1964-10-20

COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE

[Stage Direction]
Sixth report of standing committee on public accounts-Mr. Baldwin.
Eighth report of standing committee on banking and commerce-Mr. Pennell.


Mr. Raymond Langlois (Meganiic):: Mr. Speaker, I rise at this stage to ask leave, in accordance with standing order 26, to move the adjournment of the house to discuss an urgent matter of national importance with regard to the report which was submitted almost two years ago by the royal commission on the administration and application of the Unemployment Insurance Act.
We have asked a number of questions on the subject and tried to get some information, but without too much success.
The government is studying the report, but we have not been informed of the results of that study. At present every member must face problems dealing with unemployment insurance and the operation of the unemployment insurance commission in his own riding.
The unemployed are affected and are victimized, that is, half a million persons out of work are affected by the functioning of that agency. Furthermore, the officials find themselves in an impasse, since they must apply the act as it exists, and sometimes it is unjust and very poorly drafted.
The government has been studying this report for several months, but the house was not informed of the results of the study; we do not know the opinion of the government or what it intends to do. If such an inquiry proved to be very useful and necessary two years ago, it is even more so today, especially if we take into account the unemployment situation.
I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier), the
adjournment of the house under standing order 26 for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely the immediate need on the part of the house to take the immediate action necessary for the duty in committee of the Gill report and to carry out as soon as possible the recommendations of the said committee in order to correct numerous anomalies in the operation of the unemployment insurance commission.


Mr. Speaker:: Are there any other hon. members who wish to say anything on this request to adjourn the house under standing order 26 in order to give more attention to the Gill report? If not I am prepared to render a decision.
Standing order 26, of course, envisages something which is a sudden emergency. Citation 100 (8) of Beauchesne's fourth edition says, in the middle of the paragraph:
What I think was contemplated was an occurrence of some sudden emergency, either in home or in foreign affairs.
I think all hon. members would agree that this matter has been raised several times during the question period. It is not exactly a new matter and to my way of thinking it is not a new, sudden emergency. In my opinion it does not conform to the dictates of standing order 26; therefore I must decide that the proceedings of the house should not be set aside at this time to proceed with the matter set forth in the motion submitted to me.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour regarding the labour standards code. I should like to ask him whether he would be prepared to meet representatives from the trucking interests, whose claim it is that adopted in its present form this bill would have a detrimental, if not disastrous, effect on that industry.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to hear further representations from the trucking industry. Yesterday I did meet with a group of truckers and I had an opportunity to appreciate the difficulties that face this industry. During discussion on a particular clause of the bill I might be able to indicate a way which would meet the problems which are posed by the truckers.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the minister for those encouraging words. I know they will be appreciated.


Mr. W. H. Jorgenson (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. Could I ask the minister whether he would be prepared to delay the reintroduction of this bill in the house until the trucking industry has had an opportunity to present its case.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I believe the views of the trucking industry and the problems which are involved have been pretty well put forward by the industry. When we come to a discussion in committee of the transitional provisions of the bill I believe I will be able to indicate a way to meet, I trust, the problems which are posed.


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday I commented on the effect of Bill No. C-126 on the fishing industry. That industry has made representations to me to ascertain whether the minister will further clarify the situation as it relates to the fishing industry. I say this because the whaling industry on both coasts is affected in that they have permanent employees; on the west coast the seiners and packers have permanent employees who would therefore be affected by the bill according to the hours they worked.
I think the minister might further clarify the position of the fishing industry before this bill is passed, and I ask him whether he would do this.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker; and I hope it would meet the convenience of my hon. friend if I did that when we return to the committee stage of the bill.



LOUISBURG, N.S.-STRIKE OF WORKERS AT HISTORIC SITE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour, asking him whether he is now in a position to report


to the house about the strike of the workers at the Louisburg restoration project.


Hon. Roger Teillet (Acting Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, as acting minister I was given a report by the department a few minutes ago to the effect that a meeting held today broke up about 2.30 this afternoon in a very hopeful mood, and with the full expectation that the men will be returning to work tomorrow.


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: A supplementary question to the Minister of Labour. After the lay-off of 55 men at the restoration project, can the Minister of Labour indicate what his winter works program will mean by way of further work for the men in that area? Does it mean that the 55 men laid off will be assured of employment in addition to the several hundred more who are looking for work in that area?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, this question really is for the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, but my understanding is that the men who were temporarily laid off will be rehired under the winter works program.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, my question was directed to the Minister of Labour, since he made the announcement in conjunction with the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. My question is, will the men laid off be assured of employment when the winter works project starts, and can the minister indicate to the house just how many men will be involved in the winter works project?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first part of the question is yes, and I will attempt to get specific figures to answer the second part.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question regarding the speech which was made in Toronto yesterday by the premier of Saskatchewan, in which Mr. Thatcher is reported as having indicated that Canadians could not afford new social measures such as the national pension plan and a national comprehensive medical insurance

plan. I want to ask the Prime Minister whether this statement expresses the views of the Liberal party and explains the apparent delay in the government proceeding with these two programs.


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I have not had an opportunity of reading the report of this speech by the provincial premier to which my hon. friend has referred, but the views of the Liberal party in respect of this matter are well known and have often been expressed in this house.


Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister a supplementary question. I wonder whether the Prime Minister can tell the house, in regard to the pension legislation, whether we can expect that it will be introduced into the house before the conclusion of the present session.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I have already answered that question a good many times. The last question was whether the resolution would be put on the order paper before the end of this month. I believe that will be the case.


Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a further supplementary question to the Prime Minister. Will there be any necessity to hold any further consultations with the provinces before a resolution in respect of the Canada pension plan can be placed on the order paper?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I do not think so, Mr. Speaker. The legislation is drafted and the resolution will be on the order paper in a few days.


Mr. Jack McIntosh (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Finance. In regard to this report that appeared in a Toronto newspaper, would the minister tell the house whether he received these representations in verbal or written form; and I refer particularly to the reference the premier of Saskatchewan made to the advice he gave the Minister of Finance regarding a reduction in taxes before the next budget is brought in.


Hon. Walter L. Gordon (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I do not feel that I am able to make any comment which would throw any light on this very difficult and complex question.
Inquiries of the Ministry TRADE



VISIT TO CANADA OF U.K. HOME BUILDERS MISSION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Acting Minister of Trade and Commerce. It is related to a subject of importance to those who are interested in increasing Canadian sales of forest products overseas, namely the visit of the 26-member home builders mission from Great Britain to Canada.
In view of the importance of the Kootenays as a forest producing area, and in view of the topographical pulchritude of this district, would the minister give consideration to arranging a visit of the home builders mission from Great Britain to the Kootenays on its way from Vancouver to Calgary? They are very interested in this area.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Important as the question is, I wonder whether the hon. member would put it on the order paper.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I should like to give notice of my intention to debate this at ten o'clock.



COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS

[Stage Direction]
INQUIRY AS TO STEPS TO INCREASE TRADE On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heward Grafffey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the right hon. Prime Minister and arises out of an answer he gave yesterday to a question asked in relation to commonwealth trade. In view of Prime Minister Wilson's views on commonwealth trade, has the Canadian government any specific proposals to make, or does it intend to take any specific initiative in this regard in the near future?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the views of the government in respect of this matter are well known. We are anxious to do everything we can to increase trade within the commonwealth, and we will be very anxious to discuss ways and means of doing this with the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom as soon as we are able to meet with him.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS

[Stage Direction]
PROPOSED CHANGES IN RUN-THROUGHS IN MOUNTAIN REGION On the orders of the day:
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Acting
9224	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry Minister of Transport. Has the minister received representations from the brotherhood of trainmen respecting certain changes in run-throughs on the part of train crews in the mountain region? If so, what has been done in this regard? Is any consideration being given by the minister to asking Canadian National Railways to defer the pending changes while the implications and ramifications of the contemplated moves are ironed out with the men in question?


Hon. G. J. Mcllraith (Acting Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, representations have been made by the brotherhood concerning run-throughs in two areas. I presume the area the hon. member is asking about is the Wainwright area. Those representations were made last week and have been communicated to the management of the railway. I do not know that I can say anything useful beyond that at the moment.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could the minister exert some influence on his colleague the Minister of Labour in order to have him meet the delegation which has been here since Friday afternoon?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I met the delegation with the Minister of Labour and there was a further meeting late Friday afternoon; but because of certain things that had to be done in the house at five o'clock I had to leave the meeting and come here at that hour. On that occasion we were not together when we met the representative, as we had been the day before.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: He still has not seen the Minister of Labour.



REQUEST FOR APPOINTMENT OF DIRECTOR FROM NOVA SCOTIA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Rober Muir (Cape Breton North and
Victoria): I wish to address a question to the Acting Minister of Transport. In view of the information contained in a recent press release from the office of the Minister of Transport indicating that no one from the province of Nova Scotia has been appointed to the board of directors of Canadian National Railways, can the acting minister advise the house and the country when this serious error will be corrected, more particularly in view of the fact that the press release stated that one director had yet to be appointed?
George James McIlraith: I do not wish to become involved in an admission or denial as to whether the omission of the name of a director from Nova Scotia is a serious error, because other provinces have laid the same kind of claim for that one position. In any event, I will take notice of the question and bring it to the attention of the Minister of Transport on his return which, I am glad to say, will be within a few days.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Last week he promised to take into consideration the exercise of his discretionary powers to reverse the decision of his department respecting Miss Daisy Maud Henry of Toronto, who had been ordered deported to England. Has the minister reached any decision regarding this case?


Hon. Rene Tremblay (Minister of Citiien-ship and Immigration):: No, Mr. Speaker, I have not as yet received the file from the court of appeal on immigration matters. As soon as it reaches my office I shall give it serious consideration to see to what extent I could use my discretionary powers to allow Miss Henry to remain in Canada.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the minister how soon he expects to make this decision?


René Tremblay: Within a few days, I hope, Mr. Speaker, because that is about the time needed by the department to examine the file and send it to me.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: As a
supplementary question, has the minister had an opportunity to look into very serious charges, both in the newspapers and on television last Sunday night, against an immigration official in Toronto, charges that he expressed a very discriminatory viewpoint with regard to race and colour?

} Translation]


René Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, I did not have the privilege Sunday night of seeing on the English network the televised broadcast dealing with certain immigration cases in Toronto. As I already pointed out in this house a few days ago, I carried out an investigation following Miss Henry's case, which was brought to light by a newspaper. After this investigation, although it was not proved that discrimination had occurred against Miss Henry or Mr. Hyde, who was also mentioned none the less, the department realized that an official in its Toronto office during an examination, made a statement contrary to the policy applied by the department, and disciplinary action was taken by the department against this employee.



AIRPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. J. Moreau (York-Scarborough):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport, but in his absence I wonder whether the acting minister has any further information concerning a matter I raised some time ago, namely the question of transportation service to and from Toronto international airport and the northeast sector of Toronto.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport has been advised by the president of Air Terminal Transport Limited that on Monday, October 26, the company is inaugurating on a three month trial basis a regular hourly service from 6 a.m. until 12 midnight, rive days a week, across the north end of Toronto. Stops will be made at the Toronto transit commission terminal on north Yonge street and at the Canadiana hotel at Kennedy road and highway 401. This route has been approved by the Ontario highway transport board and the air lines.


Maurice John Moreau: Would the acting minister undertake to contact the company to make sure this service is well publicized; because it is on a trial basis and, if not given a chance, could soon fail.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I shall draw the hon. member's question to the attention of the company.
Inquiries of the Ministry PUBLIC WORKS



WELLINGTON, ONT.-REQUEST FOR CHANNEL DREDGING

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Prince Edward-Lennox):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Public Works of which I have given him notice. Due to low water levels in lake Ontario and a local silting condition, Wellington harbour, facing on lake Ontario, is now closed to navigation. This has crippled the commercial fishing industry and has adversely affected the whitefish catch. In this emergency can the minister give his immediate attention to dredging the channel leading to the federal wharf in Wellington harbour?


Hon. J. P. Deschaleleis (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, this matter has already been reported to the local office. We are looking into it, but unfortunately I have not yet received a preliminary report. As soon as it reaches my office I shall inform the hon. member.



CONSTRUCTION OF POST OFFICES, MEGANTIC COUNTY, QUE.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Raymond Langlois: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. Has he reached a decision following the two resolutions which have been sent to him by two municipal councils respecting the building of post offices at Notre Dame de la Guadeloupe and Coleraine, in Megantic county? If so, can he tell the house-


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


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that this question be debated tonight after ten o'clock.



CANADA COUNCIL

[Stage Direction]
REQUEST FOR INCREASE IN FEDERAL GRANT On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapoinfe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the hon. Secretary of State.
9226	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry Could he tell us if the government has reached a decision with regard to the request made by the Canada Council that the moneys allotted to it for the coming years be increased?


Hon. Maurice Lamoniagne (Secretary of State):: No decision has been reached, Mr. Speaker.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question. Could the minister tell us whether the government is studying the matter and whether a decision will be reached in the near future?


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, we are now
studying this request most seriously, as well as other solutions to the problem, but I am unable to say exactly when a decision will be made.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS STUDY OF ECONOMIC INTERDEPENDENCE OF PROVINCES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reid Scott (Danforth):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Several months ago he indicated that the commission on the economic interdependence of the provinces would be reporting toward the end of September. Has the commission finished its report, and when may we expect to get it?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker. As I have already stated, this is an inquiry undertaken by officials of the government. Their work has not yet been completed, and will not be for several weeks.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Since several days have transcended the "next few days" the minister spoke of, is he yet in a position to announce a decision with regard to the militia, in conformity with part 2 of the Suttie report?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: It will be soon, Mr. Speaker.
IMr. Gregoire.]



PROVISION OF NUCLEAR MISSILES FOR R.C.A.F. IN CANADA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. Are press reports, the only source of information from the department, accurate, to the effect that nuclear missiles have now been provided for the R.C.A.F. Voodoo planes in Canada, a year and a half after the minister assumed office?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Notwithstanding the form of the question, Mr. Speaker, I may say that if there were press reports to that effect they were not correct.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Has the General Investment Corporation of Quebec, in respect of its plans to build a huge steel complex in that province, been granted or made any request for any tax concessions?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: No, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Edmonton West.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: That was the question I intended to ask, Mr. Speaker.



UNION CARBIDE SHARE ISSUE-INVESTMENT OF PROCEEDS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Can he tell the house whether any arrangements were made with, or any undertaking obtained from, Union Carbide to invest in this country the proceeds from the sale of $60 million of their shares in Canada?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I am sure my hon. friend knows that under our laws these matters are within the jurisdiction of the company's officers. I expect this is the way most of us would like things to continue.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Knowing the minister's preoccupation on other occasions with foreign

Inquiries of the Ministry
exchange problems, as a supplementary ques- asked the Minister of Finance if there was tion may I ask whether there was also some going to be a tight money policy in the counindication that the funds which arose from try and he said he did not know. Does he this sale would be withdrawn, shall we say know today whether a tight money policy gradually, from Canada?	will be in effect?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I am a little confused by the Hon. Walter L. Gordon (Minister of
question, Mr. Speaker, but if my hon. friend Finance): In the first place, I did not say I is worrying about the condition of Canada's did not know. There has been no tight money foreign exchange reserves I can reassure policy, and there is no prospect of there him there is nothing to worry about.	being one.



INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND-U.S. BORROWING TO PERMIT REPAYMENT OF CANADIAN ACCOUNT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: In view of that last statement, Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister whether it is a fact that the United States borrowed moneys from the international monetary fund within the last few days in order to lend Canada funds needed to repay the Canadian account with that fund?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I wonder if the Leader of the Opposition would mind repeating that question.


John George Diefenbaker: The question I asked was whether within recent days the United States government had borrowed a large amount of money from the international monetary fund, part of which was to be loaned to Canada to enable Canada to have funds to repay the Canadian account with that fund.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I am glad I asked for a repetition of that question. Last month Canada repaid part of its previous borrowings from the fund. Under the arrangement Canada put up U.S. dollars, but part of the money had to be repaid in other currencies, and I think the rather complicated matter to which my right hon. friend has referred had to do with those various transactions. If he would like a more detailed report I will be glad to get the specific amounts in the specific currencies and make a report tomorrow.


John George Diefenbaker: That is fine. Possibly we will get the facts tomorrow.



REPORTED INTENTION TO APPLY TIGHT MONEY POLICY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Raymond Langlois: As a
supplementary, Mr. Speaker, yesterday I



BANK OF CANADA COMMITMENT UNDER AGREEMENT WITH U.K. GOVERNMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question?
I would like to ask the hon. Minister of Finance whether, following the drop of the pound sterling, the Bank of Canada granted loans to the Bank of England and, if so, at what rate of interest?


Mr. Speaker:: It does seem to me that this is a question asking for considerable detail and that the minister can hardly be expected to answer on the spur of the moment. [Translation]


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I admit this is an embarrassing question, but I do not ask the exact amount, I only ask whether the Bank of Canada granted cash advances to the Bank of England and, if so, at what rate of interest?


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


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will discuss this matter at ten o'clock tonight.

Mr. Speaker, may I put my question, worded differently, to the Minister of Finance, and ask him without going into details, simply this. Has the Bank of Canada, since the new government came into power in England, granted loans to Great Britain? [Text]


Mr. Speaker:: Once again there is in my opinion no pressing necessity for an immediate answer to that question this afternoon. May I suggest it is a question for the order paper.
9228	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry [Translation]


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege-


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: It is no question of privilege at all.


Gilles Grégoire: It will be interesting to see, by reading Hansard tomorrow, what very urgent questions have been asked this afternoon. This problem has been discussed before in the house and the minister was ready to answer my question which only requires a yes or no answer.
It is extremely important to know whether the Bank of Canada lends our money to foreign countries when they are subjected to credit restrictions.
I wonder why the Minister of Finance is not allowed to answer this question of general interest, when I am not asking for any details and, moreover, the minister is willing to reply.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I wonder whether the hon. gentleman would be willing to withdraw his proposal to ask me his question at ten o'clock. I would then be in a position to make a full statement tomorrow which I think would give him the information he is seeking.


Gilles Grégoire: Agreed, Mr. Speaker.



