister of Transport has felt his nose is a little out of joint because of the new role of the junior Minister of Justice, and there is this constant play back and forth between them, with the Minister of Transport sitting back and smiling at the difficulties which the Minister of Justice often finds himself in. But he is in another difficulty now because he has presented the committee with a subamendment which, to use the words of the Minister of Transport when he quoted the house leader of the official opposition, is deserving of the most careful consideration by all members of the committee before we make any decision on this very important matter.
I was very interested in the remarks made by the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra and the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard, both of whom had the courage to stand up and say they were opposed to the amendment

proposed by the hon. member for-I often forget his constituency but I think sometimes we might refer to him as the hon. member from heaven because he is so often referred to as the constitutional conscience of the house, and because so many other references are made to him respecting his knowledge of the rules and procedures of parliament.


An hon. Member:: The rule of purity.


Erik Nielsen: Yes, the rule of purity. I want to say something about this for a moment, because the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has spoken at great length about the appearance we must give to the people of Canada in this legislature. For the moment I forget which great philosopher came out first with the expression, but I am sure the hon. member is familiar with it, that one must not only appear to be pure; he must be pure, because there are so many variations in the arguments he presents from time to time, not only with respect to this measure but with regard to other matters.
Before I was distracted I was speaking about the remarks of the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra and the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard. These two hon. gentlemen had the courage to stand up and express their opposition to the amendment. I would like to see the hon. member for York-Scar-borough, who has been paying very painful attention to everything said in this debate, state his position. Similarly I would like to hear from the political scientist in the committee, the hon. member for Northumberland.


Mr. Moreau:: Did the hon. member suggest that the hon. member for York-Scarborough should get up and state a point of view with which he did not agree? I happen to support the amendment.


Erik Nielsen: Well, now I know where the hon. member stands. More of those backbenchers should get up and adopt a similar course.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You will know where they stand if you let us have a vote.


Erik Nielsen: The hon. member says let us have a vote and we will find out where everybody stands. I would point out that this is the first time I have contributed to the discussion, while he has been on his feet several times. In the words of the Minister of Transport, I would like to tell him that this is a matter which deserves very careful consideration.
17, 1964
Electoral Boundaries Commission


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman,-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. Could the hon. member address the Chair? There has been an exchange of conversations and remarks on both sides, which make it very difficult for the Chair to follow the speech of the hon. member.


Erik Nielsen: I do not for the moment intend to question the ruling you have just made but perhaps, with great respect, it might have been better directed to other hon. members who are interrupting.


Lucien Lamoureux: The hon. member should realize I am not objecting to his speaking but to other hon. members interrupting him while he is speaking.


Erik Nielsen: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for over-ruling the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, who does not appear to want to let me talk. I am glad to see that the democratic safeguards are in capable hands.
I think more of the backbenchers on the other side should be just as courageous as the hon. members I have just mentioned for Vancouver Quadra and Vancouver-Burrard and that inimitable member for York-Scarborough who has also taken a stand on the amendment. I think however that had the Minister of Justice not come in when he did to make his statement, after whipping the rug from under the Minister of Transport, there might have been more of those opinions expressed with that complete field of expression to which the Liberal party is so consecrated from time to time, when it sees fit.
I think one of the reasons why this amendment was put forward is probably that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and his friends are probably a little miffed because, under the bill as it stands, it is the prime minister who has to make one of these appointments and the leader of the opposition who has to make the other. I think some personal objection to this system has entered into the sound judgment which the hon. member usually shows with regard to these matters. Perhaps if we could have commissions made up of five members, of which the hon. member's own leader was able to appoint one, the amendment would not have been put forward in its present form.
The hon. member made a great case for the impartiality of the judges who would have to make these appointments. However the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona left the impression that impartiality of this type among our judges could not altogether be expected. As a matter of fact, the legislation

Electoral Boundaries Commission itself does not repose that confidence in the judges concerned which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and the Minister of Justice would have us believe is there.
If we follow carefully the wording of the amendment as it appears on page 2275 of Hansard, we find the following words in (1) (b)-that is, the second (b) about halfway through the paragraph:
-and in the event that within either or both of those classes there is no such person able to act as a member of the commission, the chief justice of the province-
-and here follow the important words which belie the confidence expressed by members such as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre-
-with the approval of the representation commissioner, shall appoint-
And so on.
If we do not trust these judges to make the selection on their own responsibility, why should the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and the Minister of Justice be making such a great to-do about the impartiality of judges? The fact that those words are there raises the suggestion immediately that we do not trust the judges because we intend they must get the approval of the representation commissioner, first. That is the implication of the words I have just read. Otherwise, why would they be there?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the hon. member like an answer to that question? They are there for the protection of the judge. When a judge is naming a member of a commission from the categories (a) and (b) he has those categories set out before him. Those words are inserted to provide for cases when no one is available in those categories, and the judge has to pick any suitable person in a province. It is my view that this provides protection to the judge in the event he has to roam all over the province, because he has someone else to agree with him.


Erik Nielsen: That is a most fallacious explanation of the existence of those words. What protection does a judge need? If we are to repose in him confidence that he will make an impartial selection, then surely that confidence must be wholly placed, not subject to the approval of any other officer, whether it be the representation commissioner or not, even when a nominee is not to be found in the first two categories set out in the amendment. Here is where your partisanship creeps in.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Address the Chair.


Erik Nielsen: I do not need the hon. member to lecture me as he is fond of doing so often in this house.


An hon. Member:: Address the Chair.


Erik Nielsen: I have been addressing the Chair. I have been doing so throughout my remarks. I do not use personal pronouns. I am speaking metaphorically when I say: "Here is where your political partisanship creeps in". Here is where it does creep in. The hon. member has been making a great to-do about the proposed amendment providing freedom from partisan considerations. But we all know that, as honest and honourable a man as the representation commissioner is, a man of complete integrity as far as I am concerned-and I am personally acquainted with him and have been for several years; I know him to be this-but I do know the procedure which is adopted, for instance, in connection with the selection of returning officers, when he always talks with the government in power at the time before a final selection is made. That is my understanding of it, and if I am wrong-


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. gentleman is perhaps doing a grave injustice there. The returning officers are appointed under the elections act, which was enacted by the government which he supported a few years ago. The returning officers are appointed by the governor in council. They are not appointed by the chief electoral officer. In other words there is no question of his consulting with anyone, they are selected by the cabinet.