MARITIME FREIGHT RATES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Yesterday the hon. member for Saint John-Albert inquired about discussions I had held with the premiers of the Atlantic provinces regarding the proposed railway legislation. At the time of those discussions last week I explained that because of the complexities of the problems of transportation in the Atlantic provinces a decision had been taken when the new legislation was first under consideration by the previous administration -and this decision was confirmed by the present administration-that the questions relating to the Maritime Freight Rates Act which had been brought forward by the royal commission on transportation should be the subject of a separate examination. The current railway legislation does not deal with these particular recommendations, although 

it maintains the protection accorded to the Atlantic provinces under the Maritime Freight Rates Act as extended by the government of the day early in 1957.
I am sure hon. members will be glad to hear that the Minister of Transport will be back at his desk within a few days. At that time we intend to give prompt consideration to the establishment of a special examination into the problems relating to maritime transportation and the Maritime Freight Rates Act which were raised by the royal commission.
The provincial representatives at the discussion to which I am referring also raised the question whether the proposed railway legislation would lead to a further deterioration with regard to rate problems in the Atlantic provinces. I indicated that the intent of the legislation was to retain all the existing advantages and statutory protection accorded by the Maritime Freight Rates Act. Given this situation, the new legislation might be expected to be more advantageous on an overall basis than the situation which has applied heretofore, in which rate increases took place on a broad horizontal basis. Nevertheless, the points raised by the provincial premiers in this regard are being further reviewed on our part.


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: May I thank the Prime Minister for answering this question in detail. We are all pleased to know that the Minister of Transport will be available later to take part in our discussion of this important railway legislation. I hope the government will continue to consider this matter sympathetically in view of the fear in the maritimes that there will be a further deterioration as a result of the new legislation, in spite of the fact that there are supposed to be exemptions in the area of the Maritime Freight Rates Act.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister and ask him whether he has any revised list of priorities respecting public business to place before the house before the Christmas recess or prorogation, whichever may come earlier.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Well, we have two important pieces of legislation before us now; we are shortly to have

before us again the redistribution bill and the labour standards bill. In addition we have a great many estimates to deal with, so I think we have quite enough ahead of us to keep us occupied for some days, apart from important reports from special committees which we are expecting shortly. And there is, of course, the pension plan.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Can the Prime Minister assure the house that it is the intention to deal with and pass the Canada pension plan legislation prior to any Christmas recess?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have already stated our intentions with regard to the pension legislation, but I am informed we have only managed to get through seven departments out of 23 as far as estimates are concerned, and this is certainly priority business.


Michael Starr: Would it not be possible for the Prime Minister to set out at an early date the legislation which he and his government expect to have passed before the prorogation of this parliament, in addition, of course, to the estimates?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have already mentioned certain pieces of legislation, but legislation has to be considered at the present time in the context of the progress made with the estimates. We have already spent 66 days on estimates this year.


Gordon Minto Churchill: On the contrary. May I ask a supplementary question of the Prime Minister. Is it not a fact that we have spent on the main estimates this year only 27 days, whereas in the session of 1960-61 some 54 days were devoted to the main estimates?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I corrected myself by saying "supply".


John George Diefenbaker: No.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I think if the facts are ascertained it will be found that I was conservative in my statement. We spent more than 66 days on supply.


John George Diefenbaker: Having regard to the widespread interest in priorities and the course which the government intends to take, I should like to ask the Prime Minister, particularly as press references are coming out of the committee on the flag, whether when that committee reports it is the intention of the government to resume debate on the resolu-
Electoral Boundaries Commissions tion before the house and the amendment and subamendment thereto.


Lester Bowles Pearson: When the committee reports on this matter it will be the report of that committee on this subject which will be first considered by the house.


John George Diefenbaker: At the moment I am not accepting the right of the government to do that which the Prime Minister has suggested, but is it the intention of the government to resume thereafter the debate on the resolution and the amendment or the subamendment?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The intentions of the government with regard to this matter will be made known in due course.


John George Diefenbaker: I am very glad to have the Prime Minister's answer, and when he asks for co-operation in the days ahead we shall remember the answer he gives us when we ask for information.



REDISTRIBUTION


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, September 14, consideration in committee of Bill No. C-72, to provide for the establishment of electoral boundaries commissions to report upon the readjustment of the representation of the provinces in the House of Commons and to provide for the readjustment of such representation in accordance therewith-Mr. Pickersgill (for Mr. Pearson)- Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.
The Chairman:: Order. When the committee rose on September 14 last, with regard to clause 6 there was an amendment proposed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, and clauses 7, 8, 9, 12 and 13 had also been allowed to stand. Shall clause 14 carry?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Chairman, I was just waiting to get clarification from Your Honour as to precisely what clauses were going to be considered this afternoon, following the 20 minutes, shall we say of unforeseen debate of some three weeks ago just before the adjournment hour. I was wondering whether it had been agreed among the party leaders that we should revert to clause 6, because the Minister of Transport who was then piloting the bill through the house indicated that because of the short notice it would perhaps be better if the committee went on to some non-controversial ground. As a result of this
9230	HOUSE OF
Electoral Boundaries Commissions suggestion I believe clause 10 was passed, though I am subject to correction in this regard.
With regard to clauses 13 and 14 I have some observations to make. I should like to have a chance to bring out my material, Mr. Chairman, so perhaps the Minister of Labour, who I understand is now deputizing for his colleague, could indicate to the committee the manner in which the government would like to proceed on this bill.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, I am sure we all regret the circumstances which necessitate my being in this position today. The Minister of Transport is at home, indisposed, and for that reason I have been asked to act for him in this particular matter. I have attempted to master this bill as well as I can, but I expect a good deal of forbearance and assistance from the committee as we go through the various clauses. As the hon. member for Edmonton West has stated, at its last sitting on September 14 the committee stood clauses 6, 7, 8, 9, 12 and 13, so this afternoon the committee presumably would be dealing with clause 14.
Perhaps I might indicate what I have in mind for the consideration of the committee. I suggest that the committee proceed with the clauses of this bill, beginning with clause 14, and work to the end of the bill; then return to clause 6 which is, as we all know, a clause of considerable importance and contention. I had hoped yesterday and today to have more consultation than I have been able to have with members of other parties with respect to clause 6 and other contentious clauses. I commenced these negotiations, but because of my being in the house all day yesterday I did not complete them.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, perhaps it would be the wish of the committee to begin with clause 14 today and complete the remaining clauses, including clause 31; then having done that, if the day is not completed we could move to the labour code and return to these other clauses at a later date. In the meantime we would hope to continue these consultations with members of the other parties. I put this suggestion before the committee and hope hon. members will find it agreeable.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, my first words must be to refer to the illness of the minister who was piloting this legislation through the house, and to express the gratification of us all at the statement made by the Prime Minister today that the hon. gentleman will soon be back in his place.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: After all, parliament would not be the same place without him. Now with respect to the suggestion of the minister, I recognize the difficulties of a minister who is propelled into dealing with a bill with the complications of this one, particularly with regard to two of its clauses. I certainly would want to do everything I could to co-operate with him. We are trying to assure in this bill non-partisanship in redistribution, and we want to have the best bill possible.
As far as the opposition are concerned, we are prepared to go ahead with the clauses of the bill, beginning with clause 14, and leave these two controversial clauses, the one dealing with appointments to the several provincial commissions and the other as to the percentage of tolerance that should be allowed with regard to populations of various constituencies, to a later date.


Mr. Knowles:: Mr. Chairman, I rise merely for the purpose of saying that the proposal made by the Minister of Labour, and amended slightly by the Leader of the Opposition, is suitable to us as well. When I suggest that the proposal has been amended slightly I have in mind the fact that the Minister of Labour seemed to suggest that we would leave over until another time clauses 6, 7, 8, 9, 12 and 13, but I think on reflection he will agree with the Leader of the Opposition that the only two we really need to leave over are clauses 6 and 13, unless of course we run into difficulty on one of the others. At any rate, the general proposal that we start with clause 14 and go through to the end of the bill, passing any others that we can, and then adjourn the discussion on this piece of legislation, if we get that far this day, meets with our approval.
On clause 14-Powers of commission.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Chairman, I would raise this question as a preliminary point, and I think it will assist the thinking of hon. members with regard to some of the provisions of the bill. This point is not germane to clause 14, but I think the minister can give us the assurance that the committee would like to have. In regard to the negotiations that took place at, shall we say, Canada's so-called super parliament, the dominion-provincial conference, there was a communique issued on October 14 with respect to the drafting of the amendment of our constitution, and clause 2 thereof reads:

No law made under the authority of this part affecting any provision of this act or section 51A of the British North America Act, 1867, or affecting any provision of the constitution of Canada relating to-
Then it lists four points, and says:
-shall come into force unless it is concurred in by the legislatures of all the provinces.
That in itself is quite clear. Section 51A is the amendment of 1916 whereby the representation in this house of any province is limited to a floor of not less than the senatorial representation from such province. However, what concerned me was a report in the press-and I must say there were conflicting reports in the press-that in the field of representation in parliament discussions had been held between the premiers and the representatives of the federal government which suggested that before any change was made in the representation of any province it should be the subject of agreement with the provincial government concerned. I must confess I cannot read that interpretation into paragraph 2 of the communique, but there have been sufficient noises on the fringes to indicate that this may have been part of the negotiations and the agreements reached at this dominion-provincial conference.
I should like the minister on behalf of the government to assure this committee that other than the floor established by section 51A of the British North America Act, there has been no undertaking given and no understanding reached that any provincial legislature shall have any say whatsoever in the determination of the composition of the membership from that province in this house. Otherwise it is a one way street.
With all due respect to those people who speak about co-operative federalism and who say that the provinces should have a say in what is done by the federal government, are those self same provinces prepared to say that the representation in their own houses shall be subject to the consent of the federal house? Of course they are not. Therefore the counter argument is equally untenable.
However, I should like to have the assurance from the minister that there is no question that any provincial government will have a say in the representation in this house by the body of members who come from that province. If such were the case the whole consideration of this representation measure becomes academic. After all, what is the point in setting up norms, representation commissioners and rules and regulations regarding the composition of this house within a certain
Electoral Boundaries Commissions province if the matter is going to be subject to a veto or to some other consideration by a provincial government?


Lucien Lamoureux: I wonder whether the
minister proposes to reply to the remarks made by the hon. member for Edmonton West.
I realize these remarks were perhaps introductory to the discussion this afternoon, but as the hon. member himself remarked these comments went somewhat beyond the terms of clause 14. I suggest that from now on, subject to the reply of the minister, we restrict our comments to the terms of clause 14 of the bill presently before the committee.


Maurice John Moreau: Mr. Chairman, before we get to clause 14, in considering the procedure outlined by the minister may I take a moment of the committee's time to remind the house of the urgency of the constitutional responsibilities which parliament has in this matter.


Lucien Lamoureux: I do not think the committee should get involved in discussions of that kind at this time. We have agreed to start with clause 14. I recognize that the hon. member for Edmonton West was granted quite a bit of latitude in making his introductory remarks, but I think hon. members in general would agree with the Chair that from now on we should try to respect the rule of relevancy and limit ourselves to the specific matter before the committee, namely clause 14.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, I would be rather rash, I think, to attempt to deal with this important constitutional question, but I think it may suit the hon. member if the Minister of Justice dealt with this later when we are on another clause of the bill. I will draw it to his attention and ask him to deal with it later.


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall clause 14 carry?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Just one question on clause 14. Is it envisaged that there is to be a duplication of staffs, in regard to the staff which is permitted to be hired by the representation commissions and the staff which is now at work on behalf of the commissioner who was appointed by legislation last year? How is there to be a transfer of staff from one office to another? We do know that people have been drawing maps and travelling about the country preparing material. For whom are they going to work, the representation commissions or the representation commissioner?
9232	HOUSE OF
Electoral Boundaries Commissions


Allan Joseph MacEachen: My understanding is that the representation commissioner presently has a staff, but when this legislation is passed his staff will have to be enlarged in order to do the work involved. The commissions, of course, will require a staff as set forth in this clause.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The authority to employ staff is given in subclause 2 of this clause, which says:
A commission may employ such technical advisers and other staff, including a person to act as secretary to the commission, as it deems necessary-
-and so on. What I am concerned about is this. Is this technical staff going to repeat the work which has been done by the staff of the representation commissioner, and what will be the status of these people if they are transferred? The representation commissioner, who after all will have to oversee this work, will deem it in his wisdom to assign people to various representation commissions. What will be their status with regard to their conditions of public employment? After all, we know under which regulations the commissioner's staff are employed, but as far as these other people are concerned will they come under another set of rules?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I understand that the commissions will require a staff. They will be empowered under this section to employ such staff subject, of course, to treasury board approval. That is not a unique situation, certainly as far as I understand employment of persons in categories of this kind. This staff would be of a temporary nature and used by each commission to assist in the work of the commission. As I understand it, it is not intended that the representation commissioner's staff will be transferred to the commissions.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 15 agreed to.
On clause 16-Rules of procedure.
John George Diefenbaker: On clause 16, Mr. Chairman, may I ask what is the meaning of this clause, which says:
A commission may make rules for regulating its proceedings and for the conduct of its business, and may provide therein for the conduct of any Inquiry or hearing by one or more of its members.
Would the minister outline something of the procedure which a commission would follow in determining the course for the province for which it is appointed? Would the commission move around throughout the 

province? What evidence would it hear? May representations be made verbally or in writing; and generally, would the minister give the committee an outline in this regard within the limitations necessarily imposed upon him by reason of his entry into the discussion of this bill at this time? Naturally I am trying to find out how these commissions are going to operate, and if the minister could give a general outline, so that the house and the country will understand their modus operandi, it would be beneficial.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, I certainly cannot give a generalized description of the functions of the commissions, because I understand that the tasks of the commissions would vary from province to province, as would the extent of the task each commission has to undertake. Different kinds of procedures might be involved in provinces such as Ontario and Quebec from those involved in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, for example.
The next and subsequent clauses include provision for sittings to be held so that representations can be made to the commissions. Clause 17 prescribes the sittings of the commissions, and paragraph 4 of that clause prescribes how the sittings may be held. I regret that I cannot give further detail about the operation of the commissions, except to say that I would conclude that clause 16 gives the commissions the authority to make the rules which govern their sittings, and provides for the conduct of any inquiry or hearing by a commission or by one or more of the members of a commission.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, the minister has pointed out the complete uncertainty as to the manner in which these various commissions will operate, and has stated that, as is provided by clause 16, there may be a variety of regulation. However, I do feel that there should be mandatory sittings. I think an opportunity should be available for evidence to be given, to the end that the commissions will have the fullest possible information. At present the representation commissioner, with his staff, has made an assortment of diagrams covering the various provinces and outlining the territorial limits of the various constituencies. As I understand it, these have been based on various percentages of tolerance. It seems to me that no commission could possibly fully understand local conditions and considerations unless there was provision for the taking of evidence. Clause 17, paragraph 1 states:

A commission may, in the performance of its duties under this act, sit at such times and places in the province for which it is established as it deems necessary, and before completing its report may, if it sees fit, hold one or more sittings in that province for the hearing of representations by interested persons.
The use of the expression "may" when applied to the crown is always meant to be "shall", but not in so far as it applies to a creation of the crown in the form of a commission. To give a reasonable degree of unanimity to the discharge of the responsibilities of the several commissions, I suggest there should be a change in line 1 where the word "may" appears so that it would read "a commission shall, in the performance of its duties-Line 4, which reads "- before completing its report may, if it sees fit-" should read "-before completing its report shall", and the words "if it sees fit" should be left out.
It is very material that representations should be made, but if we pass the legislation as it is now a commission may simply say it is going to sit in province A but not in province B.
The hon. member for Scarborough was about to speak, but circumstances and rules prevented him from doing so. I am sure he was going to make some representations, but he was denied the opportunity of doing so under the rules. He certainly should not be denied the opportunity of placing his views, *or the views of others, before a commission set up in his province and, indeed, others should have the same opportunity. I ask the minister whether he will consider an amendment along the lines I have suggested, in order to assure a degree of unanimity among the commissions so they will not interpret what they should do in one province, in so far as public hearings are concerned, differently from what they should do in other provinces.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, the Leader of the Opposition has made a very valid point. This point has been raised in earlier sittings of the committee, as hon. members know. I have a suggested revision to clause 17 which I should like hon. members to look at and consider, and if it meets the point made, as I think it does, I will be glad to move it as an amendment to clause 17.
If I might be allowed to elaborate on the first point made by the Leader of the Opposition in respect of at least one mandatory sitting, this suggested amendment provides that the commission may, in the performance of its duties, sit at such times and places in
Electoral Boundaries Commissions the province for which it is established as it deems necessary, except that before completing its report it shall hold at least one sitting in that province for the hearing of representations by interested persons.


John George Diefenbaker: What is meant by "one sitting"? Is that one day? If it does mean one day that is not sufficient, because if a commission sat from ten o'clock in the morning until noon and then adjourned for tea, that would not be long enough to hear all the representations which can be expected.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I am advised, Mr. Chairman, that "one sitting" in this sense is similar to a court sitting, which may be as long as required.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Chairman, in this regard I came with my music prepared. I should like to go slightly further than the minister has suggested in his proposed amendment. In my view the commission should sit for longer than one sitting. I suggest that we should strike out the whole of paragraph 1 and substitute the following. "A commission shall in the performance of its duties under this act, and before completing its report, hold one or more sittings in the province for the hearing of representations by interested bodies or persons." After all, in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec it would not be possible to hold only one sitting in each and receive all the representations expected. I am sure that in respect of a province as large as Ontario at least four sittings would be required; therefore I suggest it should be mandatory.
I think the Minister of Transport previously agreed with the contention advanced at an earlier stage of the debate that public sittings must be mandatory, and I would think the language should constitute a directive rather than as proposed, because it seems that it is exceptional. The language of the amendment put forward by the minister is "except that before completing its report it shall hold". I suggest it would be better and simpler to say, "it shall hold one or more sittings" and let it go at that.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Shall hold one or shall hold more? It cannot be both.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Oh, yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Maybe it is a matter of semantics, but "shall" is mandatory. If it is "one or more" you introduce the element of choice. Is not the phrase "at least one" better in the sense that it does require one?

Electoral Boundaries Commissions


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I am not going to dispute it. I think we are in agreement.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I gather that this amendment is acceptable.


Mr. Barnett:: Mr. Chairman, there is one other aspect of the minister's proposal upon which I should like to touch before he assumes it is completely acceptable to all members of the committee. In my view the proposal the minister has placed before us in draft form is an improvement over the original drafting of clause 17, apart from the question of whether the holding of sittings should be optional or mandatory as far as the provincial commissions are concerned.
One point with regard to the original draft which caused me a good deal of concern was the provision with respect to the giving of notice of hearings. I think the proposal advanced by the minister in the substitute draft is an improvement in this respect over the original proposal, which as I understand it provided for the giving of notice only in the Canada Gazette. If the original draft had been accepted it would have created the possibility of people having only five days' notice of a hearing prior to the time within which they had to give notice of their intention to make representations and to file their written representations with the secretary of the commission.
The proposal the minister has put forward suggests that notice must be given at least 30 days before the commencement of the sittings, and that notice in writing to the secretary by interested persons must be filed within 20 days from the date of publication in the Canada Gazette of the advertisement referred to in subsection 1. This certainly provides more opportunity for those desiring to file notice of their intention to make representations, but I suggest to the minister that even with that provision there are places in my constituency where it would take more than that time for the Canada Gazette to reach people and for a reply to reach the hands of the secretary of the commission through the mail services provided by the government.
I think the minister will agree that it is not only those people who live in large urban centres where daily mail service prevails who should have the right to make representations to the commission. The Canada Gazette is not very widely read, of course, by people generally throughout Canada, and I suggest that in addition to publication therein pro-
[Mr. Knowles.)

vision should be made to require the commission to give notice, to use a phrase that is certainly in some election acts if not in the Canada Elections Act, in at least one newspaper circulating in the district or districts affected. I think this would be a distinct improvement and would give the commissions a clearer directive that it was the desire of parliament that they should provide every opportunity to people in all parts of the province affected by the hearings of a commission to make representations if they so desired.