Erik Nielsen: As I say, my recollection of the procedure followed in this regard may not be accurate, and I invited correction if I was wrong. But I know that in connection with certain procedures under the elections act the chief electoral officer, as he was then, was required from time to time to give opinions, perhaps not under the act; but he did, in fact, give opinions from time to time. I am not suggesting here for a moment anything against the integrity of the representation commissioner. But it is a possibility, whether this government or any other government is in office that a judge, if these words were left in the amendment, would submit his choice to the representation commissioner whose final approval might or might not be given if any interference with that approval was put forward by any government of the day. Therein lies the danger of introducing partisanship.


Harold Edward Winch: Whom would Diefenbaker submit his recommendations to?


Erik Nielsen: I wish proper references might be made in this house to the officers of the house. I am sure the hon. member for Vancouver East is referring to the right hon. Leader of the Opposition. I think he should abide by the rules and refer to him as such.


Harold Edward Winch: Then may I ask to whom would the right hon. Leader of the Opposition refer his recommendations, so as to make it nonpolitical?


Erik Nielsen: I had made myself quite clear, I thought, when I was referring to this point. The danger of political partisanship creeping into this is in my view very real in the circumstances which would be brought about by the amendment if it were passed. I do not care whether the present government is in office or whether any other government is in office. The danger would be for the government of the day to influence the giving of that approval or the withholding of that approval. That is the weakness, and it arises out of those particular words used.
Surely we cannot have that impartial selection by a judge if we are going to subject that selection to the approval of someone else.
I would suggest to the Minister of Justice and to his colleague the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that they get together again and reconsider this particular subclause, perhaps with a view to removing those words entirely, because I think they present a real danger to the very thing we are trying to achieve.
Another point was raised by the hon. member for Edmonton West. I refer to the question of the federal government's authority or power to clothe a judge of a province with the right to appoint in some cases what might be a provincial official. Perhaps this is a matter which is deserving of the consideration of the premiers of the various provinces, because there may very well be objections raised by the provincial governments to having any of their officials act as a member of such a commission. Certainly we have not been given any assurances by the ministers concerned that such consultation has taken place or that the provincial governments concerned are agreeable to their provincial officials so acting. This is a very real criticism in my view.
Perhaps I might also point out that the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre and the hon. member for Bow River made a very knowledgeable appeal last night to the gov-20220-1481
17. 1964
Electoral Boundaries Commission erment to set up one commission. The great concern that has been expressed here today about the impartiality of judges making these selections and about the other difficulties which confront us if we adopt the amendment or the subamendment is a further argument for setting up one central commission, because if this were done all these difficulties would be avoided entirely. Even though it now seems to be completely out of the minds of those who form the government, this suggestion of one centralized commission might be once again considered with some care.
I think I should also say, Mr. Chairman, that I am sure none of us here argues about the independence of the judiciary. The judiciary have always displayed, when dealing with those matters with which they are charged, that impartiality and judicial capability of which I am sure all of us are proud. I think I said when participating in the debate at the resolution stage that we should not get our courts or judges involved in politics. I suggest to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, who has also made much of this fact, that by having the judges make these appointments he would be doing just that. All he would be doing would be to transfer the partisanship that the hon. member suggests is going to be displayed if the Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition make the selection. He would just be transferring that partisanship over to a judge. I am sure we all believe that a judge will not display any partisanship when making these appointments, and let us all hope that no judge will display any more partisanship in making these selections than judges have in the past in the case of controverted election cases which have come before them, when some have allowed an examination of the poll books and some have not. Perhaps we are seeking that kind of impartiality.
May I suggest to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that all he is doing by his amendment is involving the judges in the very partisanship that he wishes to avoid. All that is happening is that you are transferring a political decision from officers of this house, who are very able to make that decision because of their background and experience, and laying it in the lap of a judge. It is very, very dangerous and very wrong to involve our judges and courts in political decisions with regard to whatever selection is made, and members of this house and political parties of this house are going to be completely dissatisfied with that decision. If that is not involving our judges in a partisan problem, then I do not know what is.

Electoral Boundaries Commission
One point that I touched on briefly and want to enlarge upon before concluding is this business of political experience. I favour the clause as it stands, because you have the chief justice appointing one member, you have the prime minister appointing another member and you have the leader of the official opposition appointing the third member. What men in this country are more fitted, by reason of their background, by reason of their political experience and by reason of their integrity-otherwise they would not find themselves in such positions- to appoint members to such a commission? Surely this counts for something. The prime minister, with his vast experience inside and outside parliament, and likewise the leader of the official opposition, with his own precious store of experience gained over many years of service in public life, are best qualified to make these selections; and surely no one in his right mind would suggest that any person who has attained the office of prime minister or leader of the opposition would exercise anything but the purest motives in selecting the members who are to serve on such a commission.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Erik Nielsen: I leave it at that, Mr. Chairman, and for those reasons I would again appeal to the ministers to give the lead to their own backbenchers, or to the backbenchers on the government side to rise and freely express their views, throw out this undesirable amendment and support the clause as it was when originally introduced by the government and which we were led to believe was going to be kept intact, as the Minister of Transport seemed to say on page 741 of Hansard.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, since I have been called into question and it has been suggested that I ought to say something about this matter, and I have kept silent all afternoon waiting for an opportunity-


Mr. Gregoire:: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Transport. Since many of us in this house have some questions to ask, would the minister prefer to answer all the questions at one time, or answer some now and some later?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I shall try to be very brief, so that if there were any questions before five o'clock-we are getting perilously close to it-I would be glad to answer them. But there are one or two points I should like to make clear, because several hon. members

seem to know the content of my mind rather better than I do myself. I think I ought to start out by saying that in the whole course, not just of my public life but in the whole course of my life, I have never been paid such a compliment as I have been paid today, having people, starting with the old and experienced hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre-