Mr. Marcoux:: Mr. Chairman, I am glad that the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett) spoke about the period of time at the disposal of those who wish to appear before a commission, because I believe that a period of five days between the date when the meeting of the commission is announced and the time witnesses must notify the commission before which they wish to appear, is insufficient.
I believe that it would be advisable to extend further the period of time at the disposal of those who wish to make submissions, because even a time limit of ten days is rather short.
I would also point out that paragraph 5 should be added to those presently included in this bill.
I wonder whether under this subclause 5, it would not be possible for the commission, which is required by subclause 1 to sit at least one day, not to sit at all, since it is free to state that the evidence to be given is not to be heard at the sitting, so that if that commission felt that no evidence was worthy of being heard at that sitting, it could simply decide not to sit.
I wonder if subclause 5 is not at variance with subclause 1 of section 17, because I feel the commission could easily give the following interpretation to subclause 5: since there is no evidence likely to be of interest to the commission, the commission will not be required to sit at the place scheduled for that date.
I therefore ask the minister to clear up this point and also suggest that he might extend even to 30 days the period of time allowed to people anxious to submit representations to the commissions.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether we are going to discuss the whole of clause 17 at one time or do so by subclauses. The discussion started on 17 (1), then

jumped to 17 (2) and has now come back to 17 (1>. I would prefer to limit myself to 17 (1) and then go on to 17 (2), because it raises an entirely different sort of suggestion that we would wish to make to the minister. So far as 17 (1) is concerned, I had one wording but I am quite prepared to accept the minister's wording.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Would it be desirable that I should move the amendment to clause 17, subclause 1, now and dispose of 17 (1)?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Yes.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I move:
That subsection 1 of clause 17 be deleted and that the following subsection be substituted therefor-


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I think one of your colleagues has to do this.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I am advised that because the motion is in the name of the Prime Minister I am free to do so.
-17. (1) A commission may, in the performance of its duties under this act, sit at such times and places in the province for which it is established as it deems necessary, except that before completing its report it shall hold at least one sitting in that province for the hearing of representations by interested persons.


Lucien Lamoureux: The committee has heard the proposed amendment. Is it carried?


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Lucien Lamoureux: The committee will now deal with subclause 2.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I agree with the general principles enunciated by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni but I think it would be preferable to expand the advertisement beyond the Canada Gazette. Who receives the Canada Gazette? Lawyers and official bodies receive it by mail. It takes two or three days to deliver and has not a general circulation. As a matter of fact a lot of lawyers put it into their libraries when they receive it, and in some cases into their wastepaper baskets, and whether opened or unopened is always a good question.
Representation is such an important matter that I suggest the advertisement not only be published in the Canada Gazette, in order to make it official, but also in at least two appropriate daily newspapers published in a province. When I use the words "appropriate daily newspapers" I am thinking of a province such as Quebec where it should be published in both the French and English language papers, and the same would apply in New Brunswick.
Electoral Boundaries Commissions Alberta has two definite regions, and so the advertisement could be published in a Calgary paper and an Edmonton paper, and for the province of Saskatchewan in Regina and Saskatoon papers. In B.C. it could be published in one of the daily newspapers on Vancouver island and in another on the mainland. Further, there should be at least 30 days notice given before the commencement of sittings.


Maurice John Moreau: The hon. member's purposes are good, but does he not think that since this matter comes up only once in ten years and is of considerable public importance, the newspapers would carry information about the sittings in any case?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: They might, but possibly not concerning the exact hour and date of sittings. There are consequential provisions concerning the submission of representations, and that such representations be received prior to a certain time. One organization may say, "We will have our submission in the mail by the 10th of the month," but the commission may have indicated it wants all submissions received by 12 noon or 3 p.m. on that date.
Calls for tenders and other types of official notices on behalf of the government are advertised in daily newspapers, and surely the changes which may be made in constituency boundaries deserve as much consideration as calls for tenders. With the greatest respect to the government, if there is one way of making sure something will not be seen by the general public it is for the government to put it in the Canada Gazette.
I have an amendment which I am prepared to move, but if the minister accepted this suggestion I think it would be better if it were moved by the government.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I am pleased to have the support of the hon. member for Edmonton West with respect to notice other than in the Canada Gazette. I thought he was doing quite well when he outlined his proposal for advertisements in two newspapers-


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: In at least two.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: That makes it better. I thought he was doing quite well when he discussed some provinces, but he boggled a bit when he got to B.C. When I suggested earlier that the advertisement be published in a newspaper circulating in the area concerned I had in mind the situation in my own province of
B.C. where I do not think two newspapers could be said to cover the province.
9236	HOUSE OF
Electoral Boundaries Commissions If the area most affected were in the coastal region, say the Prince Rupert area, a Vancouver city or Vancouver island newspaper would not be suitable, nor do I think would the people of the Kootenays agree that a Vancouver newspaper would be suitable for their purposes. For that reason I would not like to see a commission confined to publishing the advertisement in two newspapers within a province.


Mr. Thomas:: I would like to support the contentions of the previous two speakers, and in addition to newspaper advertisements I suggest the best way to disseminate this information would be to contact the people most concerned, the candidates in the preceding general election and the candidates in any intervening by-election. They would then disseminate the information to their political parties.


Mr.   Palierson@: I wish to support the views expressed by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni. We all recognize the fact that very few people who receive the Canada Gazette read it, but I do not believe the suggestion made by the hon. member for Edmonton West is adequate, because it is almost impossible to pick out two papers in a province


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: At least two.


Mr. Patterson:: He says at least two, but I think you would have to go much beyond that to give the coverage required. We believe the fullest information possible should be disseminated in this connection. I think the government is aware of other means by which this could be done. I do not see why we could not use our own broadcasting corporation to place this information before the public. It is there, and it is providing a public service. I think all these media should be used to acquaint people of what is going on relative to this important matter.


Mr. Choquette:: Mr. Chairman, I approve the view expressed by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert). This bill must be given great publicity as it is certainly a most important piece of legislation since it deals with the preparation of the future electoral map of Canada.
However, I wonder if my hon. friend has read subsection 3 of clause 17. According to the principle he has laid down will it be necessary, in newspaper advertisements to insert the drawing referred to in subsection (3)?
Are you in favour?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Oh, yes.


Thomas Miller Bell: I should like to suggest to the minister, if he does not look too kindly on the proposal to publish this information in newspapers, that he might consider the methods used by such bodies as the board of broadcast governors and the board of transport commissioners with regard to their hearings on the subject of new radio stations, the discontinuance of railway lines, and so on. I think it is most important that every opportunity with regard to time should be given to all those who are interested and that facilities for publication should be made available. After all, hearings of this type are only held every ten years.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I appreciate that the
Canada Gazette is not widely read in the constituency of the hon. member for Edmonton West, or, for that matter, I hasten to add, in any other constituency in the country. I appreciate the hon. member's interest in this point. I gather that when notice is published in the Canada Gazette that the commission proposes to hold hearings it is a matter of general interest which would be picked up by the news media and widely publicized. This of course would give appropriate publicity to such hearings. However, I am prepared to make an attempt, at least, to meet the views expressed by the hon. member. I readily accept the point made by the hon. member for Edmonton West that the number of days might be increased from 15 to 30 and I will also accept, at least in part, the proposal with respect to newspaper publication. Would it not meet the situation if we provided that notice of the time and place fixed by the commission for any sittings to be held for the hearing of representations from interested persons shall be given by public advertisement in the Canada Gazette and in at least one daily newspaper of general circulation in the province concerned? This is going to be an expensive business- (Translation)


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: And in the province of Quebec, it would be in an English language newspaper?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Probably we should say that the information should be made public in at least one daily newspaper. The commissions will themselves be able to decide on the basis of their appreciation of the need for publicity whether to utilize more than

one. But let us say "at least one". If this meets with the wishes of the committee, I would move:
That subclause 2 of clause 17 be struck out and that the following be substituted-


William Howell Arthur Thomas: Before that amendment is read, I wonder if I might press this idea that all candidates at the preceding general election should be notified at the same time as publication is made in the Canada Gazette. After all, the representatives of our organized political parties in Canada are the people who operate our elections and our election machinery. 'Were it not for the organized political parties and the people who have taken an interest in this work over the years, our elections would be nothing but confusion. You can reach these people most readily through the candidates who contested the previous general election and I would certainly urge that notification be sent to the candidates.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I appreciate the importance of organized political parties and the desirability of candidates being informed. But it seems to me these constitute the group of persons most capable of getting this information, particularly if they are interested in running again. I would think this group would automatically follow these matters and need no special notification.


Stanley Howard Knowles: They might even read the Canada Gazette.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: It might be required reading for all candidates.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Before the minister proceeds I should like to raise one point. If I heard him correctly, he intends to use the phrase "in at least one daily newspaper". I cannot see it is necessary to include that word "daily".


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Oh yes.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Why? In certain areas of this country the commission might well consider it most desirable to publish in a newspaper which appeared less frequently than daily. If the word "daily" is used the commission will be prevented from exercising its discretion in this way. The minister may not have realized it but there are large areas of British Columbia where the residents just do not get daily newspapers within a reasonable time after their publication. But there may be a perfectly adequate weekly paper covering the area and I should like to see the legislation left open on this point
Electoral Boundaries Commissions so that the commission would not be bound in all cases to use daily newspapers, though I have no doubt that in most parts of Canada daily newspapers would be selected.


Mr. Francis:: I cannot support the suggestion of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni. In the first place we are meeting the request which was made with regard to time; the minister has indicated that 30 days will be allowed instead of 15. This deals with part of the problem. There is one other matter to which I would draw attention. In most of the metropolitan areas there are local papers which come out weekly or biweekly. I have noticed that in some cases the requirement of the Canada Elections Act for publication of the expenditures of candidates is met by publication in a weekly newspaper in a relatively obscure section of the riding. The technical requirement of publication is still met but I would not like to see a loophole of this kind left in the present measure and I do not believe that upon reflection the hon. member for Comox-Alberni would like it left in either.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: The minister suggested that publication would have to be made in a newspaper in general circulation and I think this would cover the point raised by the hon. member for Carleton. I can understand the consideration he has in mind in regard to urban areas, but I still maintain my right to suggest that people who live in scattered rural areas, where there may be no daily newspaper circulating, should be entitled to the same rights with regard to notice as people who live in populous places such as Carleton, which the hon. member represents in this house.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I will certainly take out the word "daily", Mr. Chairman. I do not think it will hurt the matter. Therefore may I continue with the motion. I move:
That subsection 2 be struck out and that the following be substituted:
"Notice of the time and place fixed by the commission for any sitting to be held by it for the hearing of representations from interested persons shall be given by advertisement published in the Canada Gazette and in at least one newspaper of general circulation in the province at least 30 days before the commencement of such sitting".


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Subclause as amended agreed to.
Lucien Lamoureux: We are now on subclause 4, notice of representation to be given before sittings.
9238	HOUSE OF
Electoral Boundaries Commissions


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, is not the minister going to move an amendment to subclause 4?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, I have an amendment here to subclause 4, but before moving it, if hon. members would like to speak to the subclause it might be better.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Chairman, the purpose of subclause 4 is to maintain the ten days notice to the commission. Under the bill as originally proposed, with the 15 days and then ten days before the commencement of the sittings, it allowed only five days for the public to become aware of a sitting, after publication of the notice, and to make up their minds after studying the advertisement whether they wished to make representations. Then they had to prepare a synopsis of their representations and get it into the hands of the secretary to the commission. Frankly that was impossible. That is why there has been the insistence on the 30 days notice. Now that the minister has brought forward the 30 days amendment, notice must be given within 20 days after the date of publication. This means that the commission will get ten clear days notice. I think that is basically the same requirement in subclause 4 as it now stands as it is in the proposed amendment. I would have thought that was not necessary. I would have thought it would be adequate to give five days notice.
My notes in the original instance on examination of this bill indicate that five days notice would be sufficient, and therefore we could take the proposed amendment of the minister by saying "within 25 days of the date of hearing". I think the purpose of the notice is to give the public the chance to study the proposals and make their representations. It must be remembered that you will be dealing in many instances with really untrained persons, in so far as making representations before public bodies is concerned. They are not going to go running to high priced counsel to make these representations. Therefore every latitude should be given to the public in this regard.
It may be a little bit of tough luck on the commission, but in any event the subject is somewhat limited. I do not know how many representations will be received, say in the province of Alberta, with regard to 17 seats as the matter now stands. Ontario, regionally might be somewhat greater. But I do feel, and suggest to the minister, that at this time we should bear in mind that publication in the Canada Gazette at the first of the month
[The Chairman.]

will perhaps not get to the people until the third of the month, and if it is a newspaper circulated in a province, by the time it gets to the rural areas three or four days may have been eaten up. Let us give the public the benefit of any latitude that can be given. Therefore instead of saying "20 days from the date of publication", why not say 25 days, giving the commissions five days before the sittings? I think this would be quite adequate. I put my point forward on that basis, Mr. Chairman. There is a proposal for a subclause 5 and I am going to have something to say about that, but I am dealing with subclause 4 at the present time.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, I am advised, and I think there is considerable validity in this view, that the commissions will require more than five days between the moment a representation is received and the time a hearing is held. This is regarded as the irreducible minimum in order to give the commissions an opportunity to sift out the representations. There may be many representations received by a commission and it may not be possible for them to get ready for a hearing and hold it in five days. We think ten days is the minimum they ought to have. I put that forward as a reason why the provision which is contained in the amended subclause 4 ought to be maintained.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Chairman, the minister will readily understand that in certain areas of the country time will be taken up by what might be called the portal to portal requirements in connection with notice reaching interested people. Then they have to prepare their representations and get them into the hands of the secretary. Anywhere from seven to ten days may elapse as a result. Therefore what I am concerned about is the time allotted to the public to study the proposals, make up their minds and then prepare their representations. I am concerned that this time is being squeezed. After all, there will be a deadline imposed by the secretary to the commission, and if they say representations will be received until five o'clock on a certain day, and that is ten days before the sittings, difficulties might arise for the public. In this regard I would ask the minister, just how complicated can these representations be? The commissioners may have to bend over a little more, I will admit; but my concern is primarily for the public, unless the intention is to insist that they go to high priced counsel to prepare these briefs and get them in. I think we would be erring on

Electoral Boundaries Commissions
the side of restriction rather than on being generous with the public.


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, I just want to say a few words in support of the views expressed by the hon. member for Edmonton West with respect to increasing the number of days to 25. Let us consider the situation. The commissions will be well versed in the electoral boundaries of the ridings with which they are concerned, because they will have studied them and set those boundaries. They will know the conditions that exist in the constituencies with which they are concerned. On the other hand, when a notice appears to the general public it will not be the individual who will be making the representation as much as groups of people interested in the political affairs of that particular constituency. No one person in that organization is going to make the necessary decision as to whether or not representations should be made. Meetings will have to be called; they will have to prepare themselves and look at the situation, all of which will take a longer time than it would take the commission to acquaint themselves with the representations they have already carefully studied in the setting out of the electoral boundaries. Therefore I think if we are to decide which way it should go the benefit should be given to those people who are not acquainted with what is going on but who are anxious, after careful consideration resulting from a number of meetings, to decide whether or not they should make a representation, and also to decide what form the representation should take.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I might say a few words on this question. I certainly agree with the two hon. members who have just spoken with regard to the need for adequate time. We have already dealt with the clause which requires at least 30 days notice to be given. I am wondering whether the minister, in view of his earlier remarks, could give us any indication, arising out of any experience, knowledge or advice he has on the question, just what emphasis will be put on the 30 days and what interpretation will be given to the words "at least". In other words, if we could have some reasonable assurance that the normal practice would be that more than 30 days notice would be given and that only in unusual circumstances would just 30 days notice be given, then I think there might be a better case for the minister's idea that the commissions will require at least 10 days notice. It 20220-585
would appear to me that in using the phrase "at least 30 days" we are indicating the general desire of this house in putting through this measure that the normal practice should be that wherever feasible more than 30 days notice should be given. Has the minister any advice or information in this particular connection which he is able to give the committee on this very important aspect of the matter?


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the minister whether he has any information on the Australian act in this regard? I understand a lot of the thinking behind the bill has originated from the Australian position and it is quite important that we do give adequate time. Perhaps we should have considered subclause 2 in relation to subclause
4.	I am all in favour of all the time in the world. The minister, coming from Nova Scotia, is familiar with a case conducted before the transport board regarding the discontinuance of a railway line of which very little notice was given the public and considerable annoyance resulted. Surely we know what is the experience in Australia.


Maurice John Moreau: Mr. Chairman, in our meetings with the electoral officer who studied the Australian act-some members of the house took advantage of this-Mr. Castonguay, in reporting on the Australian experience, did indicate to the members interested-I do not know whether the hon. member who just spoke was at the meeting-that it was the experience of the commission in Australia that the largest number of public hearings were rather beneficial, and I think probably that would be the attitude of our commissions.
With regard to the point made by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni, let me say that 30 days is a minimum time for advertisement, and I certainly hope the commissions in Canada will give more time than that. I think we must keep in mind that this is the minimum time. In my opinion we should not attempt to hamstring the commission too much. We must remember that five days might just straddle a week end, which may give them very little time. We are dealing with people who, to some extent at least, are engaged in other occupations as well. I hope the members of the committee will accept the amendment proposed, bearing in mind that we are indicating to the commissions that 30 days is a minimum period.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Chairman, as the hon. member for Saint John-Albert said, if we had looked a little more carefully at subclause

Electoral Boundaries Commissions 2 we might have provided 40 days so as to give 30 days to the public and then 10 days to the commission. The point of view expressed by the hon. member for York-Scar-borough and also by the minister with regard to the commission is certainly a very arguable one and I agree that there is some merit in it. But in balancing the two as between the public interest and the interest of the board within a limitation of 30 days, my view is that we should err on the side of the public.
If one looks back to clause 13 certain factors are indicated at which the commission may look in deciding to go outside the normal population quotient, such as the special geographic conditions, sparsity or density of population, historical boundaries, historical counties and such other matters. Those people will have to mobilize their information, and so forth, because it is not going to be the city ridings where there will be trouble. One street compared to another is not going to make as much difference as, say, a traditional boundary or county. In the older parts of Canada these traditional boundaries are certainly very important and I think must fully be taken into account. That is why I tend to plump on the side of the public interest rather than what I might call the administrative convenience of the commission.