Gordon Minto Churchill: Did I make that mistake?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. gentleman even went so far as to call me a gentleman, for which I am pathetically grateful. Every hon. member of what we call the official opposition in this house-and they do not very often do this on my behalf-has praised my authorship; they have suggested that I must have had almost divine guidance in drafting the original clause 6 in the bill, because they are so anxious to preserve it. They have suggested that they suspect my motives. I am not going to say that I suspect theirs, because I do not really believe in that kind of argument; but I do think, as I said when I moved the second reading of this bill on March 10, that this was the best method that so far the government had been able to devise and recommend, and that is why we put it in the bill.
But no one recognized more clearly than I that this method of appointment would be open to question. I knew why it would be open to question. One hon. member during the course of this debate-so many have spoken I am not sure I can recall who-asked what we were doing with this bill anyway. The answer is that we want to take redistribution out of politics. However, it seems to me that, however eminent the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, who are both officers of the house, they are nevertheless-and I honour them both for this-political leaders. Therefore, to give them the power to make these appointments does not completely take the matter out of politics. As I said on second reading, it would achieve impartiality if by impartiality is meant weighing one thing against the other. But that did not necessarily mean that every one of the ten commissioners appointed by each of them would be impartial. I do not care who appoints these commissioners or how they are appointed, you will not remove the human element.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The only consideration we should have in our minds is to remove any

suggestion of political partisanship or partiality as far as we can. That has been my objective and it has been the objective of the government from the beginning.
I must confess I was a little shocked to hear the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre commend the method of appointment used in the United Kingdom, where one of the commissioners is appointed by the home secretary and one by the minister of housing, or whoever it is-his title has been changed since the original act was passed. But the appointments were made by two cabinet ministers. I can just imagine what would have happened had we brought in a bill suggesting that the secretary of state-as I then was- and the Minister of Justice should appoint two of the four commissioners. I can imagine the kind of speeches we would have heard. Yet the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre commended the British practice. I asked him specifically about this at one o'clock, because it did seem to me that we on this side of the house had bent over backwards to try and prevent any political interference, or interference by politicians, at any stage in this process.
A bill brought in by the previous administration had many admirable features, but it had one feature which was criticized very strongly, and that was that appointments were to be made by the governor in council.
I used the phrase that we did not want to take redistribution out of parliament and put it in the cabinet, and that we have sought not to do.
I tried various suggestions. As hon. members know, when we first discussed this matter on the representation commissioner bill in 1963 I said that one of the possibilities we would explore was having these appointments made by the Speaker. Then when I looked at the experience of Australia, where they have one judge-or in some states they have one judge-the commonwealth electoral officer, the state chief electoral officer and the surveyor general, and when I looked at the experience of the only two Canadian provinces where this non-partisan process is carried out by three persons all divorced from	politics,	it	seemed to	me that if	wewere	to find	a	method of	doing this	theweight of experience was	in favour	ofdesignating the kind of persons who would have the requisite experience and positions in the community which would make them as little	likely	as	any other	people to	bepartisan, and as much likely as possible to be objective. I am sure that is why Mr. 17, 1964	2319
Electoral Boundaries Commission Frost, when he recommended the establishment of the commission in Ontario, recommended that there should be a judge, the chief electoral officer and an eminent professor from Queen's University. We know what happened in Manitoba, where the law itself says who these people are to be.
When I spoke on March 10 I did not think that anyone could devise an amendment which would bring about the kind of situation which would enable parliament to prescribe the positions. Frankly I did not think it was possible.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: When did you change your mind?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I never changed my mind at all. My mind was made up on March 10 when I said that if we could find people who could be designated to do this task that would be the best way; but I said I did not see how we could do that unless, as the hon. member for Bow River said, we used federal civil servants. However, I knew what would be said if we tried to appoint federal civil servants. It would be said at once that they are under the control of their ministers.
I ask myself, if the bill is accepted in its present form and the Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition make these appointments, what classes of persons are going to be appointed? I have talked to the Prime Minister about this. I have not talked to the Leader of the Opposition about it, but I know that the Prime Minister does not relish the prospect of making these appointments, and I would be very surprised if the Leader of the Opposition would relish it either. I am sure he would do it as a duty, and do it well and conscientiously; and I have no doubt about the Prime Minister on that score. But I do not think it would be a tragedy- in fact, I would be quite content and would think we had done a pretty good job-if we were to pass this clause in its present form. Nevertheless I am bound to say that in my opinion the objections I raised on March 10, as reported at page 742 of Hansard and to which I referred this morning, to the suggestion of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre are in fact met by the proposed amendment, and for that reason I think the proposed amendment does fulfil precisely what I said was required on March 10. Perhaps I can read the words again:
Frankly, sir, up to now this is the most satisfactory suggestion we have been able to think of for arriving at the composition of these commissions-

Electoral Boundaries Commission That is, what is in the bill now.
-but I hasten to say again that if anyone in any quarter of the house can produce a better method we have an open mind. It is, I say once more, not the special responsibility of the government but the responsibility of all of us to do this in the best possible way.
Now, sir, I have been asked tor my opinion, but I thought it would be wrong to give it in light of that statement until I had heard all the arguments. I have been sitting here the whole time and listening most attentively to the arguments made. Some have been very interesting and persuasive, particularly that of the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, who talked very eloquently, I thought, about parliament in words with which in the main I could not disagree. But I have not been convinced by the arguments that have been made that my authorship is in fact as good as the amendment that is being suggested, although I think it is pretty good.


An hon. Member:: We prefer yours.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If the house decided to accept the bill in its present form I would not waste any tears on the amendment. In fact, I would have a certain amount of satisfaction, but I really do believe we would have a better act with this amendment. Because all those in the country are not Liberals and Conservatives, because all those in the country perhaps have not got the same highminded view of the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister as those of us in the house have, I think there would be a greater degree of general confidence in the commissions if we were to accept the amendment that has been proposed than if we were to take the bill in its present form. For that reason I am disposed to support the amendment.


George Clyde Nowlan: May I ask the minister a question in order to keep the historical record correct? He referred to the bill brought in by the preceding government and pointed out that the appointments were to be made by order in council. Was it not stated in the house that on second reading of the bill there would be a statement made as to the nominees proposed to be appointed by the government, so that it would not be a matter of blind appointments by the cabinet but rather a matter of record before the house?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not think there was any intention on the part of the previous government to put anything over at all, but I think the hon. gentleman by his contribution has just illustrated the point that I think has been illustrated by the debate this

afternoon. Once in a while we have had a little fun, but most of the time it has been as good and as serious a debate as I have heard in the house for quite a long time. I think this illustrates very well what the Minister of Justice said, that we can be proud that when we are in committee on an important question like this we do bend our minds to it, that we do try, if we can, to improve the legislation and that we are not hidebound and we do not think that what we put in a bill is the last word.
Sometimes there are matters of policy on which a government must stand or fall, but I have made it very clear from the beginning and the Leader of the Opposition commended me for it, that the only thing that was sacrosanct to the government in the bill was that we should establish impartial commissions outside of parliament to do this job, but that the detail, the organization, the arrangements, depended on the house and did not and were not going to depend on the government. That is the position I have taken throughout and that is the position I intend to take throughout. I do thank the committee and I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for not seeing the clock.


Erik Nielsen: I wonder whether I might be permitted one quick question? Since there is an obvious division among all members of the house as to their views on the bill, can the minister say whether the members of his party are going to be permitted a free vote on the matter?


John Whitney Pickersgill: We are all free people in a free country and thank God for that.
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 public bills, private bills.



CRIMINAL CODE


Georges-J. Valade: the second reading of Bill No. C-22, to amend the Criminal Code (provincial lotteries).

He said: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to introduce a bill to amend the Criminal Code so as to allow the provinces that might wish to do so to establish a system of provincial lotteries designed to assist hospitals and social

welfare organizations under provincial jurisdiction.
In previous debates, as we know, everything was said about provincial lotteries. The bill I am presenting today is identical in every respect to the one I had the honour to introduce last year. It is a very simple bill, for its sole purpose is to amend section 179 of the Criminal Code in order to authorize the provinces, so desiring, to legislate in matters of provincial lotteries. At this point, I should like to remind the house of the position taken by members of the official opposition when the hon. member for St. Maurice-Lafleche (Mr. Chretien) introduced Bill No. C-2, to amend the Trans-Canada Air Lines Act so that the name "Air Canada" could be officially recognized. On that occasion, you will remember that all members of the opposition co-operated with the hon. member for St. Maurice-Lafleche and readily accepted the amendment.
Now, last year, when I introduced a bill which was substantially the same as this one, all members of the various parties in this house agreed with the intent and purpose of Bill No. C-22.
May I be allowed to read into the record some quotations to that effect, so as to prove that the stand taken by the members of the house seemed quite sympathetic to the bill I was introducing at that time.
As recorded on page 4302 of Hansard for November 1, 1963, the Liberal member for York-Humber (Mr. Cowan) had this to say:
No member on this side of the house has any intention of filibustering this bill.
He was speaking of the bill introduced by me.
Further on, he stated:
I am 100 percent in favour of the bill introduced by the hon. member for St. Mary.
Now, I presume the hon. member for York-Humber spoke on that occasion on behalf of the Liberal party and that this party would therefore be prepared to support the motion I am introducing today.
The hon. member said also, as recorded on page 4305 of Hansard for November 1, 1963:
I believe that this opportunity also should be given to the Canadian people as well as that of buying lottery tickets which would be legalized by the bill of the hon. member for St. Mary (Mr. Valade).
Later on, as recorded on the same page, the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), on behalf of his party, introduced a motion requesting the house to decide by a vote of the fate of that bill.
Criminal Code
Afterwards, in the course of the debate, I note that the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Perron) also introduced a bill identical to the one I am introducing this afternoon.
Now, Mr. Speaker, as unanimity seems to prevail on this bill, I would invite the house to vote and to take a stand officially and according to the opinions expressed by members of each of the parties on the 1st of November, last year.
I hope the few government members present today in the house will not use their time to unduly delay the passage of this bill, as all of them have expressed their opinion, for or against such a measure.
Now, Mr. Speaker, as Bill No. C-22, which I have the honour to introduce today, is identical to Bill No. C-36, which I submitted on November 1, 1963, and as all other parties came out in favour of that bill, I am certain that any further discussion would only have the effect of preventing the passage of this bill.
I therefore move, seconded by Mr. Winkler, that the question be now put.

The Aciing Speaker (Mr. Balten): The hon. member for St. Mary moves that the question be now put. I apologize to the house, the hon. member is moving a previous question on his own motion.


Georges-J. Valade: I think the Speaker should read the motion I put, just to be clear.


Harold Edward Winch: Is it not very unusual for a member who moved a motion to sit down and then move the previous question? I think it is completely out of order. I have no objection to it, but I think it is out of order.


Georges-J. Valade: I think this question is not a debatable one and should be put by the Chair.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member is wrong on both counts. It would be debatable, but he is out of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: I would have to rule that the hon. member for St. Mary already has a motion before the house and therefore is out of order in moving the previous question.


Georges-J. Valade: I ask that the question be now put.


Harold Edward Winch: This is my point. I understand that the hon. member has moved the motion which is now before the house and he is therefore, the mover of a substantive motion. As the mover of a motion he cannot,

Criminal Code
after moving that motion, at the conclusion of his speech move that debate end and that the question be now put. He cannot have two motions before the house at the same time.


Georges-J. Valade: If I may speak to the point of order I would ask, if the house consents, to withdraw my motion and that the question be put.