Mr. Fisher:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to support the argument which has been raised for a greater length of time, and I should like to quote an example to the minister from northern Ontario, where I imagine at the first redistribution there will be the most difficulty. You will have a situation where there would be five ridings to which probably some adjustments will be made. They cover a distance of roughly 700 miles from east to west and 600 miles from north to south, with communities scattered all along the way. I would point here to Kenora-Rainy River, where some communities involving several thousand voters could be on the margins of boundaries with as much as 300 or 400 miles between them.
Another point is that there is no single newspaper which reaches this region. There is no radio station or television station in this region. The watersheds of influence and information are tremendously varied and the changes which will be necessary as a result of any commission hearings and subsequent redistribution will be substantial. If I may give one example, it is quite possible that the constituency of Port Arthur, which is going to be cut considerably, is likely to have some relationship with Kapuskasing and

even Timmins; yet there is no normal centre for any communication between these two places at all. For that reason I think the time mentioned is really minimal; it is very narrow.
I think the minister is aware that during elections there is an extra time allowance for certain of the northern ridings because of their area, and it is a rather substantial time allowance in relationship to the total electoral period. It seems to me that very same argument applies in this case. Therefore I should like to support the arguments which have been put forward by the hon. member for Edmonton West regarding the time factor. I like the improvement to this clause suggested by the minister but I think he can be even more generous.


Mr. Smith:: Mr. Chairman, the minister has been very kind in accepting certain suggestions, but perhaps the way out of this dilemma would be to leave the ten day period and make the notice 40 days. As the hon. member for Port Arthur has pointed out, objections will be raised in remote sections of the country where communities may be shifted from one riding to another, and it is under those circumstances that the people will require additional time. It is relatively simple to effect a redistribution and notify everyone in a city riding where the large population changes will be made. However, the controversial changes are going to be those where townships and towns are changed. Perhaps the minister would accept the 40 days notice and the ten day period, because in fairness to everyone five days is a short period of time for the commission to prepare for representations.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I am conscious of the argument that has been made in respect of giving the public sufficient time, but a few moments ago we decided that the 30 days would be ample. We must reconcile the interest of the public with the efficient conduct of the commission's work.
What we could do is give the commission a week, or seven days, and within the 30 day period give the public 23 days, providing additional time within that 30 day period. In most provinces I do not think the commissions will need the 30 days, but in large provinces they will perhaps need more.


Sydney John Smith: In the first instance they will require more time.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: We must bear in mind that the commissions, in the exercise of their duties, can take more time if necessary, be-

cause this suggested 30 day period is a minimum. The commission could take 40 or 50 days if they require that much time. We are only suggesting that the time must be at least 30 days.
Perhaps I may be allowed to move an amendment making this seven days and 23 days.
Mr. Chairman, I move:
That subclause 4 be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"No representation shall be heard by a commission at any sittings held by it for the hearing of representations from interested persons unless notice in writing is given to the secretary to the commission within 23 days from the date of publication in the Canada Gazette of the advertisements referred to in subsection (2), stating the name and address of the person by whom the representation is sought to be made and indicating concisely the nature of the representation and of the interest of such person.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Chairman, since this was prepared on the basis of the Canada Gazette, and the minister then amended subsection 2 to include the words "and in at least one newspaper of general circulation in the province", would it not be proper to have this subclause read "within 23 days from the date of publication of the advertisements referred to in subsection 2"?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, perhaps we could make that change by consent.


William Howell Arthur Thomas: Mr. Chairman, would that not spoil the effect of this amendment? If a commission decided it should have 40, 50 or 60 days, the effect of this subclause, fixing the time from the date of that publication, would prevent the commission from providing more time. I think it would be much safer, if we want seven days, to simply change the ten to seven.


Lucien Lamoureux: The committee has heard the amendment as proposed by the minister and further amended by the suggestion of the hon. member for Edmonton West, which now is as follows:
No representation shall be heard by a commission at any sittings held by it for the hearing of representations from interested persons unless notice in writing is given to the secretary to the commission within 23 days from the date of publication of the advertisements referred to in subsection (2), stating the name and address of the person by whom the representation is sought to be made and indicating concisely the nature of the representation and of the interest of such person.
Is the subclause carried as amended?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


William Howell Arthur Thomas: On division.
20220-585i
Electoral Boundaries Commissions


Lucien Lamoureux: We will now proceed to subclause 5.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, I am suggesting that a subclause 5 be added to clause 17 as follows:
A commission may, in the case of any representation of which notice has been given under subsection (4), dispense with the hearing of such representation at any sittings held by it where, in its opinion, the nature of the representation as indicated in the notice is such that no such hearing is necessary.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Chairman, I am rather surprised that the minister has come forward with this proposed amendment, because it represents a judgment without a hearing. 1 could not for a moment accept it. It may be that in a case where there are no representations the commission would not be required to sit, although it has given notice of a hearing, but we could not possibly accept this amendment in its present form. It states "the nature of the representation as indicated in the notice is such that no such hearing is necessary." We are giving carte blanche to the commission to reject, in theory, any representation, yet the machinery of the act does not provide for any appeal from the commission's decision in this regard. Again I think public interest demands that any representations made must be heard. After all, the requirement is only on the basis of a concise representation as referred to in subclause 4. Therefore, representations could be dismissed out of hand on the basis of a precis or synthesis of a representation to be made, and there is no appeal whatsoever from a commission's decision.


Maurice John Moreau: Would the hon. member permit a question? Perhaps I misunderstood him, but is he suggesting that the commission should be bound to accept representations made by anyone?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I am suggesting that representations must be heard, and that is all. If at the hearing it is apparent that the representation is frivolous, the commission should hear the people and tell them that their representation will not be considered. I do not think the commission should be permitted to reply by letter to the effect that it has received a representation but cannot understand or accept it, and therefore there is not going to be a hearing. This problem is theoretical, but is in respect of theoretical problems that trouble occurs. With the greatest respect to the minister, we on this side cannot accept his amendment.

Electoral Boundaries Commissions


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, before the hon. member for Edmonton West takes a firm position, may I ask him in respect of those representations having to do with minor patent errors in the description of boundaries which representations they propose to accept. Every redistribution committee I have been on has experienced several cases involving obvious omissions in descriptions, and that sort of thing. How would the hon. member handle that situation?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The same way as would be done in a court of appeal. An appeal is launched and the court may not hear counsel prior to granting the appeal. In any event, it makes a public declaration that it is accepting the appeal, or if it is not accepting the appeal without argument it then hears argument. No court will say: We have judged these cases and no sittings will be held. This is what this subamendment is suggesting is possible, that the commission will say they have read the representations and they reject them out of hand. If they accept them that may be all right, but what about the rejections?


George James McIlraith: The hon. member was taking a firm position in absolute terms with regard to the proposed amendment and I was trying to suggest to him that in the case of both the redistribution committees on which I have served there were several situations where there were minor inaccuracies in the description of boundaries. They were petty things and I do not want to take time to recount them in detail. Surely there should be provision somewhere to permit the commission to deal with that type of case. Possibly this clause does not do it.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The minister will agree with me that the proposition I have put forward is quite tenable and that under the wording of the proposed subamendment representations could be rejected entirely out of hand. That would be possible under this wording.


George James McIlraith: Yes, but I was trying to intimate to the hon. member that having put forward that point he then went much further and excluded the authority to deal with another situation where there may be a necessity for such authority.


Mr. Lamberl:: Again I would much prefer to err in the other direction than in the direction indicated by the subamendment.


Guy Marcoux: Mr. Chairman, I do not think that the fact of giving the commission the power to reserve its opinion on the representations to be made is something new.
There is the board of broadcast governors which decides in advance whether a brief can be accepted or not. We have also here in this house the decision of the Speaker who decides whether the remarks made are pertinent or not, so that before a matter is completely detailed, he can call the member to order.
However, as I mentioned to the minister a while ago, I wonder if subparagraph 5 does not say the very opposite of subparagraph 1 of clause 17.
As I explained, if the commission feels that no useful information is likely to result from the representations, it might merely decide not to hold a hearing. In my opinion, the discretionary powers given to it by subparagraph 5 are too wide, since under that clause the commission may decide not to sit at all unless there is another way to explain the same thing in that clause.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, for the purpose of getting this point clear I wonder whether we could have an answer to what the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency has just said. As I understood it, he said that the commission could in its own judgment dispense with the sittings. I do not read it that way. As I read it, the commission could dispense with a representation but it would have to do so at one of the sittings. In other words, if a representation is made that is frivolous or that is not necessary because the matter has been taken care of, the commission could say so but would have to say it publicly at the sitting: We are dispensing with the representation, not with the sitting. Is that not what it says?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The proposed subclause 5 reads:
A commission may, in the case of any representation of which notice has been given under subsection 4, dispense with the hearing of such representation-
May I emphasize these words.
-at any sittings held by it-
It seems to me it cannot do so in camera or under the table or secretly. It has to do it at the sittings that still have to be held. I wonder whether the minister would com-

ment on the remarks made by the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency and my own remarks so we may get the point clear.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That is my understanding of the section, that a commission certainly could not dispense with a sitting or a hearing. It could dispense with the hearing of a representation. I should like to indicate to those members who have spoken on this point the reason for making this proposal. It is to avoid placing an obligation on the commission to hear, for example, repetitious representations. And, although it may be an unlikely eventuality, possibly this is the most important point: Suppose a group of individuals or an individual attempted systematically to hold up and delay the work of redistribution by a series of successive representations. This is a possibility that may be unlikely but it may occur. This provision would give the commission the opportunity to dispense with such representations. It certainly is not intended to remove the possibility of hearing valid representations.


Mr. Baldwin:: Mr. Chairman, could you not achieve the same result by taking due advantage of clause 16 without the necessity of having subclause 5 of clause 17? I assume that clause 16 was adopted in its present form. Clause 16 gives the commission the power to make rules and surely by making rules, as any appellate court with competent jurisdiction may do, they could prevent the kind of repetition which the minister now appears to be afraid might take place. All that would be required to avoid that result would be the making and promulgation of rules under clause 16.


Sydney John Smith: Mr. Chairman, these hearings are going to take place only once every 10 years and I think it is just as important that the commission give the appearance of a full hearing for everyone as it is to provide for such hearings. While the minister's explanation is reasonable on the face of it, I should like to draw attention particularly to the last words of the proposed amendment, "that no such hearing is necessary". How would a commission really know whether or not a hearing was necessary until they had heard the representations? I think that the intention of the amendment is perhaps good but the wording is unfortunate and can only suggest that the commission might want to be secretive or might want to have less than a full airing of views. I know that is not the intention but we have there the words "as indicated in the
Electoral Boundaries Commissions notice is such that no such hearing is necessary".
We are changing the boundaries of the ridings only every 10 years and it is a very final thing. Therefore I think it is most important that no words be left in there that will give the slightest hint of anything less than a full hearing. The President of the Privy Council has suggested that one case might be where the commission is prepared to accept the suggestion of a group. This happens every day with the Ontario municipal board. A group of citizens come before the board and are told at the beginning of the hearing that the board is very happy to see them but it has accepted their proposition. I think that is the way it should be done in this instance. If there is any validity in this amendment then certainly happier and better words could be used.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I take it that the minister did not formally move this subamendment.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I did not think I had moved it.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: So this has been technically all out of order.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: If the hon. member will forgive me for taking the floor, I wish to say my purpose was to put the thought before the committee in the form of an amendment, but I did not move it.


Gordon Minto Churchill: That is my point. It was a bit of kite flying, and we have shot the kite down. Perhaps we could now go on to some other clause of the bill, otherwise we shall have to spend a lot of time discussing a proposal to which we on this side are opposed. The arguments against adopting the amendment have already been presented. I do not want to be guilty of repetition but I think it has been made clear to the minister that, although whoever devised this and put it in front of him may have had a good idea at the time, on examination it does not seem satisfactory.
It is unnecessarily adding something to the bill, and one of the difficulties with attempting to do that with a bill, as has been illustrated this afternoon, is that it immediately strikes members of the committee as being unnecessary. We do not want the commissions to give an appearance of preventing the public being heard. We are charting a new course, and let us not put restrictions on it at the start. If, following experience of commission hearings, it may be advisable in the distant future to make a change, it can be made at that time. I suggest that the minister drop this point now.

Electoral Boundaries Commissions


Allan Joseph MacEachen: May I suggest that we have another look at it and maybe we could produce a proposal in a form that would be agreeable to members of the committee. I would be willing to pass on, with the understanding that I could come back to this and in the meantime try to work out something that would get general consent.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: And may I suggest that in his reconsideration the minister take into account the rather interesting points raised by the hon. member for Peace River in relation to the implications of clause 16, with which we have already dealt. I am wondering whether some slight modification of the wording in clause 16 might not more appropriately cover the problem which I know the minister has in the back of his mind.


Gerald William Baldwin: May I tell the minister that the rules of court which are promulgated by supreme court judges are wide enough to cover from time to time the kind of thing the minister has in mind, not to the extent of preventing a litigant from having his remedy before court, but providing the rules under which he gets there. I think clause 16 is ample to cover the sort of thing the minister has in mind.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I would be glad to have the proposal made by the hon. member for Peace River reviewed, and with further consideration and consultation I reserve the right to come back to this if we can work out something acceptable. On the other hand, if it is established that the point made by the hon. member for Peace River covers the situation, we will not have to come back to this at all.
Clause 17 stands.
On clause 18-Time within which report to be completed.


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Chairman, before we consider clause 18, I should like just to say a word on clause 17, in its entirety, since this word is accepted. It is related to the advertising to be done: about the publication of notices in newspapers, according to paragraph 2.
There is one thing I would have liked to see and that is bilingual advertising, whatever the province in which it appears, because in the long run if the notice is published let us say, for instance, in a newspaper of Quebec city-where 5 per cent of the people are English speaking, why should we accept

bilingual advertising in Quebec city and not in Prince Edward Island where, according to official data, 8.8 per cent of the people are French speaking?
I respectfully submit, therefore, that all publicity from the federal government should be bilingual, no matter what part of the country it is meant for. That would help us a great deal to fight against those many subversive ideas which are spreading and make the French-Canadian element look upon the federal government as an institution not to be trusted, because it is said that the federal government is not interested in the least in promoting French culture and the French language. That is why I find this suggestion most timely and that the government should see to it that all publicity be bilingual, for the federal government, besides being the government of 12 million English speaking people, is also that of six million French speaking Canadians. It would seem to me, then, to be perfectly logical and reasonable that this matter be given serious consideration and that all publicity from the federal government be bilingual across the country.

Clause 18 agreed to.
On clause 19-Report to be laid before house.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: With respect to subclause 2 I think the same considerations would apply to the dissemination of the report of the commission as were required for the purposes of the notices of sittings. Therefore I would suggest that the subclause be amended by adding to it the words "and in at least one newspaper of general circulation in each of the provinces".


William Howell Arthur Thomas: Why could we not have the candidates in the last preceding general election notified? Speaking on a previous clause the minister said this would not be desirable and I would like him to enlarge on his reasons.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: My thoughts are simple on this point. I do not see why candidates, important as we regard ourselves, should be singled out for special attention. Second, I think those who are candidates have an inbuilt incentive to inform themselves about these matters.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: What about the point raised by the hon. member for Edmonton West?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The report of any commission in a province is bound to get publicity. Surely it will be big news and will appear in every paper. Further, such reports are likely to be voluminous, and may possibly contain electoral maps. I ask, do members of the committee think it necessary to publish the whole of such a report as an advertisement in the newspapers, since the report itself is bound to get publicity? I should like to meet the point made by the hon. member for Edmonton West but I do believe that here is a case where the news is of such importance that it is bound to get out-


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: But there is one point which I would bring to the minister's attention with regard to the time element involved. Clause 20 reads:
If within a period of 30 days from the day the copy of the report of any commission for a province is laid before the House of Commons or published pursuant to section 19-
There is a time limit and I do not think we can rely on the fact that communications media will pick up the report. There is an official step to be taken. There is a requirement. And if we require somebody to do something within a certain period there must be a starting date and there must be publication of that date. Certainly the news media will carry the story. But we do not know in what form they will use it. After all, a daily newspaper is not likely to take page after page spelling out reams of descriptions of changes in constituencies on the fringe of its circulation area. How much news space can a metropolitan newspaper devote to a report of this kind? In certain towns and cities there is only one newspaper, and one aspect of this is a smattering of editorial content between the advertisements. This constitutes the newspaper on certain big shopping days. Why not guarantee the widest distribution by the publication of this report? It may take a whole page. What is the difference? Is it not worth it? You are paying $800 or $900-


Maurice John Moreau: But we may be dealing here with a voluminous report and surely the hon. member is not suggesting that the whole report be published. I should like to bring to the hon. gentleman's attention a recent experience when some changes were made in metropolitan boundaries. They received considerable publicity throughout the province of Ontario; new maps were printed, and so on. I suggest to the hon. member that his concept of making this information available
Electoral Boundaries Commissions by public advertisement could be applied to almost any piece of legislation. Surely he is not suggesting we should insert paid advertisements in newspapers throughout the country to acquaint the public with everything parliament has done? There is a role here for the news media. It strikes me this would be a news story of paramount importance. One paper would be trying to "scoop" another and I cannot see any need for the publication of the whole report.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Is the hon. member suggesting, then, that a deadline be fixed on the basis of the publication of a news story? We are involved here in a legal requirement, because 31 days after the happening of an event it will be too late to do something. I say therefore that the legislation has to provide for a legal pattern. There must be a starting point which is generally known, not merely a date of publication in the Canada Gazette which is unknown to the public generally.


Maurice John Moreau: Would the hon. member not agree that there is a role here for the member of parliament? He will have access to the report when it is tabled in the house, and if there are any features in it which appear to him to be objectionable he will be in a position to deal with them. It would seem to me that when we take into account the Canada Gazette, the news media and the members of parliament who will receive copies of the report we find ourselves with ample means of getting out this information.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: On the other hand, as far as members of this house are concerned they receive the Canada Gazette at their offices, and we are talking about a period between sessions. It is all very well for the hon. member opposite who comes from Toronto, close to Ottawa, to talk in this way but I am thinking of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni, for instance, who could be entirely cut off from a notice in the Canada Gazette, completely to his detriment. I admit there will be wide publicity, but a news story does not start the clock ticking for a legal pattern.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I take it that clauses 19 and 20 refer to procedures to to be followed by members of the House of Commons. If we could add something at the end of subclause 2 of clause 19 whereby members would be notified individually of the report, it would meet the objection raised by the hon. member for Edmonton West. The general public are not concerned with the wording of the clause we are considering, but the members of this

Electoral Boundaries Commissions house are. I do not have the wording in mind at the moment but I would think that if a few words could be added at the end of subclause 2 providing for direct notification being given to members of parliament, this might satisfy us.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I was on the point of rising to make a suggestion along the lines of the one just made by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre. It seems to me his proposal would meet the situation. If, in addition to publication in the Canada Gazette, the Speaker were required to notify members of the house individually when the house was not in session, an opportunity would be given for action to be taken within the time limit as suggested in clause 20.