Harold Edward Winch: If the hon. member withdraws his motion, his motion is no longer before the house.


Georges-J. Valade: I think the hon. member from Vancouver East is confusing things. I withdraw the motion that the matter be discussed and I ask that the question be put.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: I am
not quite clear what the hon. member for St. Mary wants done. He is not able to withdraw the second motion he made because it has not been put. If he wants the previous question moved, he would not be able to move that motion because he already has a motion before the house.


Georges-J. Valade: If my motion is out of order, then the house does not consider the motion and certainly I have the right to ask that the question be put.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Provided no one else wants to speak.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: The hon. member for Beauharnois-Salaberry.


Georges-J. Valade: If I may speak to the point of order, I think the Speaker should put the question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: The hon. member has moved the previous question. If I understand the hon. member correctly, and this is what he has done, I should point out to him that most authorities state that moving the previous question does not preclude debate on the original motion.


Georges-J. Valade: I think the ruling is not clear to me. If Your Honour has just made a ruling that my motion is out of order then it is not proceeded with. If it is not proceeded with, I then ask that the question be put. I think the Speaker should ask whether or not the question should be put.


Harold Edward Winch: I do not want to get confused after all these years in parliament. It is my understanding that the hon. member has moved a motion and spoken to it. His motion has to do with the Criminal Code and pro-

vincial lotteries. Surely, sir, in a parliamentary democracy no one can move a motion and then, as soon as he has made his speech, move that the question be now put. Surely the hon. member has one of two alternatives. He may move his motion, allow it to be debated and if nobody wants to speak then it is automatically put. However, if he moves his motion and then, after having made his speech, moves that the question be now put, that is a denial of parliamentary democracy.


Georges-J. Valade: I am not going to get into a row with the hon. member for Vancouver East who is a specialist on these things. The motion that the question be now put leaves room for discussion as to whether or not the question should be put. On the assumption that the Chair has not accepted my motion, then the Speaker puts the question to the house, shall the question be now put? Some hon. members in this house can then talk about this. There is no dictatorship such as the N.D.P. are used to in this house.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: I hope I have not misunderstood the hon. member for St. Mary. I should like to begin at the beginning to see if we can get this thing straightened out. The hon. member for St. Mary moved the second reading of his bill and then, if I understand him correctly, he moved the previous question. I do not believe he is permitted to move the previous question since he already has a motion before the house.
However, even if he were permitted to move the previous question, the moving of the previous question does not preclude debate on the original motion. Even though some other member may want to move that motion, other members in the house still have the right to speak, not only on the motion that the question be now put, but also on the motion for second reading of this bill. I would, therefore, have to recognize the hon. member for Beauharnois-Salaberry.


Mr. Gerald Laniel (Beauharnois-Salaberry):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to see that, for once, the hon. member for St. Mary (Mr. Valade) decided to be brief, in order to enable other hon. members to voice their opinion on a matter which is of interest to quite a few.
On the other hand, because of his many points of order, the hon. member may have taken more time to expound his views, than he would have under ordinary circumstances.

and he may be chiefly responsible for the motion for second reading of his bill not being passed this afternoon.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member mentioned a few moments ago the co-operation given by non-members when Bill No. C-2 was introduced-


Mr. Caoueiie:: 


Gérald Laniel: No, no. I am speaking of Bill No. C-2 introduced by the hon. member for St. Maurice-Lafleche (Mr. Chretien) with regard to Air Canada.
I should point out to the hon. member that Bill No. C-2 concerned the management of a crown corporation, whereas the bill now before us contains an amendment to the Criminal Code so as to authorize the various provinces to establish lotteries.
Mr. Speaker, I think that before putting the question it is important that this matter be fully examined, and that we consider the possibility of initiating negotiations or continuing consultations with the provinces.
The hon. member for St. Mary often boasts of being a great autonomist. This afternoon, he is standing up for Mr. Lesage, but when he introduced his bill last year-


Georges-J. Valade: We are not standing up for Mr. Lesage, we are standing up for the province of Quebec.


Gérald Laniel: -he brought up the question of provincial politics. He was then even somewhat scolded by the Speaker. This year, however, he is not saying a word; he wants his motion to be passed without a word being said; in short, he does not want anybody to express an opinion.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I know that the hon. member for Beauharnois-Salaberry would like to get me into an argument; however, when he suggests that I tried to prevent discussion of the bill, I believe that perhaps he did not quite mean what he said.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. The hon. member for St. Mary (Mr. Valade) is disagreeing with something said by the hon. member for Beauharnois-Salaberry (Mr. Laniel). On such an occasion there are two possibilities open to the hon. member for St. Mary. When the hon. member for Beauharnois-Salaberry has completed his remarks he can, of course, ask the unanimous consent of the house to speak again, although that would not be necessary on this occasion since
Criminal Code
he, having moved the motion for second reading, still has an opportunity to speak when he winds up second reading of the
bin.
I would not be able to accept the view that for one hon. member to disagree with what another hon. member is saying constitutes a point of order or a question of privilege.


Georges-J. Valade: With due regard to Your Honour, I was on a question of privilege. My point was that the hon. member who has the floor has accused me of wanting to foreclose the debate, an allegation which is not true.
I question the merit of this accusation, and point out that I do not intend to foreclose the debate. I merely said that I wanted a short debate.


Gérald Laniel: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If I said that the hon. member for St. Mary had prevented other members from speaking, let us say that I did not want to suggest that such was his intention, but that he was acting as if it were.


David Réal Caouette: That does not make much
sense.


Gérald Laniel: Mr. Speaker, I hear the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) and I am pleased to welcome him in this house, especially as I note that there are very few members of his party, who however, have always been in favour of this bill-


Mr. Choquetie:: He has been away for two months.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I hear the hon. member for Lot-biniere say that I have been away for two months.


An hon. Member:: Two weeks.