William Howell Arthur Thomas: Again, I come back to my suggestion that all the candidates in the general election preceding redistribution should be entitled to this information, not just the sitting members.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: This affects the sitting members only.


Thomas Miller Bell: While the minister is thinking about this matter for a few moments, I return to the point I raised a short while ago. It is true we are dealing with new legislation here but I think some of the patterns which have been established by other boards and commissions could well be followed at the present time. For example, we have been talking about notification of interested parties. I suggested we might follow some of the practices used by such bodies as the board of broadcast governors and the board of transport commissioners. The post office has a system which provides for notification after hearings have been held. When the board of broadcast governors has held a hearing, those concerned are notified by mail, afterwards, of the results. Would it not be possible to follow a system of this kind? I think it should be the responsibility of the commission not only to notify interested parties so that they may make their representations but also to make the results available afterwards. I urge that some standard procedure be followed throughout this whole business of notification and publication.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The proposal put forward by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre is satisfactory. I would be prepared to include a provision that a copy of the relevant Canada Gazette-the copy which con-. tains the report-


Stanley Howard Knowles: It had better be a marked copy.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -be sent to each member of parliament; that it be mailed to each member of parliament. This is a matter, as the hon. member for Edmonton West pointed out, that relates to an action that must be taken by members of parliament and it is logical that some special effort should be made to see that the reports get into the hands of members. I do not think that effort will really be required, but it might be desirable in the future, when members may not be so concerned about the boundaries of their ridings.


Lucien Lamoureux: Is the minister proposing an amendment to clause 19?


Norman Platt Lambert: Mr. Chairman, could we leave this clause open until after the dinner hour? There are other amendments that will be brought in at that time for the consideration of the committee.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Certainly.


Lucien Lamoureux: Clause 19 stands.
On clause 20-Procedure where objection filed with Speaker.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, with regard to clause 20, I think earlier in the debate on second reading hon. members had drawn out attention to line 29 which says:
-signed by not less than one third of the members of the House of Commons representing electoral districts in that province-
With the distribution of seats by parties, this prohibits any objection by certain provinces. I think this is something the committee must now consider, namely how objections can be put forward by parties which are not represented in the house.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: We have considered the points that have been raised in this regard and I have circulated a proposed amendment, Mr. Chairman. I hope all interested hon. members have a copy. This represents a rather important change to clause 20. As I read the changes proposed, the one third is reduced to one fourth of the members of the House of Commons representing electoral districts in that province. This meets, of course, a point that was made in the debate by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka, who argued, as an illustration of the necessity for a change, that the present membership of his party in the province of Ontario is less than one third and therefore the group from that province would not be in a position to take the action that is contemplated.


John George Diefenbaker: It would be the same in Quebec.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I am sure that may occur in other provinces. So we have met that point and are suggesting that one fourth of the members of the House of Commons representing electoral districts in that province sign such an objection and file it with the Speaker. Of course, the Solicitor General, for example, and the hon. member for Queens (Mr. MacLean) would be in a different position; one member from the province of Prince Edward Island would be able to raise an objection. That might be fine.


Stanley Howard Knowles: With regard to this new rule, Mr. Chairman, supposing my hon. friend the minister and his friends do not like the map that is submitted for Saskatchewan; what would they do about it?


Norman Platt Lambert: Lump it.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That is the point that was raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre. I suppose we could not do anything about it, unless we could get the co-operation of hon. members on the other side to present a proposal.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I believe there is a serious point here, even though there has been some amusement about it. After all, while the members of a province do have a particular interest in the ridings of that province, under this clause the matter is being brought before parliament; it is parliament as a whole that looks at it. I am wondering whether there is not some way whereby a certain number of members of parliament could do it, rather than its being limited to those from the particular province concerned.


Sydney John Smith: That is co-operative federalism at its worst.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, this is a rather harsh rule. I can think of a number of provinces in which there could be no objection, no matter what was done. In the province of Saskatchewan, of course, no objection could be raised by anyone. With regard to the province of Alberta, the Liberal party would be in the same position. With regard to the province of Quebec, on this basis we would simply have to accept what was determined for us.
I am wondering whether there should not be a provision made, as a member of parliament represents all of Canada, that one fourth of the members of the House of Commons should be concerned with such an 20220-586
Electoral Boundaries Commissions objection. That would give a general power of objection. It could never hope to cover the various third parties, but it would cover the position of the two major parties. Certainly the system that is provided in the amendment would not protect third parties at all; but if there were a provision whereby one quarter of the membership of the house would be able to object, I think it would be fair. On the present basis it is certainly anything but fair. Again I repeat that, as a member of parliament represents not only his own constituency but his country, if provision were made for one fourth of the members of the house to object to what had taken place in Quebec, Ontario or any other province, I think the general cause of objection in this regard would be removed.


Maurice John Moreau: Mr. Chairman, I wonder
whether the Leader of the Opposition would clarify a point for me. I think members of the committee would realize the danger in having 25 per cent of the members of the House of Commons considering the whole report. I think this might be acceptable province by province; but it seems to me that members of parliament are never so impartial as when they are considering ridings other than their own. In view of the far reaching effects of this redistribution, I do not think it is likely that any of us will be completely happy with the final report. It would seem to me there would be a very serious danger if the report were considered in its entirety, and perhaps it should be considered province by province.
I believe this is why the initial proposal was made. The final decision by the House of Commons would be by the majority of members and not necessarily by those members who come from that province. This report will have to be accepted by parliament, as I understand it.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, there is a much more fundamental change in the amendment than the one to which reference has been made; that is, that in the original draft of clause 20 the members who register an objection with the Speaker have the right to debate the matter, and if the house passes a resolution to this effect, the report is sent back to the commissioner for reconsideration by the commission. The draft now before us provides:
-the Speaker shall, within the first five days next after the expiration of that period that the Hou.se of Commons is sitting, cause a copy of the objection to be laid before the House of Commons

Electoral Boundaries Commissions and published in the Votes and Proceedings of the said house, and the report shall thereupon be referred back to the representation commissioner by the Speaker, together with a copy of the objection, for reconsideration by the commission having regard to the objection.
I take it this means there will be no debate and no resolution agreed to by the house. If that is correct, I would object very strongly either to the provision that it would require one quarter of the members from a particular province to register an objection or to the suggestion of the Leader of the Opposition that one quarter of the members of the house be required to register an objection. If these objections are not going to be debated it seems to me that any ten members should be allowed to file an objection. Since all that is going to be done with these objections is to have them appear in Votes and Proceedings and then be referred back to the commission for reconsideration, I do not think we need restrict the number very severely. I can understand that when an objection was going to be debatable and the house had to take up a good deal of time naturally we would not want 20 or 30 objections registered.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Or 265.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Yes. Well, you could provide that ten members could make an objection and have some provision that those members' names should not appear on any other objection. But if all that is going to happen is that these objections are filed and printed in Votes and Proceedings and then forwarded to the commission, we can afford to have this clause wide open so that any ten members can raise an objection to some part of the report, and then have this objection considered by the commission.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, I had not read this suggested amendment but it would simply destroy the power of parliament. This goes much too far. We must have the opportunity of determining in parliament whether substantial wrong has been done. We should at least be able to debate the question. This proposed amendment would simply emasculate parliament. All that would happen is that an objection would appear on Votes and Proceedings; it would go back to the commission and the commission would say that they had already determined the matter once and for all and were not going to do anything more about it.
I should like to hear an explanation of this. This is an administrative short cut which puts an end to parliament. I had not appreciated its significance until I heard the hon.

member for Burnaby-Coquitlam speak. I would oppose this suggested amendment to the limit. It would remove from parliament the power to debate a wrong when it occurs in the opinion of a substantial number of members of parliament.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: If I may, Mr. Chairman, in order to establish on the record what we are discussing perhaps I may be permitted to read this suggestion. Nowhere does it appear on the record at the present time, and I do not think it would be fair to ask the minister to put it on because it would become a formal amendment. Perhaps it would be better if I just read the suggestion:
If within a period of 30 days from the day a copy of the report of any commission for a province is laid before the House of Commons or published pursuant to section 19, an objection in writing signed by not less than one fourth of the members of the House of Commons representing electoral districts in that province is filed with the Speaker specifying the provisions of the report objected to and the reasons for the objection, the Speaker shall, within the first five days next after the expiration of that period that the House of Commons is sitting, cause a copy of the objection to be laid before the House of Commons and published in the Votes and Proceedings of the said house, and the report shall thereupon be referred back to the representation commissioner by the Speaker, together with a copy of the objection, for reconsideration by the commission having regard to the objection.
As has been suggested to me, this is a suggestion on the part of the minister, and I would put it no higher than a suggestion. It may require a little more consideration than we can give it now, we having just received it, so perhaps after we have heard a few speakers we could stand clause 20 so that we could consider the matter over the dinner hour.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, may I just explain the purpose of the suggested changes which have been circulated in the form of a draft for the consideration of the members of the committee.


John George Diefenbaker: Who drafted the last one?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The first change is a reduction from one third to one quarter and was intended to meet the point made by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka. It would also help the situation generally.
The second proposal certainly removes the opportunity for the house as a whole to debate objections proposed by members of parliament. However, if, for example, the hon. member for Queens, Prince Edward Island, following the report of the commission for

that province, had serious objection to that report, under the original proposal this objection would have to be debated and a resolution passed by the house before it could be considered by the commission. In other words, any objecting group would have to secure a majority in the house before they could have their objections considered by the commission. This alternative makes it possible for the objecting members to have their objections heard by the commission without in the process enlisting majority support for their objections. This is obviously a protection for minorities in the house to enable members to have their objections heard by the representation commissioner. As the Leader of the Opposition has pointed out, it does remove that stage which is provided in the earlier draft, namely that parliament debates the matter and then by resolution sends the objection back.
As I understand it these are the purposes of the suggested draft which has been put forward for consideration, but I did want to explain, as I understand them, the reasons for the proposed changes so that hon. members might consider them.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, the suggestions-perhaps I might refer to them as the draft suggested amendments-have not yet been placed before Your Honour, although they are being considered by the committee. I must say they have no appeal to me whatever. This is the kind of thing which would actually deny parliament any control whatever. Certainly we would have to have a majority of the house in order to secure reconsideration by the commission if the original clause in the bill were carried.
However, difficult as it would be to get a majority of the house, on the basis of my experience going over many years, and as an interested party in two or three redistributions, public opinion does have its effect. If we accepted this projected, anticipated or casually advanced suggested amendment, we would deny the public the opportunity of hearing the facts, and I for one would be very opposed to anything of that kind.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition would develop his argument along this line-and I do not relate this thought to the present parliament. Is it not possible that during some future parliament party advantage might be taken, in that the objecting members would be prevented by a majority of another party from having their objections heard? In other words, if 20220-5864
Electoral Boundaries Commissions an element of partisanship entered into this it could have this effect. Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition would consider that point.


John George Diefenbaker: Let us try to analyse the situation, human nature being what it is. Let us consider, for example, commission A. That commission hears representations and draws a map. All of the possible objections will have been raised at its hearings. If parliament simply goes through a perfunctory operation, and not one based at all on consideration, because one quarter of the members from the province in question, over which commission A has authority object, the matter goes back to the commission. Anyone who has ever reargued a case in a court which has originally come to a conclusion, yet for some reason a reargument is considered necessary, knows what the difficulties are. The difficulties in a court under those circumstances would be much less than the difficulties of bringing these objections again before the same commission that had decided earlier, on the basis of what it had heard and the evidence placed before it, as to the course to be followed. The commission would simply meet and say, "Under the law 25 per cent of the members from the province have objected. We dealt with this matter and it has come back to us purely as a mechanical result of the statute as it exists, but that is the end of it".
I have a great deal of regard for public opinion, and if a wrong is done, or a mistake is made, and 25 per cent of the members from any one province object, then in a debate the searchlight of scrutiny and examination will be brought to bear on what has taken place, and where there has been unfairness public opinion often steps in. If it does not step in at the time, it steps in later on whenever there is an opportunity for the people to vote.
I am not going into particulars in this regard, but I know something about this because I had an experience which was spoken of at the time. I do not think any member of this house ever went through two gerrymanderings, but I did go through two of them. This is what we are trying to get away from. As a matter of fact, as I said to the minister in the course of a private conversation recently, if it had not been for the gerrymander of 1949 I would never have sought re-election to parliament. However, that operation took place without anaesthetic and the results were most favourable to me in the long run.

Electoral Boundaries Commissions
That was public opinion operating in consequence of what was believed to be an injustice. This has happened to members in all parts of the house. None of us has been guiltless in connection with arranging constituencies of political opponents in such a way that their hopes of return were considerably diminished, and that has been so throughout the years.
We are now doing away with that sort of thing, but in doing away with it we must preserve the authority of parliament. Parliament must have the final say and the opportunity to speak. We cannot, as parliamentarians, abdicate the rights of parliament to a commission. Otherwise the first responsibility of parliament, the assurance of fair representation, is completely denied-whether in fact or in theory, none the less actually, under statute.
Members of this house as a whole, I am sure, would agree that we dare not pass an amendment which simply provides for a perfunctory return to the commission of an objection, because it has been raised by one quarter of the members of a province, without debate in this chamber. To do otherwise would be to make the commission in effect the absolute authority.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Would the Leader of the Opposition think that if a debate were provided for in the house in respect of the bill of objections, without the necessity of a resolution which would require a majority of members endorsing the objections, that this would satisfy the requirements?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, it is
always difficult to answer a categorical question of that kind when one has not given it the fullest consideration, but on the face of it, that appears to be a most reasonable suggestion, and it would protect minorities as well.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, I am wondering what has happened to this bill. Someone has been nibbling at it during the time it has been in the pigeon holes of the offices of the government. We studied this bill in March and April and I thought we had reached the agreement that two of the most contentious clauses would stand until we made our way through the rest of the bill. However, every other minute now we are being presented with some new idea. Some of these ideas may be very useful, but I do not think we are going to make much progress if further suggestions, such as the one just presented, are to be placed before us. Alternatively I suggest that


if there are any more, they be placed before us now so that we may consider them over the supper hour, rather than having them presented in this nebulous fashion.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, may I tell my hon. friend that I have no more proposals to make.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I am glad we have that situation cleared up, and perhaps if we can throw out this one we will be in a better position.
This last suggestion raises a fundamental issue, as the right hon. Leader of the Opposition has pointed out, in respect of airing grievances in parliament. The purpose of clause 20 is to permit people, who think something has not gone right, or who have a grievance, to bring the matter before parliament. Provision is made for members to advance their case in parliament and to have it discussed, and then you have the play of public opinion with regard to what has been said. But if the proposed amendment is accepted, that debate is not permitted and public opinion has no effect whatsoever, nor has the opinion of the house itself.
We are all quite familiar with the fact that at times issues are raised in the house with which we are not very familiar, but as the debate develops people discover they have an interest in the subject being debated and they then make a contribution. Therefore I hope the minister will reconsider this matter. I started off in discussing clause 20 by drawing attention to the fact that when this bill was before the house on other occasions earlier people had considered that one third was an unsatisfactory figure and the minister then suggested one quarter. But he did not disclose his hand at that moment. He had a great, long amendment which in some mysterious fashion-


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I did not disclose my hand because when I was about to move to the next point the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre got up and took the floor and I did not get a chance. I was not trying to conceal anything.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member sometimes has trouble with me, too.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre constantly and consistently intervenes. However I suggest that the minister let clause 20 stand so that we may consider his proposed amendment over the supper hour and that he rewrite it to make it acceptable.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Perhaps we might then proceed with the rest of the bill.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I will make an effort to meet the point that has been raised. As I understand it, the Leader of the Opposition accepted the view that, provided an opportunity for debating a report was available and was provided, a resolution might not be necessary and that if we provided that the matter could be aired in the house so that members could express their views a formal majority vote would not be necessary.


John George Diefenbaker: And the matter would then be returned to the commission.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: And then it would go to the commission.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, it has been suggested that we all look at this over the supper hour and I am sure we all agree this is a good idea. I should like to suggest that when we are looking at it we look at the record of the debate at an earlier stage. As I recall, some members of the house, I believe in the official opposition, objected to clause 20 in its original form on two counts. First of all, it was objected that the requirement of one third was too high in some provinces and, second, if my memory serves me correctly there was an objection that the requirement of a majority vote in the house before the objection could be referred to the commission was unfair.
It seems to me what the government is trying to do in bringing in this draft amendment is to meet both of these objections. I quite agree with the point made by the Leader of the Opposition that it is not really doing it in a parliamentary way just to have it in Votes and Proceedings and have no discussion on the floor of the house. I suggest that what has evolved between the Leader of the Opposition and the Minister of Labour might perhaps meet the point in that some discussion of these grievances would be a good idea. But I think that the official opposition might well consider the merit of the suggestion that if there is objection from a reasonable number of people it should not be necessary for that reasonable number of people to get a majority vote in the house before the matter can be referred back to the commission. Otherwise we are keeping this thing on a partisan basis.
While I concur in the suggestion that we look at this matter over the supper hour I should like to say while I am on my feet that I support the position taken by the hon.
Electoral Boundaries Commissions member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, that to require a quarter of the membership of the house certainly is unfair to a number of groups in the house. If one looks, for example, at the position of my colleagues from the province of British Columbia he sees that they happen to be fairly numerous. Yet under the requirement of 25 per cent of the membership of the house they would not be able to register any objection. I should like to suggest that a further look be taken at my leader's proposal that it be any 10 members of the house. Then we might go along with the suggestion that there be a debate and without the requirement of a majority vote perhaps all of these things put together might result in the drafting of an amendment to this clause that would be satisfactory to all.


Mr. Aiken:: Mr. Chairman, I think I probably started all of the trouble in the original debate. My objection was that reading clauses 20 and 21 together as they now stand we might have the result of the House of Commons debating and passing a resolution respecting a change in the electoral boundaries of a particular province, sending it back to the commission and then finding that under clause 21 the commission could either accept or reject parliament's vote. My objection at that time was that this is wrong. If the House of Commons has taken a vote and made a decision that decision should be respected. But clause 21 says that the commission can take our recommendation or vote and either accept it or reject it. I felt that' was wrong and that is the reason I raised' the point in the first place.
I think the discussion that has taken place between the minister and the Leader of the Opposition has provided an answer. If there is a provision for debate without a formal resolution, then my objection will be overcome, but I do think we have to consider clauses 20 and 21 together. I think a solution has perhaps been reached and that if such an amendment is proposed it will meet the situation.


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall the clause stand?


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Six o'clock.


Lucien Lamoureux: I have to advise hon. members that pursuant to provisional standing order 39A the following question is to be raised this evening:
9252	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Electoral Boundaries Commissions
The hon. member for Kootenay West, Saskatchewan will also be met. Therefore, trade, visit to Canada of United Kingdom Mr. Chairman, I now move this admendment. home builders mission.	The Chairman: Is it the pleasure of the
At six o'clock the committee took recess. committee to adopt this amendment?


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, before we rose at six o'clock we were discussing clause 20, and I had circulated a draft amendment to members of the committee, with the purpose of gaining their views on it. I thought we had a very useful discussion and during the recess we have worked on an amendment that might meet the various points raised by the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, among others. Therefore I am going to break my pledge that I would not produce any more amendments.


John George Diefenbaker: Would the minister mind reading it?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, I shall read it, though I am not moving it as yet. It reads:
That clause 20 of Bill C-72 be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
20. If within a period of thirty days from the day the copy of the report of any commission for a province is laid before the House of Commons or published pursuant to section 19, an objection in writing, in the form of a motion for consideration by the House of Commons of the matter of the objection, signed by not less than ten members of the House of Commons is filed with the Speaker specifying the provisions of the report objected to and the reasons for the objection, the House of Commons shall, within the first fifteen days next after the expiration of that period that the House of Commons is sitting, take up the motion and consider the matter of the objection, and thereafter the report shall be referred back to the Representation Commissioner by the Speaker, together with a copy of the objection and of the House of Commons Debates with respect thereto, for reconsideration by the commission having regard to the objection.
This seems to fit the various points that were made by members of the committee. It overcomes the matter raised by the Leader of the Opposition in that debate is provided for where objections may be ventilated. It protects the rights of minority groups which might not be able to get a majority in support of their objections. It also enables ten members of the House of Commons to raise objections, with the result that the point so kindly raised by the hon. member for Edmonton West with respect to the Liberal party in
[The Chairman.]


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, I think the amendment has been skilfully drawn following careful consideration, and I believe it will be generally accepted. I thank the minister for utilizing the interim between the adjournment at six and our return at eight for doing such effective work.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I should like to join in the remarks just made by saying the amendment has been skilfully drawn and seems to take into account all the points that were raised during the discussion just prior to six o'clock. I believe it should receive the endorsation of the committee but, having said that, there is one question that readily presents itself. What happens if quite a number of these objections are filed and they do not all get a chance to be considered within the first 15 days? I expect the minister will say he and I should discuss this in our subcommittee on procedure, but does it not raise the question of how much time is to be allocated for consideration of each individual objection?
This problem is posed by the wording of the amendment which says it shall be done "within the first fifteen days next-". Suppose there are 20 of these objections and the first ten occupy the first 15 days; what happens to the rest of them?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: This is a point that occurred to me because I envisaged ten reports descending on the house at the same time, but it is quite unlikely this will happen. For example, the commission for Prince Edward Island might complete its report in three or four months. It could be laid on the table and the 15 days would apply there. If they come in the way we expect, this objection would not be too great, bearing in mind also that the house will be asked to deal with this problem only at ten year intervals.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Let us take a chance on it, then.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: One point which concerns me a little is the phrase-
-the House of Commons shall, within the first 15 days next after the expiration of that period that the House of Commons is sitting, take up the motion and consider the matter of the objection-
What is covered by those words "take up the motion and consider the matter of the

objection". How does the house determine when it has finished taking up a motion and has given proper consideration to the objection? I presume this is something to be worked out by the house itself.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That is what I thought. It might be difficult to put into this measure the procedure to be followed. This is something which might be considered in the committee on procedure. One thing that worried me somewhat was this: Unless there is a time limit-and there is one here of 15 days-the house could delay dealing with a report indefinitely and thereby hold up redistribution. This is something which might be worked out by the committee on procedure as the hon. member has suggested. But the bill does deal with this problem.


Gerald William Baldwin: May I suggest to the minister that once the matter has been taken up within 15 days it need not necessarily be completed within that time. Consider this in the light of an appeal. Once an appeal has been taken up there is nothing in the amendment, as I understood, to indicate the procedure has to be completed within that time. So if it should happen that all ten reports come back at the same time and there are ten objections and they are all entered or taken up within the 15 days, I do not think we will be obliged to complete our discussion on them within that period.
The words used are "in the form of a motion for consideration" and I would point out that this might presuppose an actual motion before the house, a motion which could only be determined, like all motions, upon a vote. I think the committee on procedure should have in mind that this is a type of motion which would not be determined by a vote. I have no desire to raise too legalistic a point but I believe the hon. gentleman or his successor might find himself in grave difficulty in not taking this procedure to the stage where there would have to be a vote; great care would need to be exercised as to the wording. Apart from these considerations, I think the proposal put forward is one which well meets the situation.


Guy Marcoux: Mr. Chairman, we should
be grateful to the minister for having tried to substitute for clause 20, the present clause which takes into account all the objections raised this afternoon in connection with Bill No. C-72.
Electoral Boundaries Commissions
With reference to the remarks of the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), if and when the house should face a rather difficult problem, it would surely be possible to obtain the unanimous consent of the members to allow discussion to extend beyond the time provided by this clause.
I feel that, unless luck is decidedly against us, the reports from the various commissions should not reach the house all at the same time, so there should be no problem. Still, should it arise, I am quite sure that the members of parliament, in view of the fact that they are all concerned, would give unanimous consent so that the debate could extend beyond the period stipulated in the clause.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, for our part, we also accept this amendment which will certainly be more satisfactory to the members of the house, all the more so because, by allowing ten members to put forward their objections, all the important parties in the house will have a chance to be heard with regard to electoral representations in each province.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I have a word to say with regard to the suggestion made by the minister and followed up by my hon. friend from Peace River. I am not at all sure we should saddle the committee on rules and procedure with the work of determining how this particular section of the act when passed will be applied in the House of Commons. I think that when we are dealing with new legislation and experimental procedures we should try them out first. Then if something is wrong with the procedure we can get a special committee to work on it. But the committee on procedure has other things to do and I would not saddle it with this particular job at the present time.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 20 as amended agreed to.
On clause 17-Sittings of commission; hearing of representations.
Allan Joseph MacEachen: We stood clause 17, I understand, because I had proposed a subclause 5 which fell like a lead balloon on members of the committee. So I withdraw completely from that position and hope the committee will now pass the clause.


Lucien Lamoureux: It is understood that the last part of the proposition, discussed but not

Electoral Boundaries Commissions formally moved by the minister, referred to as subclause 5 of clause 17 is not one of the amendments agreed to.
Shall clause 17 as amended carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Wait a minute; no.


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall clause 17 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.
Clause 17 agreed to.
Clause 19-Report to be laid before house.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Clause 19 also stood and subclause 2 was under discussion as a result of proposals made by the hon. member for Edmonton West, followed up by a concrete suggestion on the part of the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre. It seemed to be generally agreed that the point raised by the hon. member for Edmonton West would be met if it were ensured that a copy of the Canada Gazette were sent by mail to each of the members of the House of Commons representing an electoral district in a province.
I therefore propose to move:
That subclause 2 of clause 19 of Bill C-72 be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
(2) where the copy referred to in subsection (1) of the report of any commission for a province is received by the Speaker during an interval between two sessions of parliament, the Speaker, shall forthwith cause the same to be published in the Canada Gazette and a copy of the Canada Gazette, to be sent by mail to each of the members of the House of Commons representing electoral districts in that province.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I do not want to be as fussy as some people think I am-


An hon. Member:: That would not be possible.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -but as I read that amendment, any copy of the Canada Gazette, for instance, one which was 15 years old, could be sent and it would still meet the conditions. Should it not read "a copy of the Canada Gazette containing the report"?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Weichel:: To the last known address?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I realize there is a fair amount of humour being exercised at my expense but I submit it is altogether ambiguous to say "the same to be published in the Canada Gazette and a copy of the Canada Gazette-
[The Chairman.]


An hon. Member:: The said copy.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It does not say that. It says the Canada Gazette, for all time.


An hon. Member:: You are really splitting hairs.


Gordon Minto Churchill: No, he is very sound in this.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We are not just putting speeches on the record; we are passing legislation and we should be precise as to what is intended.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: What about "to be published in the Canada Gazette and a copy thereof to be sent by mail-" and so on.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gilles Grégoire: I should like to point out to the Minister of Labour, who is sending us those amendments, that they are coming to us in English only.
Naturally, it takes more time to grasp their full meaning.
I am wondering whether it would be possible, if other amendments are forthcoming, to have French versions made available to us, so that we could thoroughly understand every word contained therein.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Chairman, I think the minister has got himself into a position where he is going to have to send a copy of the report to hon. members, because the amendment says:
Where the copy referred to in subsection (1) of the report of any commission for a province is received by the Speaker during an interval between two sessions of parliament, the Speaker shall forthwith cause the same to be published in the Canada Gazette and a copy of the Canada Gazette to be sent-
The article is used twice there. Why could we not say "and a copy of such Canada Gazette"?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is what I suggested in the first place.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. Perhaps the Chair should read the amendment as it now reads:
Where the copy referred to in subsection (1) of the report of any commission for a province is received by the Speaker during an interval between two sessions of parliament, the Speaker shall forthwith cause the same to be published in the Canada Gazette and a copy of such Canada Gazette to be sent by mail to each of the members of the House of Commons representing electoral districts in that province.

Electoral Boundaries Commissions


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.	Shall the amendment carry?
Clause 19 as amended agreed to.
Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall clause 21 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.
Clause 21 agreed to.
On clause 22-Preparation of draft representation order.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Chairman, I am sure the minister must have a consequential amendment with respect to clause 22 (l)(a) because of the procedure that has now been adopted with regard to the report dealt with by the house.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Chairman, the consequential amendment is in connection with clause 22 (1) (a). I move:
That the following be substituted for the first three lines of clause 22 (1) (a):
"it is ascertained by the representation commissioner that no objection has been filed with the Speaker in the manner and within the time prescribed therefor in clause 20-
Then it continues:
-or that an objection has been filed-
And so on. I move that consequential amendment, Mr. Chairman.


Norman Platt Lambert: Does the minister still feel that the latter portion of that subclause is still applicable, because there is no direction under clause 20 any more? There is no direction by the house at all; it is automatically referred back to the commissioner after objection has been filed. I would think it should stop immediately after "20".


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member is perfectly correct. I move this substitution for the new subclause (a):
"It is ascertained by the representation commissioner that no objection has been filed with the Speaker in the manner and within the time prescribed therefor in section 20-
And then, comma. I thank the hon. member for his help.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Does (b) apply?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Chairman, (b) applies. It would be comma "or (b) after the report was referred back to the representation commissioner by the Speaker".


Lucien Lamoureux: The Minister of Labour moves:
That clause 22 (1) (a) be amended as follows:
"(a) it is ascertained by the representation commissioner that no objection has been filed with the Speaker in the manner and within the time prescribed therefor in section 20, or-


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Lucien Lamoureux: Shall the clause as
amended carry?


Norman Platt Lambert: No, Mr. Chairman, with respect to subclause 2(a) I posed a question this afternoon that had some constitutional implications. They are immediately pertinent at this point, because if there is any signed agreement or any question of the provincial governments participating in the determination of the members of parliament returned from each province, of course 2(a) becomes somewhat academic.


William Howell Arthur Thomas: Mr. Chairman, did you rule that subclause 1(a) was deleted?


Lucien Lamoureux: Is the hon. member referring to clause 22(1) (b)?


William Howell Arthur Thomas: No, Mr. Chairman. Was subclause 1(a) deleted?


Lucien Lamoureux: No. Clause 22(1) (a) now
reads as follows-


William Howell Arthur Thomas: What is in (a) thereafter is deleted?


Lucien Lamoureux: The Chair understands
that the first three lines are deleted and replaced by the following amendment:
(a) it is ascertained by the representation commission that no objection has been filed with the Speaker in the manner and within the time prescribed therefor in section 20, or-


William Howell Arthur Thomas: Then all the rest of that paragraph in the draft bill would be deleted?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That is right.


William Howell Arthur Thomas: And you go from the word "or" on to paragraph (b)?


Lucien Lamoureux: That is correct.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, I will attempt to deal briefly with the point raised by the hon. member for Edmonton West. Section 51(1) of the British North America Act, as my hon. friend well knows, provides for the adjustment of representation in the Commons, as follows:
-the number of members of the House of Commons shall be 263 and the representation of the provinces therein shall forthwith upon the coming into force of this section and thereafter on the completion of each decennial census be readjusted by such authority, in such manner, and from such time as the parliament of Canada from time to time provides, subject and according to the following rules:
925G	HOUSE OF
Electoral Boundaries Commissions
Then the rules are set forth. The first one, for example, is:
There shall be assigned to each of the provinces a number of members computed by dividing the total population of the provinces by 261-
And so on and so forth.
As I understand it, if these rules as set forth here are changed the changes will involve the invocation of the amending formula agreed to at the recent conference. I would much prefer my hon. friend to have an opportunity of raising this question later with the Minister of Justice, but that is the explanation.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I think the minister sees the difficulty. I raised it as a preliminary point this afternoon because it becomes very pertinent when we are considering clause 12. Clause 22 (2) flows from a decision which is taken under clause 12 and therefore I feel we must decide the principle, or have some clarification of the principle, upon which clause 12 is based before we can approve clause 22 (2).


Maurice John Moreau: Could I ask the hon. member for Edmonton West a question. Does he envisage clause 12 in any way affecting the rules under section 51 of the B.N.A. Act? I do not feel that this bill affects the apportionment of members of parliament from the various provinces in any way. Does he see a difficulty there?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Yes, I do. If I may be permitted at this time to intrude this concept into the discussion, section 51 of the B.N.A. Act provides rules and regulations for the determination of the members. The point I raised this afternoon was that the communique issued following the dominion-provincial conference made reference in paragraph 2 to section 51 A. Section 51A is not section 51. Section 51A merely deals with the senatorial floor for any and all provinces.
There have been conflicting reports in the press that it was agreed at the time of the last dominion-provincial conference that the representation from the provinces in the House of Commons could not be changed by this house without the consent of the provincial governments. I think Hansard will show that this afternoon I indicated there were conflicting reports about this and I wanted the minister once and for all to tell us whether there was or was not an agreement that the provinces had any say at all in the determination of the number of members to come from any province. The senatorial floor is definitely provided for in paragraph 2 of the draft 

amendment; that is one of the matters specifically referred to.


Mr. Favreau:: Mr. Chairman, the principle which has been preserved in the draft amending formula under section 6(g) of the formula which has been tabled and distributed is the principle of proportionality. The number is immaterial. If one reads the text this is quite clear; it refers to the principles of proportionate representation of the provinces in the House of Commons prescribed by the constitution of Canada.
Section 51 of the B.N.A. Act, as has been very aptly noted by the hon. member for Edmonton West, states what are the rules of proportionality. Section 52, which also deals with the membership in the House of Commons states:
The number of members of the House of Commons may be from time to time increased by the parliament of Canada, provided the proportionate representation of the provinces prescribed by this act is not thereby disturbed.
So that what we have tried to do in the formula is rendered subject to the general amending rule which requires the consent of at least two thirds of the provinces having among themselves 50 per cent of the population, in conformity with the principle of proportionality prescribed by section 51.
The question of the number of members which might result from the application of the principle of proportionality was not considered as sacred because I remember, and I suppose this will appear in the report, that there were many references to the principle of section 52 of the B.N.A. Act. It is also agreed-I speak for no one other than myself but I personally satisfied myself about this before discussing the new amending formula -that if this proposal were adopted, or if it had been adopted in the past, it would not have prevented the present law relating to the redistribution of electoral seats from being passed by parliament, because it is completely within the constitutional framework of the B.N.A. Act as it presently stands.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Just one further clarification in this regard, Mr. Chairman. Could the minister tell us in what regard this proportionality applies? I do not have section 52 of the B.N.A. Act before me, but if the minister could clarify that point we may be satisfied.
I think the minister should be able to tell us clearly to what extent he envisages the provinces, as a result of this accord, being able to determine the membership in the composition of this house.

Electoral Boundaries Commissions


Guy Favreau: There would be no difference in the status or in the proportion of representation between what exists now and what would exist if the proposed amending formula were passed by the parliament at Westminster. If afterwards there is a question of a modification of the proportions presently existing as a principle, then the basic rules contained in paragraph 5 of the proposed amending formula would apply. The effect of that is that at least two thirds of the provinces, representing at least 50 per cent of the population of Canada, according to the latest general census, will have to give consent to any modification of the proportions which are presently stipulated under section 51 of the British North America Act, or any modification to any of the principles which are contained in that section.


Maurice John Moreau: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the minister whether, when he referred to proportions, he was referring to the rules which apply, because I hope he is not suggesting that proportionate representation of the various provinces is going to be fixed? As I understand section 51, proportionate representation will vary with the variation in population of various provinces. It seems that any amending formula must be applied to the various rules which exist.