David Réal Caouette: That was a king-size lie, and for the information of the house, I may say that I was away exactly five days for strictly personal reasons, which do not concern the hon. member in the least.
To refer to the unkind remarks by the hon. member who has the floor now, or rather who had it before I intervened, I may say that the hon. member is neither logical, nor honest in his statements. He said that there are not many of us in this house, but if he counts the hon. members now in their seats on the Liberal side, that is on the government side, he will realize that the proportion is much more substantial on my side than on his.

Criminal Code


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member for Ville-neuve just made some malignant remarks. The House of Commons standing order No. 12 states that the Chair shall preserve order and decorum. Well, Mr. Speaker, when an hon. member uses words like the ones we just heard, that is:
That was a king-size lie-
And when he charges an hon. member with not being honest, that is unparliamentary-language departing from the decorum in this house.


Mr. Prud'homme:: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order raised by the hon. member for Villeneuve-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order.


George Albert Proud: I should like to point out that the proportion-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. I must point out that both members are out of order. Hon. members should not interrupt the hon. member who now has the floor, and I would hope the house would permit the hon. member for Beauharnois-Salaberry to complete his remarks.


Georges-J. Valade: You are a clown.


George Albert Proud: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the hon. member for St. Mary to repeat what he just said before the house, so that I can hear-


Georges-J. Valade: I said you were nothing but a clown.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. I am sure that hon. members realize this procedure is quite irregular. The hon. member for Beauharnois-Salaberry has the floor and, under the rules of this chamber, he has the right to make his speech without being interrupted. I would ask the house to observe the rules we normally follow in debate.


Gérald Laniel: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for allowing me to have the floor again and, as you pointed out, I hope that the interruptions which cut into my time will be taken into consideration. What beautiful things indeed were said during those few minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I resume my remarks, or rather I start by saying that I am happy to 
take part in this debate and to state here publicly that I support the bill presented by the hon. member for St. Mary.


Georges-J. Valade: Seriously?


Gérald Laniel: In my opinion, the people of Canada are more and more in favour of seeing such a bill adopted. I feel, besides, that it would do justice to all Canadians and that all charitable associations could benefit from it.
Right now, throughout the country, a great number of people buy lottery tickets, a great number-though possibly slightly fewer-get something out of them and win prizes.
Mr. Speaker, it is high time that the Criminal Code be amended to legalize something which is already being done throughout the country. Each year, the names of those who win thousands of dollars are even published in the papers and it is obvious that law-enforcing agencies are not doing their duty since they do not interfere and apply the law.
Mr. Speaker, everywhere in Canada there are draws and radio contests which benefit some of the participants. I fail to see why there should be two yardsticks, and why it should be honest, fine and appropriate to encourage parish work by buying tickets for a draw, by attending bingos or by participating in all kinds of contests, while Canadians are denied the right to take part in national or provincial lotteries.
At this point, Mr. Speaker, we must all the same ask ourselves whether such a lottery should be on a national or a provincial scale. Personally, I wholeheartedly support the principle of Bill No. C-22 and I feel that the setting up of such a lottery should be left to the discretion of provincial authorities who would take charge of its organization for the benefit of provincial institutions.


Georges-J. Valade: Are you ready for the question?


Gérald Laniel: Mr. Speaker, several points would have to be considered. First, as I said earlier, after discussing the matter with the provinces-and I ask the hon. member for St. Mary to note that we are going through a transition period at present where a dialogue is actually taking place between the provinces. Monday morning the whole country might be happy to realize that our Prime Minister has understood the problem of every state and province-


Georges-J. Valade: He was slow on the uptake.


Mr. Girouard:: Not too fast, not too fast.


Gérald Laniel: All this would lead to a worthwhile dialogue which would strengthen our confederation.
Speaking about lotteries, I do not see why we should ignore our provincial governments since they would be the first to be involved and since some technicalities would have to be considered.
It would be necessary to determine, for example, whether the winners would be liable to income tax and whether that income tax would be levied by the provincial, or the federal government, or by both?
It will also be necessary to provide-I do not wish to refer to a bill already appearing on the order paper and which bears number C-19-but just the same, from that point of view, I think that Bill No. C-19 goes farther than Bill No. C-22; because legislation should provide for the setting up of such provincial lotteries.
Would the provincial government have full control? Would provinces be free to sell lottery tickets in other provinces which are not interested in organizing one themselves?
In short, Mr. Speaker, it is a quite important question of concern to all Canadians. It has the unrestricted support of 80 to 90 per cent of the associations and people of this country. In my opinion, this government ought to study this matter thoroughly and look for a solution in order to introduce during a coming session legislation which would greatly benefit our charitable institutions and might even extend to universities.
Mr. Speaker, in closing, may I say that the hon. member for St. Mary does not have to worry. I hope that before long we will be able to rejoice together because the Liberal government will adopt legislation along this line, even if on the other side of the house it is called a surrender or a somersault. But we must nevertheless look for the real solution to our problems, and we want all Canadians to work in the same spirit for a greater and stronger Canada.


Georges-J. Valade: Would the hon. member allow me a question?


Gérald Laniel: By all means.


Georges-J. Valade: I asked the hon. member if he would permit me to ask a question and, as his time has not expired, and the hon. member has accepted, I wonder if the Chair would authorize it?
Criminal Code

Does the hon. member realize that the bill is quite simple, that it involves no restrictive clauses, nor technicalities? It is only a question of asserting a principle and of allowing provincial lotteries. It is as simple as that. Are you ready to vote in favour of the bill or not?


Gérald Laniel: Mr. Speaker, could the hon. member tell us whether he has consulted the various ministers of every province before introducing his bill?


Georges-J. Valade: I am not sure whether I am allowed to answer, but I must say that during the federal-provincial conference held last year, I sent a letter to the Quebec premier, Mr. Lesage, on this matter-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: The hon.
gentleman is not permitted to make any reply. He has already made his remarks. I must now recognize the hon. member for Ville-neuve.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Réal Caouette: I thank the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette) for the remarkable courtesy he showed me I shall deal right away with the question asked by the hon. member for St. Mary (Mr. Valade) to the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, that is whether other provinces have been consulted or whether he is ready to vote in favour of a bill such as the one now before the house, Bill No. C-22.
Mr. Speaker, I think that the question of lotteries should have been settled long ago, that the province of Quebec, as well as other Canadian provinces, should have been granted the privilege of setting up lotteries within its territory in order to provide assistance to various organizations, such as hospitals and other social welfare agencies coming under provincial jurisdiction.
In Quebec, as in other provinces bingo games, a kind of lottery, are played in order to assist parish organizations, charitable organizations and organizations set up to help the whole population or for some charitable purpose.
Bill No. C-22 is quite clear, and the hon. member for St. Mary was right to point that out a moment ago.

Criminal Code
When we read paragraph 1 of that bill, in fact, there is only one-


Georges-J. Valade: It is still too difficult for the Grits.


David Réal Caouette: -we find this:
-a lottery organized and operated by a provincial government to provide financial assistance to hospitals or for other social welfare purposes under provincial jurisdiction.
The hon. member for St. Mary deserves congratulations for having introduced such a bill in the house. His bill is logical in all
respects.
I do not think that anybody will agree- and the hon. member who just took his seat, the hon. member for Salaberry-


An hon. Member:: Beauharnois-Salaberry.


David Réal Caouette: -agrees that the bill, pardon me, the hon. member for Beauharnois-Salaberry-will agree that the bill is logical. I am convinced that his colleagues in the Liberal party, on the government side, also accept that point of view.
But the question that immediately comes to mind is this one: Why, a year ago or so, when the Conservatives were in office, sitting on your right, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for St. Mary did not introduce the same bill he would like to have passed today by the Liberal government, blaming that government for not being prepared to go ahead and allow the provinces to provide financial assistance to charitable agencies, provincial hospitals, and so forth? Why did he not take any action at that time?
As I said time and time again it is strange that when they sit in opposition, they feel they have abilities of which they are deprived as soon as they come into office.
Last year, the Liberals found themselves in the same position, the same circumstances. This year, we have the Conservatives in the Liberals' place. The roles are changed.
A while ago, I heard the hon. member for Beauharnois-Salaberry ask himself and ask-


Georges-J. Valade: He did not say much.


David Réal Caouette: I can see why the hon. member for St. Mary should tell me that the hon. member for Beauharnois-Salaberry did not say much. Be that as it may, last year, it was the hon. member for St. Mary who was not saying much.


Georges-J. Valade: Have you not read the speeches I made on the subject?


David Réal Caouette: The roles are changed. This year, now that he is in the opposition, he can show more courage.

When he was a member on the government side, he did not say a word about this matter. He kept absolutely quiet on the subject; I know, because I was in the house at that time


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


David Réal Caouette: There is no question of privilege.


Georges-J. Valade: There certainly is, and the reason I am rising on a question of privilege is this: the member for Villeneuve is again making a false statement in saying that I did not look after this matter when I was a member on the government side; that is not true. He only has to look at the record to find that my name appears more often than his when he was a member of the house-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. I must again point out to the hon. member for St. Mary (Mr. Valade) that disagreeing with any statement made by an hon. member is not necessarily a point of privilege. I would again point out that when the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) has finished his remarks, if the hon. member for St. Mary wishes to rise and make an explanation, with the consent of the house he is of course permitted to do that.


Georges-J. Valade: But they will not give me time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: But it is
not permitted to interrupt an hon. member who is making his speech. The hon. member for Villeneuve.


David Réal Caouette: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The interruptions-


Georges-J. Valade: That is an old trick.


David Réal Caouette: The vitriolic interruptions of the hon. member for St. Mary do not frighten me at all. He says that he was more active than we were when he was on the government side, but we just have to look up the Hansard index or Hansard itself to realize the difference between the numerous interventions of the group I represent in the house and the ones he made.


Georges-J. Valade: There were none in 1958.


David Réal Caouette: But there were some in 1962, and the hon. member was nearly replaced by a Social Credit member in his own riding-


Georges-J. Valade: The Social Credit candidate lost his deposit.


David Réal Caouette: -he better sit down quietly if he does not want to be rebuffed, and then everything will be settled to the general satisfaction.


Georges-J. Valade: He lost his deposit.


David Réal Caouette: As the hon. member will probably lose his own in the next general election.


Georges-J. Valade: You can come into my riding.


David Réal Caouette: I can go into St. Mary, for we have many friends there, and friends who are more sincere than those he has in his own riding.
Mr. Speaker, I heard earlier the hon. member for Beauharnois-Salaberry (Mr. Laniel) ask us how these provincial lotteries would be set up. We simply have to consider the possibility of authorizing the provinces to hold these lotteries in order to assist certain organizations and I do not think that it is necessary at this time for the federal government or any member of this house, to interfere with or to find out how the provinces, Quebec as well as the others, will set up those lotteries within their boundaries. We do not have to be concerned with the way the provinces will sell tickets.
Would Quebec sell tickets in Ontario and would Ontario do the same in Quebec? Those questions do not come under federal jurisdiction. We buy in Canada lottery tickets from Ireland, England and various other countries, and we hear every two or three months that a Canadian won first prize and will get $100,000, $150,000, $50,000 or whatever. It seems to me that is none of our business. If the Irish and the English are selling tickets in our country now, why should not the province of Quebec sell tickets in Ontario, Manitoba or the maritime provinces?
Mr. Speaker, the main question is to find out if the federal government should give the provinces the right to set up lotteries.
We have seen in the province of Quebec- because we are used to it-members of the provincial police interfere in some parishes, some localities, saying that the parish priest or the parish had no right to organize a bingo game. And yet the officials of a hockey club, a branch of the Knights of Columbus, a parish organization or a branch of the St. Jean Baptiste society were allowed to hold a monster bingo night in many parishes of Quebec, although federal legislation expressly forbids it.
Mr. Speaker, I feel that the provinces should be free to hold bingos and lotteries so that, in the future, provincial police will
Criminal Code
have no reason to say that the federal law prohibits gambling.
Let the provinces be free to act according to their conscience, according to their needs, and organize their own business without federal interference.
I fully support the bill introduced by the hon. member for St. Mary from that standpoint and I sincerely hope that it will be put to a vote before six o'clock.
I should like to conclude by saying to present Conservative members that when the provinces, especially the province of Quebec, asked such an authorization four or five years ago, the Conservatives who were then in office should have acceded to their request. Today, the hon. member for St. Mary blames the government for its failure to accept this proposal, whereas his own party took no action along that line when it was in office. Such an attitude seems to me inconsistent with the present situation.
Nevertheless, I support this measure and I congratulate the hon. member for having introduced it. I do not wish to detain the house any longer, as I wish hon. members to be able to vote on this motion, so that the provinces will have the power to organize, within their own jurisdiction and by means of logical and honest methods, the necessary ways to give assistance to hospitals, benevolent and welfare organizations, which would help the people concerned as a whole.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I very much like to see these private members' resolutions come to a vote and not be talked out, and for that reason I am going to try to compress my remarks into about three or four minutes. I would like to say at the outset that what I have to say is purely my own; in this respect I speak for no party, no church, no other organization. I may be a minority of one, for all I know. I want to speak on this matter and when the opportunity to vote comes, as I hope it will, I intend to vote against the bill that is now before the house.
I do not believe that lotteries are a useful or worth-while means of raising money either for hospitals or any other purpose. I think the prohibition in the Criminal Code was based on a very sound social philosophy.
I am not prepared, Mr. Speaker, to make a reasoned argument on this matter, but I have received material from the Canadian council of churches and other organizations which have given a close and careful study to the question of lotteries. Of course we all want