Guy Favreau: At the present time we have 263 seats in the House of Commons, allocated among the provinces, and one seat each for the Yukon and Northwest Territories. Section 52 of the British North America Act states that this number is not sacred. What is sacred are the rules which regulate the number of seats to which each of the provinces is entitled after each decennial census.
I could read the rules which are contained in section 51 of the British North America Act, but what they mean is, once a new decennial census has been made, and the resulting figures have been published and a readjustment effected, one must apply the rules contained in section 51 in respect of proportionment. We have been very careful in this regard not to apply the limitation to numbers of proportionate representatives in the House of Commons as prescribed by the constitution of Canada. Until there is a change in section 51 of the British North America Act by amendment, as the result of the consent of the parliament of Canada and seven provinces representing 50 per cent of the population, the principles spelled out in section 51, in so far as the proportions to which each province is respectively entitled in the House of Commons, will have
to be respected. This whole question depends on changes in the distribution of the over-all population of Canada.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Chairman, there is one other aspect of this problem that is sacred, and I should like to pose a question to the minister in this regard. Was any decision taken at the dominion-provincial conference that would in any way diminish the protection the senatorial floor provides the maritime provinces?
I ask this question for two reasons. First of all, there were submissions made in the press, before the conference commenced, to the effect that British Columbia was annoyed because it could not increase the number of representative senators, which threw that province out of proportion. Second, when the union of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia was discussed at this conference, in the first stages in a preliminary way, some thought was given to the idea that the total number of parliamentary representatives for that union might be diminished. I asked the Acting Prime Minister about this situation, and whether there was any guarantee that the same senatorial floor arrangement would apply to the united provinces as now applies to the individual provinces. The Acting Prime Minister said it was regrettable that I did not ask this question before the conference commenced. The implication of that answer obviously was that some decision was taken which would change the present situation.
For those two reasons I should like the Minister of Justice to assure us that no decision was taken at that conference which would in any way diminish the protection we now receive in the provinces of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia as a result of the senatorial floor arrangement.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Chairman, unless you rule me out of order I should like to make the following statement. Aside altogether from whether this is relevant to the issue under discussion, I must say that the proportionate number of senators is not affected, but rather has been entrenched. That section of the constitution is the safeguard which preserves the minimum number of senators to which each of the provinces is entitled, and it shall remain in force unless an amendment is concurred in by the legislatures of all the provinces. The hon. member will realize that the representation is completely safeguarded and entrenched, not only by implication, but by expression.
9258	HOUSE OF
Electoral Boundaries Commissions


Lucien Lamoureux: After listening to this discussion I am wondering whether the members of this committee will agree that we have perhaps gone beyond the limited terms of the clause with which we are now dealing. The hon. member for Edmonton West initially raised a proper question in respect of proportions, but I think since then we have gone a little far afield in our discussion. Perhaps at this point we can return to a specific consideration of the clause before us.


Mr. Olson:: Mr. Chairman, in spite of the explanations made by the Minister of Justice, some ambiguities remain in so far as this subclause is concerned.
As I understand the situation, under section 51 of the British North America Act there are certain rules in respect of the decision as to how many members there shall be, and how they shall be distributed among the provinces, taking into consideration such things as the senatorial floor. However, under the proposed amendment to section 51 of the British North America Act I envisage this problem. The minister suggests that whenever the proportionate number of representatives for the provinces is to be changed, such change requires the consent of seven of the ten provinces representing 50 per cent or more of the population. Presumably we must decide this proportion by calculating the total population of Canada and dividing that population by, as at the present time, 263 members. But if there is a shift in the population which, using this mathematical calculation, would in fact change the number of seats that would be assigned to the provinces, then according to what the Minister of Justice is now telling us it would seem that in spite of the change indicated by the mathematical calculation it will require agreement by seven out of the ten provinces representing more than 50 per cent of the people of Canada before the number of seats in a province can be changed.
I understood the minister to say this would be the effect of the proposed method of amending section 51 of the British North America Act.


Guy Favreau: No, Mr. Chairman. I agree that the words I used might have been a little too technical, and when I say that I hope the hon. gentleman will not take offence because whenever one deals with the words of one's own profession he sometimes makes the mistake of using them to too great an extent.
I did not say that if there was a change in the relative population of all the prov-

inces as shown by a new decennial census you would need the consent of seven provinces to increase the number of representatives of one province whose population has increased very much, and to decrease the representation of another province whose population has decreased. What I said, and the hon. member has referred to it, is that it is completely ruled or regulated by the principles of section 51 of the British North America Act which establishes the relationship between the population of a province in relation to the over-all population of Canada and the number of seats which that population will entitle the province to in relation to the over-all number of seats in the House of Commons. So if the amending formula is adopted its precise effect will be that this rule, this proportion or this relativity will continue in effect. Each 10 years we will have to determine, in accordance with the new census and according to the rules which exist at present, in what proportion and to what extent the relative number of seats to which each province is entitled will change.
What I said was that to change the rules in accordance with which we do that every 10 years, to change the proportionality, if I may express myself that way, we will need to amend the constitution of Canada. We will need to change section 51 of the British North America Act and enact a new proportion. In other words, we know at present that if the province of Ontario has a population of 6,500,000, let us say, it is entitled to so many seats in the over-all total of 265. If 10 years from now the new census shows that the population of Ontario is then nine million people and Quebec is down to three million, in applying the rule at present found in section 51 of the constitution the relationship or proportion will be maintained but there will be a new number of seats to which Ontario will be entitled and a fewer number of seats to which Quebec will be entitled. That proportion under the formula, not the number of seats but the rule of proportionality-that is why we use that word in subsection (g) of section 6-will be maintained. Does that answer the question?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: When the minister used the word "proportionality" I was a little confused with regard to whether he was referring to the total population or as between provinces.

Electoral Boundaries Commissions


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall the clause as amended carry?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I want only a moment or two. I think it is clear that the formula in the proposed arrangements for amending the constitution will not prevent us from changing the number of seats that each province might have under the rules in section 51A of the constitution, but it will prevent us from changing the principles or rules themselves as set out in section 51 A. I am not going to discuss that now, but I suggest that when we get to the point where we are discussing the minister's formula for amending the constitution, what will be brought into sharp focus is the fact that in 1951 or 1952 we were able to amend section 51 of the British North America Act and write into it the rules that are there now, including the rule that saved Saskatchewan two seats, and we were able to do it on the authority of this parliament alone. But under the minister's formula we would not be able to do that again because this would be changing the rules, changing the principles of proportionality as among the provinces and we would have to get the consent of seven provinces. I do not propose to debate the minister's formula now. I am as out of order as everybody else has been, but I do point out that there is a problem in that field when we get to it.


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall clause 22 as amended carry?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Chairman, I want to indicate that I think we have been entirely in order all along because subclause 2 indicates that "the draft representation order shall specify the number of members of the House of Commons who shall be elected from each of the provinces," and therefore the whole thing is entirely germane.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Read the rest of the sentence.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: "As calculated by the representation commissioner under section 12". Section 12 refers to section 51 of the British North America Act. Using a specific example, I want to put one question and I will take the province of Saskatchewan about which there has been speculation that it will be seriously affected in that it may lose two or three seats. Notwithstanding the calculations of the representation commissioner under section 12, if it were determined that this should not happen, then according to the
explanation of the Minister of Justice we would require the consent of seven of the provinces to do that because that would be disturbing the proportionality. It would be disturbing the proportionality because it would require a change in the result from the working out of the formula laid down in section 51, which is quite clear. Therefore any thought of adding members to certain provinces in order to save Saskatchewan two or three seats will require the consent of the provinces according to the explanation of the minister. I should like him to verify that.


Guy Favreau: This is true, of course. To change the rules either to give a province more seats than the number to which it is at present entitled under the application of the rules or to decrease the number of seats to which a province would be entitled in applying the rules in respect of a new decennial census, we would, of course, need the consent of two thirds of the provinces having 50 per cent of the population. But this goes two ways. This is a protection against an undue increase, because the proposed formula says that you will not amend the constitution to reduce the number of seats below the number of senators to which the province is entitled. Therefore it is a two way proposition. But I know the hon. member will not be offended if I say that this, of course, has no effect under this bill because it presupposes, as he has just noted very exactly and aptly, the application of the formula devised and enacted under section 51 of the B.N.A. Act. Therefore there is no question in this bill of changing the rule of proportionality.
Clause 22 as amended agreed to.
On clause 23-Proclamation declaring order in force; effective date.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I would like an explanation from the sponsor of the bill. If, as was explained to us a while ago, the reports from the provincial commissions should arrive one after the other and be adopted, in turn, at different intervals, supposing for instance that the reports of five provinces are accepted, these reports would come into effect immediately. Now, in the meantime, during those two months, parliament may be dissolved and new elections called for. Therefore, the new provincial representations would be valid in five provinces only and not in the other five which will not have submitted their reports.

Electoral Boundaries Commissions
In other words, supposing a study of the provincial commissions' reports gets under way, that some are accepted but not all, if in the meantime elections are called, would the new electoral districts as approved by the House of Commons stand for these elections in those provinces for which they have been accepted, and not in the others?
Would the minister give us some explanation on this, for I feel the clause does not define at all this aspect of the problem?


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. Is the hon. member referring in his remarks to clause 23 now before the committee?


Gilles Grégoire: Naturally, Mr. Chairman, clause 23 deals with the effective date and says:
...the governor in council shall by proclamation, declare the draft representation order to be in force, effective upon the dissolution of the then existing parliament or effective upon the dissolution of the next following parliament if upon the issue of the proclamation parliament is then dissolved, and upon the issue of the proclamation the order shall have the force of law accordingly.
But if a draft representation order has precisely been accepted by the House of Commons and the Senate, in a word, by all, and approved by the governor in council for certain provinces only, and not for everyone of them, will the effective date start immediately for the provinces whose draft representation order has been accepted and not for the others?
There may be some danger of a mix-up then between certain provinces whose new draft representation order will be in force following approval by the governor in council, while the draft representation order of other provinces will not yet be in force, because those provinces were not ready and an election has been called in the meantime-I feel therefore, Mr. Chairman, that this is certainly related to clause 23.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The situation is that the representation commissioner does not submit his draft representation order until all the reports are in, as is specified in clause 22, with respect to each of the reports referred to in clause 18, so that there is no intention to have successive proclamations with respect to draft orders for each commission report. When they are all in there will be a representation order covering all the provinces.


Gilles Grégoire: I do not think that is exactly what the minister told us a while ago


when a time limit of 15 days was mentioned as concerns motions which must be introduced in the house for the purpose of rejecting certain representation drafts. The minister said that a province-he even mentioned Prince Edward Island-could submit its report before others, and then the house would take that report into consideration before any other, since it had been submitted to it. This could bring about what the minister now denies; the report of some provinces could be accepted before that of others.
The representation commissioner could submit all those reports at the same time; and let us suppose that among the reports submitted at the same time by the ten provinces, five would raise no objections because those reports had been unanimously accepted by everyone, then the house could accept those five reports from the provincial commissions. But in the case of the five others which are returned to the provincial commissions, should elections be held in the meantime, would the new draft order be applicable before the election date to the other provinces whose reports had already been accepted? Could the minister include a section providing that no election could be held while the draft representation of some provinces was being amended, while that of others remained unchanged, and that all representations be changed at the same time, even if that meant deferring those changes until the next election?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: It is true that all reports may not come in at the same time. Indeed, it is unlikely all reports will come in simultaneously. What will happen is that the representation commissioner will wait until the final report is in and then he will prepare his draft representation order. It will be impossible for a proclamation to be made for five provinces. The proclamation will be made with respect to all the provinces when all the reports are received.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: But that does not prevent the house being furnished with copies of the reports, under clauses 18 and 19, seriatim as they come in.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: In other words, we may get little dribs and drabs in that regard.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes.


Gilles Grégoire: Still in the same vein, let us assume that the representation commissioner

presents to the Speaker the ten provincial commissions' reports and that, precisely in the case I was referring to, those representation orders for five provinces are accepted in the house but that there is an objection in the case of five or maybe two other provinces and that those orders are returned to the provincial commissions, the house might then be allowed to adopt the orders to which there is no objection while those to which there is objection will be returned to the provincial commissions.
Still along the same line, if in the meantime we have an election, what is going to happen?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the hon. member permit a question, and may I say this is in an attempt to be helpful. I wonder if the hon. member is not confusing the word "report" with the word "order." It is a report when a provincial commission files its recommendation. There can be ten reports but there can be only one order. The order is the document the representation commissioner produces after all ten reports are received, and I wonder if this is not the basis of the hon. member's confusion.


Gilles Grégoire: It is quite clear in my mind and, also, it is just what I was thinking of. The projet, as it is called in French, that is the draft representation order, is what the representation commissioner brings in. He brings in-


Stanley Howard Knowles: After the ten reports are in. [Translation]


Gilles Grégoire: -what you call the draft order prepared for the ten provinces by the representation commissioner. Then, we all have before us that draft representation order. However, in the case where seven or eight provinces would have no objection but three others did, is there anything which provides that the draft representation orders for the seven provinces submitted by the representation commissioner could not be passed? Is there something in the legislation now which provides that those draft representation orders could not be passed?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: No, nothing at all.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is the hon. member aware that the point at which objection can be made is when the reports are before us. When a report has gone through the mill completely
Electoral Boundaries Commissions and an order has been made by the representation commissioner there is no room for objection. At that point, the job is done.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I have a point to raise in connection with this clause. If you do not mind, Mr. Chairman, I will read the clause.
Within five days after the receipt by the Secretary of State of the draft representation order, the governor in council shall by proclamation declare the draft representation order to be in force, effective upon the dissolution of the then existing parliament-
Then the second part of the clause reads as follows:
-or effective upon the dissolution of the next following parliament if upon the issue of the proclamation parliament is then dissolved, and upon the issue of the proclamation the order shall have the force of law accordingly.
I want to draw the attention of the committee to the first part of that clause where it indicates an order being effective upon the dissolution of the then existing parliament. Under our parliamentary system in Canada and under parliamentary systems elsewhere there have been occasions when governments have somewhat unexpectedly been retired from office. It might well happen that a parliament expecting to continue for two, three, or four more years might proceed to proclaim an order to be effective upon the dissolution of the then existing parliament, believing that dissolution would not occur for a year or two years. Suddenly a crisis might develop and parliament might be dissolved within a week or even a shorter period. We would then be faced with a most difficult situation in the organization of constituencies whose boundaries had been substantially altered.
I confess I have not pursued this thought to any finality; I have not pursued it to the point at which I am prepared to suggest some amendment to provide authority under which the effect of what I am now suggesting could happen would be deferred. The second part of the clause is, I think, all right, although I judge it might be unusual for the proclamation to be issued after parliament had been dissolved. But I wonder whether the minister has given any consideration to the point I have raised. If it is not a valid point I am prepared to have my error disclosed.


Maurice John Moreau: I think the point made by the hon. gentleman is, in one way, a technical one because it would be impossible for the chief electoral officer to conduct an election on such short notice without having the forms printed for the new ridings and the

Electoral Boundaries Commissions machinery of the election organized. It would not be possible for him to complete these arrangements within the 60 days provided under the Canada Elections Act. I do not think it would be possible for any government to contemplate such an action.


An hon. Member:: Suppose it is beaten.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: That is the point my hon. friend made. There is a sudden cessation of life of the government. In other words, it is defeated.


Maurice John Moreau: Would not the chief electoral officer simply have to make the decision? The hon. member is taking the position that proclamation would already have been made-


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Oh yes. The representation order has been presented and the law is mandatory in this regard. It says five days. There is no one who can control it. This is an area in which one must tread very carefully.


Thomas Miller Bell: May I present the problem differently? Suppose a government did not wish to have an election under the new electoral boundary arrangements. Suppose it knew a proclamation was to be issued. It could bring about in various ways the dissolution of parliament and then it could have an election under the old boundary arrangements because the new boundaries would not become effective until there was a new parliament. Thus it is not obligatory on a government, once this machinery gets going, to have an election on the basis of the new boundaries which are to be put forward.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I think the hon. member is making a valid point. This could happen, but there is an inexorable movement of time envisaged by this bill. Any government would have to take this movement of time into account. In other words, if it intended to do as the hon. member suggested, dissolution would have to take place-


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Before the fatal ten days.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That is right. I do not know how it could be avoided. I agree that the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre has raised an important point. I am advised that this matter has been considered and wrestled with but that nobody has been able to provide a solution which would meet this problem of the proclamation of the draft order occurring, let us say, two weeks before a dissolution. There would obviously be a great problem in the constituencies. I would certainly be glad to hear any views from the


committee as to how to meet this situation, or how it could be avoided. I would point out that the government itself would be faced with the same chaotic problem with respect to its own electoral ridings and would not likely resort to the procedure suggested, and would seek to time a dissolution so as to avoid the difficulty to which the hon. member referred. However, as the hon. member for Edmonton West pointed out, when a government is defeated dissolution is inevitable. In that eventuality, of course, the timing would be known to the other parties in the house.


Mr. MacLean (Queens):: A thought which occurs to me is this: The decennial census is taken up in years the dates of which are fixed. On the other hand, terms of parliament are irregular. A situation could arise where a new redistribution had just been completed at a time when a parliament was almost at the end of its life. What would happen in these circumstances? It would be obligatory to dissolve parliament. Would the proclamation necessary under this legislation be delayed so that the new parliament could be elected under the old redistribution arrangements, despite the fact that a census had recently been taken?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: There is theoretical validity about the point which the hon. member raises-


John Angus MacLean: I have not figured it out, but I know there is a census taken every ten years and the average life of a parliament used to be four years. One period does not divide into the other evenly. The situation to which I have referred might occur every few years.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: It would happen, no doubt, but in the case cited a government would be required to run its full term of five years before it would be involved in the kind of situation the hon. member has outlined. This is not a frequent occurrence; in fact, it is very rare.


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall the clause carry?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, would it be possible to give 90 days of grace by some such wording as this in line 43, after the word "force":
-the draft representation order to come into force within 90 days or to be effective upon the dissolution of the then existing parliament if that dissolution occurs subsequent to the said 90 days.
I just said 90 days to give the electoral officer an opportunity to take the action that he simply must take prior to an election, be-

cause of the forms he has to have printed, the various conferences he has to have with the returning officers, and things of that nature.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: As I understand the proposal put forward by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, certainly the provision of 90 days would give a government an opportunity, would it not, to avoid the application of the new representation order? If it were not to come into effect unless a lapse of 90 days had occurred, within that time the election could have taken place. So it seems difficult to devise a formula that would meet this situation. I admit the possibilities. They may not be as real as one might think, but they are possibilities.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I refrained from using the expression "60 days".


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I appreciated that.
Clause 23 agreed to.
On clause 24-Publication of order and proclamation.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Chairman, in clause 24 there is a mandatory requirement that publication shall take place in the Canada Gazette not later than five days after the issue of the proclamation. Publishing schedules of the Canada Gazette being what they are, how can you guarantee this?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I am advised that the Canada Gazette produces extras very readily on a 24 hour notice.


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Chairman, since subclause 2 of section 17 has been amended, can the minister tell us whether he plans to propose a similar amendment to section 24 or whether he prefers to have the section passed in its present form.


An hon. Member:: The section is already passed.


Lucien Lamoureux: Is section 24 passed?


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Chairman, I simply wish to point out that when the house studied subclause 2 of clause 17, it was decided, that a notice would be published in newspapers. In my opinion, when the map of a new electoral district is passed, it would be a good thing if the electors were told what is their constituency, because many are often confused since the limits of the ridings are constantly being altered.
In fact when provincial elections are held, they vote in a certain riding and in the case
Electoral Boundaries Commissions of federal elections, they vote in another riding, so that confusion sometimes results.
I therefore ask the minister if he wishes to give his opinion in that connection.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, the necessity for using the medium of the newspapers to publicize the representation order is not as apparent as in the other cases we have dealt with, because we want to notify persons in view of subsequent actions they are to take. This is a publication in the Canada Gazette of a representation order that has the effect of law, and this is the normal way in which these laws are made known officially.
Clause 24 agreed to.
On clause 25-Construction of order; doubtful cases.