Criminal Code
to see hospitals collect the necessary money to run them as successful operations, and to some people lotteries seem a harmless and good way of raising that money. They see nothing wrong with lotteries. But in actual fact lotteries as has been discovered over the years, are thoroughly wasteful from the social point of view. A large amount of money is usually siphoned off to the promoters of the lotteries, and when you try to arouse the cupidity and interest of the people to give money to hospitals, you have to give them large awards which usually do them no good.
If you studied the experience of those who win large amounts in lotteries you would find that most of them thought originally that a wonderful opportunity had come to them, but later found instead that they had become the victims of shady salesmen, were harried to death and did not get any happiness from their win. Quite apart from that it is a redistribution of money which is not based on any logical or sensible foundation.
In the past many valuable institutions have been built from the proceeds of lotteries. For example, the British museum and Harvard University were assisted through moneys from lotteries. In course of time it was found that these lotteries were a means of siphoning off money spent by people who could not afford it but were excited by their expectations of vast gain, and whose contributions to the lottery had actually added to their poverty and misery.
I listened to the, as usual, eloquent remarks of the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) who has just spoken, and if anyone could persuade me on this I think he could; but I think that he is wrong in suggesting that this is a provincial matter. This is essentially a matter for the Criminal Code of Canada. We may disagree about whether or not we should have lotteries, but it is not a matter for the provinces. This is a decision for us and I hope that when we make it we will decide it on the basis of sound wisdom. I know that many people in my own constituency do not agree with my views, but after all we must all stand up for what we believe in. I accept the view of many other wise people who have studied the matter, and who have suggested that lotteries are not the right method to achieve the good purpose in mind in this bill.
I will sit down now, so that we can either come to a vote or someone other than myself will have the opportunity to talk it out.


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, I must first register a protest against

the hon. members for St. Mary (Mr. Valade), Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette), and Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) who have just stated that the bill is going to be talked out.
I have been here only one year and never have I had the opportunity to voice my opinion on this question. I am glad to be able to do so at this time, considering that the hon. member for Villeneuve sat in the house in 1946 and again in 1962. As for the hon. member for St. Mary he has been here for years. Consequently, since they have already expressed their feelings on that matter, why did they not refrain from speaking so as to give new members like myself a chance to say what they think?


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Considering the nature of the remarks he has just made, why does the hon. member for Lotbiniere not abstain from speaking on the bill now since he accuses others of having taken too much time?


Georges-J. Valade: Because he wants to talk out the bill.


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, I will not refrain from speaking, because this is the first opnortunity I have to express my opinion on this question.
The hon. member for Villeneuve has been able to do so on many instances and today he had a fine chance to remain seated. However, since he is fond of talking for nothing, he kept right on going. Like the hon. member for St. Mary, he is one of those who are doing some filibustering and who are going to prevent the passage of the bill.
It is also because of the childish points of order raised by the hon. member for St. Mary that the house will be unable to proceed to the vote on this matter.
Now, here is what I want to say, though I have only a few minutes left.
Mr. Speaker, a few minutes ago the hon. member for St. Mary made a wrong comparison when he suggested that there was an analogy between the matter now under discussion and the bill concerning Air Canada.
If the Air Canada issue was settled most easily and without any opposition through the co-operation of all parties, it was because a higher principle was at stake, endorsed by all Canadian citizens of good will, i.e., the consideration of bilingualism in this country.
For that reason the Air Canada bill was passed extremely quickly and easily.
The hon. member for Villeneuve said a short while ago that, whatever way the prov-

inces will organize their lotteries, it is not up to us federal members to look into the matter.
Now, first of all I would point out to the hon. member for Villeneuve that the Criminal Code is under federal jurisdiction-


David Réal Caouette: Amend it.


Auguste Choquette: When it comes to amending the Criminal Code, any member has not only the right, but the specific and imperative duty to know how it is to be amended. And to answer to the hon. member-


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker-


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to complete my remarks-
17, 1964	2329
Business of the House


David Réal Caouette: It is six o'clock.


Mr.   Ballen@Acting Speaker: Order. It being six o'clock I must advise the house that the hour for the consideration of private members' business has expired.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gordon Minto Churchill: Could we give the last word to the acting house leader: Monday and Tuesday a supply motion?


Mr. MacNaughl:: On Monday and Tuesday there will be a motion to go into supply.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, April 20, 1964