Mr. Enns:: Mr. Chairman, I believe that clause 25 (2) is the first place in which there is any reference to the names of constituencies.
There are in other clauses several references to maps being used. I am sure the representation commissioner will find it necessary to completely subdivide very large constituencies; in other words, creating entirely new ridings. What names will he use? Does this clause give the authority, or anywhere in the act-I am just asking the question; it is a very small point-is there authority for the representation commissioner or the commissions to devise new names for the few new constituencies that had not existed before?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, the task of assigning names to the constituencies is for the provincial commissions. It may be that changes will be made; it may be that the present names will be retained. That is a matter for the commissions. But my hon. friend will bear in mind that it is possible to make representations to the commissions at hearings, and this may be one of the matters upon which interested parties may wish to make representations. Again, when the reports come from the commissions there will be an opportunity to object to them, and it may be this would be a matter with which persons could object. Therefore, while the commissions have the authority to set the names, there are opportunities when people can make their views known.


Siegfried John Enns: Mr. Chairman, I quite understand that this is a matter for the commissions. However, with regard to those few large constituencies which might be made

Electoral Boundaries Commissions into two, a name has not existed before. The next clause, clause 26, provides that maps shall be published. How are these new districts to be designated? It is a minor point, but there will be a small problem faced by the representation commissioner in this regard.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Chairman, on the point raised by the hon. member for Portage-Nee-pawa, I presume that the matter of names, and so forth, will be discussed when the report is before the house, and if there were objections that would be the time they would be dealt with. Let us hope that the representation commissions will use their good sense and listen to some proper representations in this regard.


Mr. Valade:: Mr. Chairman, with regard to clause 25 (2) I just want to underline to the minister one of the dangers with regard to the names of territorial divisions. As the minister said previously, the government will be aware, or might be aware, but not the other parties in this house, as to when an election would occur, and the name that may be chosen for the designation of these territorial divisions may sometimes exclude some of the existing divisions which are well known to the people voting in those areas, to the benefit of existing areas which are held by members of the government. This is a very practical question, but I feel that the members of this house who belong to opposition parties, whatever they may be, might find that the names of their constituencies would disappear entirely. Existing members of parliament who are members of the government may take advantage of this situation. It may be that a district might keep its present name but the name of a constituency held by a member of the opposition could entirely disappear, which might be disadvantageous to the members of the opposition.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Personally I should like to see the traditional names of the constituencies maintained. It is really up to the commissions, and government members will have to take their chances along with opposition members as to the names of their constituencies- which is not going to bother me as much as the kind of constituency I might be looking after when the draft order is put into effect.


Georges-J. Valade: Just one further observation. I do not want to hold up the minister but this is a very important point. I am not talking so much of the members themselves as of the electors in a riding the name of which disappears entirely, or perhaps changed


by your next door neighbour who unlike you might be a government supporter. I am not injecting partisanship into this, but that is a situation which may arise. I think provision should be made so that if one district name disappears then the neighbouring district name should also not be retained in its entirety. I think members of parliament should be able to make representation to the commission in this regard.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: There is no difficulty about members making representations. Presumably members of parliament can take advantage of the provision in regard to making representations, and attend hearings if they wish.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It depends on the definition of "interested persons".


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes; that is one stage. Then when the reports come back members will have the chance to object, and it would be surprising if there were not objections to the names of constituencies.
Clause 25 agreed to.
On clause 26-Maps to be prepared and printed.


Mr. McMillan:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask one question on this clause. At what stage would the interested people in a federal electoral riding come to know the boundaries of their area? Would this be before the production or publication of these maps?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Chairman. The commission may sit, as provided in clause 17, and hear representations. In the notice of such hearings there shall be a map or drawing prepared by the commission showing the proposed division of the province into electoral districts. So that is the first time members will get the news.


William Hector McMillan: One other question. If it were proposed to transfer a municipality, or let us say a town, into another federal district, would the local council have an opportunity to discover this and to make representations?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: This would be evident from the maps which would be contained in the notice. The council will have an opportunity to make representations and appear before the commission of the province, which must hold one sitting in the province.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: This may be expressing a pious hope, but the director of the surveys and mapping branch of the Department of

Mines and Technical Surveys should prepare an up to date map. If I recall rightly my constituency maps were based on the 1951 projection of a growing suburban portion of the city of Edmonton. Let me assure the committee that the map distributed to me by the chief electoral officer bears very little real relationship to the actual city itself, in that there have been replots and all sorts of things. So let us hope that they work with up to date information which is kept current.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, my understanding of clause 26 and also of the following clause is that both of them have to do with the enabling of certain preparations to be made in order that an election may be conducted after the redistribution order is put into effect. If I might for a moment consider the two clauses together, a question which occurs to my mind is whether or not these two clauses are adequate for the purpose. If I read clause 26 correctly, I understand it to mean that once the proclamation is issued the director of the surveys and mapping branch shall prepare and print maps.
I take it that the preparation of those maps can be carried out prior to the effective date of the proclamation, which is contingent upon the dissolution of parliament. Am I correct in that understanding?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Then in that connection, as far as I understand it the only other reference to enabling advance preparation to be made is in clause 27, which provides for action in the appointment of returning officers under the elections act. I have not got the elections act before me but the question arising in my mind is whether under either one or both of the two clauses to which I have referred any sort of authority is given to the chief electoral officer to make preparations for providing any other forms or documents which are involved in the conduct of a general election. I can understand that there may be a larger time element involved in the preparation of maps than is the case with other documents; but I can hardly see the point of our giving authority for the appointment of returning officers for the proposed new constituencies unless the chief electoral officer is authorized to supply them with a preliminary batch of materials which will be required in order to commence the necessary arrangements for conducting an enumeration, and that sort of thing, in a constituency. Perhaps the min-
Electoral Boundaries Commissions ister could elucidate on the point I have raised.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: My hon. friend may recall that the Representation Commissioner Act which was passed last December contained a provision that on the completion of any decennial census the commissioner shall prepare maps, and so on, with respect to the electoral districts of provinces, and shall thereupon supply such maps to the appropriate electoral boundaries commission. So that this is provided for in the Representation Commissioner Act.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I do not quite see that that covers the points I have been raising. The advance preparation by the representation commissioner for the work of the commission is one thing. Clauses 26 and 27 make some provision whereby the chief electoral officer is able to make certain advance preparations prior to the coming into full force and effect ox the results of the new representation order. The question I am raising is whether the proposals set out in clauses 26 and 27 are inclusive enough to enable the chief electoral officer, as distinct from the representation commissioner, to make adequate preliminary preparations. I note that as far as clause 26 is concerned, authority is given only and solely for the preparation of maps of constituency boundaries, but not for the preparation of any other document. On the other hand, clause 27 provides for the appointment of electoral officers under section 8 of the Canada Elections Act. As far as I can see, it makes no provision for the chief electoral officer to give the electoral officers whom he has appointed any authority to do anything after their appointment. There is no authority for example to supply them with any material or instructions. Perhaps there is an obvious answer to this question which has not occurred to me.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The Canada Elections Act gives complete authority to the chief electoral officer to prepare for an election after redistribution has taken place.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, the minister says that authority is given to the chief electoral officer to prepare for an election after redistribution becomes law and, as I understand the situation, redistribution becomes law upon the dissolution of the then existing parliament, presuming there is a parliament in existence. The purpose of clauses 26 and 27 is to enable certain preparatory work to be done prior to the time a new distribution
9266	HOUSE OF
Electoral Boundaries Commissions becomes law. The question I wish to raise is, within these provisions is there sufficient authority given to that chief electoral officer?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, the chief electoral officer is satisfied that he has the power necessary to carry out the tasks referred to by my hon. friend. He has that authority under the Canada Elections Act. The clause now under discussion provides that the director of surveys of the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys shall prepare certain maps of the electoral districts, but these maps cannot be prepared until the issue of the proclamation putting the representation order into effect. This clause really is to put into effect, the results of a representation order.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, if the minister is able to give us his assurance that the chief electoral officer is satisfied with these provisions, I am prepared to accept them.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The chief electoral officer has the authority to prepare for an election at any time, and perhaps that is not very reassuring for anyone.
Clause 26 agreed to.
On clause 27-Returning officers.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: In this regard, Mr. Chairman, I have the suspicion that there will be some unforeseen results from the passage of this clause, in that at the time of proclaiming a representation order the appointments of all returning officers holding offices shall terminate, and there shall then be a renomination of all returning officers. If that is the situation I think this committee should be made aware of it. Is that what is contemplated by the government under this clause? If there is going to be a complete refashioning of constituencies, and section 29 of the Representation Act is being repealed, and the ridings in respect of which these returning officers hold positions disappear, their appointments will disappear. Is that contemplated by this clause?


Maurice John Moreau: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I may be allowed to comment in respect of that point. This matter was raised before the committee on privileges and elections during its consideration and review of the Canada Elections Act. That act provides, as I recall it, that as soon as the boundaries of a riding are changed in any way, or the riding itself is changed in any way, the returning officer's office is vacant, and the riding is considered 

as a new riding. I understand that to be the situation under the existing act.
One of the matters that was considered by that committee was whether these offices should be made permanent. I think the hon. member will recall that under the Canada Elections Act, as passed in 1960, these positions became vacant. That is one of the provisions of the Canada Elections Act which I do not think should necessarily be covered by this bill. Perhaps a discussion of this particular point should properly take place during a consideration or revision of the Canada Elections Act.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, on that point I believe that the subject is important enough. Indeed, in the constituencies the returning officers are appointed by the government in office, and often these appointments are-I do not speak for my constituency, far from it- but in several constituencies these are political appointments and the returning officer is there to protect the interest of the party in office. Therefore, I feel that this is a major point to decide.
In the event that new boundaries are fixed, will all the returning officers presently appointed lose their jobs and will others be appointed by the government?
If that is the case, we should provide, before going through with this, a new procedure for appointing returning officers in the constituencies, because in many cases the actions of some returning officers give rise to complaints. Thus, we fear that with another party in office, or a change of government, returning officers would also change and we would constantly be faced with the same problems, for any time there would be a change of government there would also be a change of returning officers, or a way would be found to amend the act in order to be able to appoint new returning officers.
Therefore, I think a new procedure should be devised for the appointment of returning officers, in order that appointments be made in a manner which would be fair and equitable to all candidates in an election.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Let us consider clause 27. As I understand the situation, a representation order does not come into effect until a dissolution of parliament. This clause permits a representation order to take the effect of law whenever it is proclaimed, so that returning officers can be appointed under the Canada Elections Act for ridings that are

designated in the representation order. In other words, by bringing it into effect in respect of the returning officers, it is possible to appoint the returning officers before a dissolution.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: May I ask how you would have them vacate their offices?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: This has nothing to do with that point. As a matter of fact, there is nothing in any of the clauses here that determines the point about which my hon. friend is talking. My hon. friend asks when the office of returning officer becomes vacant. If the representation order establishes a particular constituency with a new name, for example, and if there is a returning officer for Inverness-Richmond or Digby-Annapolis-Kings and the new riding is-


Mr. Nowlan:: Inverness-Guysborough.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -Inverness-Guysborough, then the electoral district disappears and the returning officer for that particular electoral district more or less disappears, at least from the point of view of an office.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: But the act does not come into force until dissolution and therefore the newly designated constituency does not come into force until dissolution and the old riding does not disappear until dissolution. Reasons for vacating his office, such as the returning officer no longer living in the constituency, do not apply because the constituency does not come into being until dissolution. So what are we going to be faced with? A vast number of returning officers being out of office on the dissolution of parliament and then a whole new group taking over on the first day of the election period.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I am advised that the purpose of this particular clause is to avoid the possibility put forward by the hon. member for Edmonton West.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The possibility; but I am interested in why they would have vacated their offices. What sort of blackjacking is going to be done to get them out?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The representation order with respect to returning officers comes into effect on proclamation. That does the job.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: It is on the proclamation of the order that the returning officers are out.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I would gather this is correct. However, if a riding is unchanged and the name is unchanged nothing happens
Electoral Boundaries Commissions to the returning officer because he is still there for that particular riding; but if there are changes presumably his job disappears in the way I have mentioned.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Even though the act has not come into force, but with respect to returning officers it comes into force on the date of proclamation.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, may I direct a question to the hon. minister?
Does this mean that this legislation will allow the government to change the returning officers in all constituencies, or at least in those where there is the slightest change as soon as the representation order is accepted and approved by the governor in council? Then, will the government be able to change the returning officers in the constituencies where there is a change?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The government may reappoint or change. Mind you, I do not think there is anything in these clauses which really determines this.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the minister this: As the present act empowers the government to change the returning officers in all constituencies where there are changes, would it not be advisable or preferable to provide at the same time for a non-partisan method to appoint returning officers in the constituencies.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: This is really a matter for the Canada Elections Act and the consideration of the privileges and elections committee. It cannot be done this way.
Clause 27 agreed to.
Clauses 28 and 29 agreed to.
On clause 30-Electoral district of Yukon.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask another of my legalistic questions. It applies both to clause 30 and to clause 31. I wonder why there appears at the beginning of each of these clauses the phrase "notwithstanding anything in this act". These two clauses provide for constituencies to be known as Yukon and Northwest Territories, but may I point out that is provided for on a mandatory basis in the British North America Act.

Business of the House It is there as subsection 2 ol section 51 of the British North America Act, so why do we now say "notwithstanding anything in this act"? Should the language not be "by virtue of the provisions of the British North America Act" or "as provided in the British North America Act"? After all, nothing in this act could set aside the British North America Act in any case.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The reason this is put in is found in the repeal of the Representation Act which provides for these seats.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, the fact is that, Representation Act or no, it is already required and called for under section 51, subsection 2, of the British North America Act.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That may be the case, but the reason it is put in here is the repeal of the Representation Act. It may be it is not necessary, but that is the reason for it.
Clause 30 agreed to.
Clauses 31 and 32 agreed to.


Lucien Lamoureux: Clause 6.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Could we stop at this point?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Let us carry the amendment to clause 6 and go home.


Gordon Minto Churchill: For our convenience could we have listed at this point in Hansard for ready reference the clauses still to be passed?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The clauses still to be discussed are 6, 7, 8, 9, 12 and 13. I want to thank the committee for their excellent cooperation.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gordon Minto Churchill: May I ask the acting house leader about the business for the rest of the week?


Mr. MacNaughl:: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we will take up the discussion of main estimates commencing with the Department of Veterans Affairs, then the balance of the estimates of the Minister of Industry, namely the remainder of the estimates of the Department of Defence Production and the votes for atomic energy and the national research council; then the balance of the estimates of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, the balance of the estimates of the Department of Labour including the unemployment insurance commission, and the estimates of national revenue.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the house under provisional standing order 39A deemed to have been moved.

Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, as the voice of the Kootenays I addressed a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce on orders of the day today with respect to the visit to Canada of the home builders mission from Britain to study the Canadian timber trade, housing methods and so on and asked him if arrangements could be made for this very important mission to visit the Kootenays while en route from Vancouver to Calgary.
Now, Mr. Speaker, this is an important mission as indicated by the news release issued by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, which reads as follows:
A 26 member home builders mission from Britain will arrive in Vancouver on October 15 for a two week tour of this country to study Canadian timber frame housing construction methods. Sponsored by the Department of Trade and Commerce, the mission will comprise ten directors of British housing construction firms, and representatives of the British government's ministry of public building and works, the royal institute of British architects, the national building agency, the London county council, the timber trade federation of the United Kingdom the British woodwork manufacturers association and British building societies and trade unions. The mission will visit Vancouver, Calgary, Toronto and Ottawa.
The release goes on to describe the purpose of the mission, which is a most interesting one.
One of the primary purposes of the home builders mission will be to study Canada's timber frame construction methods and their application to a wide variety of dwelling designs. Members will also have an opportunity to see the milling of Canadian surfaced lumber and the manufacture of softwood and hardwood plywoods. Canadian builders and lumber interests will also have an opportunity to meet the British builders to discuss possible ways of participating in Britain's accelerated housing program.
This is a mission which is of great importance to all Canadians, of importance to the Canadian economy, and of particular importance to the forest products producing areas; and I happen to represent one of the largest and most important forest products producing areas in Canada.
The reasons for my suggesting this visit are several. First of all, the Kootenays have often been overlooked when arrangements were being made by this and former governments for groups in other countries visiting

Canada. If I had time I could give several illustrations of this, but I shall only mention one, which was when the British forestry commission visited Canada. It visited certain areas interested in forest production and certain other areas, but it overlooked one of the highest producing yield areas in Canada, the Kootenays. This has been noted by the industry and by the organizations in the constituency which I have the honour to represent.
I also make this suggestion because the Kootenay forest production area people are interested in the expansion of markets, both domestic and foreign, including markets in Great Britain. Third, we have a particular type of species in the Kootenays and interior B.C., a very high quality species, and high quality producing species, which is treated in the processing plants there. Fourth, we have a varied type of house construction, and the uses of timber for housing and other purposes in that area would be very interesting for these visitors to see. Fifth, if they visited this area they would have the opportunity to meet the local people, the local operators, and discuss questions which would be of mutual concern to them both.
It would also provide an opportunity for these visitors to witness different methods of production, and compare those methods with the ones used in other parts of Canada. We have, in the Kootenays, some of the most up to date mills and producing plants in Canada. Finally, such a visit would give them an opportunity to enjoy most unusual scenery and unparalleled natural beauty.
I urge that even at this late date consideration be given to having this mission visit the Kootenays and the interior of B.C. while en route from Vancouver to Calgary. Further-
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion more I urge upon ministers in this government that in future, when arrangements are being made for these visiting groups, whether they represent agriculture, labour, the forest industry, the mining industry or any other industry, to consider the interior of B.C. and the Kootenay area in particular, areas which have been often overlooked during previous visits. I should like the parliamentary secretary to let me know whether arrangements can be made, or whether he can promise that in the future the situation will be remedied.


Mr. Jean-Luc Pepin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Trade and Commerce):: May I say I am quite sure the minister will read with great interest the wise remarks made by the hon. member.
In the meantime I wish to make it clear that the mission has come to Canada, not so much to look at our forests or to enjoy the landscape, even the landscape of the beautiful Kootenays, as to inspect Canadian building methods and techniques of timber frame construction. This is part of a program designed to demonstrate the advantages of timber frame construction using Canadian lumber and plywood, and allied building materials.
The mission which is now in Vancouver already has a very heavy program of visiting construction sites, building associations and government agencies across the country. Therefore it would be difficult, if not impossible, to fit a visit to the Kootenays into its program. However, approximately 30 per cent of the total time of the mission in Canada will be spent in British Columbia and this should be a source of satisfaction to the hon. member.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.08 p.m.

Wednesday, October 21, 1964