1964-03-10

Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to advise that the governments of Canada and British Columbia have recently received from the Fraser river board copies of its report, "Final report of the Fraser river board on flood control and hydroelectric power in the Fraser river basin", and that the governments have agreed to release this report as a public document. I ask permission of the house to table the report of the board.
The plan presented by the board is designed to provide flood protection against a peak discharge from the natural basin of 600,000 cubic feet per second at Hope. The peak flow at Hope during the 1948 flood on the Fraser river was 536,000 cubic feet per second. The plan presented by the board would involve a cost of $4.9 million for dike improvements in the lower Fraser valley and approximately $400 million for diversion, power and regulating features in the upper basin. It would provide relief from flooding at Prince George, Quesnel, Kamloops, the lower Fraser valley and other points. It has been developed in a manner so as not to obstruct the migration path or affect the spawning grounds of any major salmon runs, and includes fish facilities to protect these runs.


Mr. Speaker:: Do I understand the minister has a statement he wishes to file? Does the house give consent to the filing of the statement?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: I wonder if the Secretary of State for External Affairs is in a position to give a statement to the house regarding what is apparently a worsening of conditions on Cyprus following a decision by the United Nations a few days ago to provide a peace keeping force, and the failure up to this
moment to establish that force. In view of the seriousness of the situation and the dangerous implications, I think the house would benefit in having the views and expressions of the hon. gentleman in this connection.


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity afforded by the question of the right hon. gentleman to say something further about the situation on Cyprus, which I know concerns all of us; in doing that, I should like to say that we all agree that Canada takes seriously its international responsibilities to the United Nations.
This applies no less to the situation in Cyprus than to the other peace keeping operations in which Canada has in the past, and is still participating in many disturbed areas of the world. We have repeatedly demonstrated our belief in international peace keeping operations as the only practicable method of dealing with regional disputes which have inherent in them the possibility of escalation into war. We believe in the fullest utilization of the machinery and techniques of the United Nations for this purpose.
These underlying principles have guided us in our consideration of the proposed United Nations operation in Cyprus to which, from the start, we have regarded ourselves, as the United Nations secretary general and the whole world would expect, as a responsible potential contributor.
I made clear yesterday that financing of the proposed operation, although a departure from past practice and from what is desirable, is not an obstacle to Canadian participation. Indeed, of the potential contributors Canada, apart from the United Kingdom, is the only nation to have been prepared to pay its own way as called for in the United Nations resolution and in default of a more appropriate arrangement.
I also made it clear yesterday that the duration of the assignment of the proposed force is no present obstacle. The resolution states three months, although that period would clearly have to be open to subsequent review in the light of the situation in Cyprus.
We recognized, when local and regional arrangements for order and stability in Cyprus began to break down, that the only way to preserve peace in the island was through recourse to the United Nations. And we have said so. We have been ready since that time

Inquiries of the Ministry to participate in a United Nations peace keeping operation, and have made military preparations which would permit us to do so quickly and efficiently. But we have also been aware that the force, when constituted, will be called upon to operate in ambiguous political circumstances, since there is no meeting of minds between the two communities within the island as to the meaning of the United Nations resolution adopted on March 4 this year, or of the purpose which the force it authorized is intended to fulfil. Moreover, the proposed force will face an operational situation in which it may face well armed and highly experienced guerilla forces. It is a situation in which there may be fighting.
It would have been irresponsible, as the government sees it, for us to have failed in our obligation to try to obtain in advance clearer understanding of the role of the force and reasonable assurance of the co-operation of the communities whose welfare they are being asked to protect. Our attitude has been welcomed by the secretary general, who acknowledges that we have been giving a responsible lead in ensuring that the United Nations operation is practicable and effective from the outset.
Difficulties of implementation of the security council decision have arisen because of the limitations which have been placed upon the United Nations ability to draw the force from all those nations willing and able to make an effective contribution. It has also been caused by failure to clarify the extent to which the two communities are prepared to co-operate with the force once established.
We have been pressing those most directly concerned to remove these obstacles to the creation of an urgently needed international force under the aegis of the United Nations. We are continuing to do so and we are ready to play our part the moment these difficulties have been overcome.
Only an hour ago I again conveyed these views to the secretary general of the United Nations, who reported to me on the nature of the progress that has been made in the negotiations that are under way with countries other than Canada which the secretary general would like to see participate in this force.
I can assure the right hon. gentleman that the situation in Cyprus, where order is being maintained by Her Majesty's forces from the United Kingdom, continues to engage our attention as well as that of certain countries in the United Nations which share our view as to the need for action in this matter.


John George Diefenbaker: I should be less than frank if I did not tell the hon. gentleman that his clarification did not add very much to our knowledge as to what the government intends to do in this regard except review with the same care and attention which has characterized the government in the last ten days.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: supplementary question. I am sure most of us will welcome the statement by the Secretary of State for External Affairs assuring the house that the government is prepared to assume its responsibilities in regard to a peace keeping force in Cyprus. I think the Canadian people as a whole will be anxious that the government should do its part in maintaining the prestige and the authority of the United Nations.
What I want to ask the hon. gentleman is this. Has he made any representations to the secretary general of the United Nations with respect to the advisability of having a plan for economic development introduced into Cyprus at the same time as the peace keeping force is established there; because in the final analysis unless economic conditions are improved in that area it is perfectly obvious that the peace keeping force will face greater difficulties.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I thank the hon. gentleman for his remarks in support of the position taken by the government. I wish to assure him that some days ago we advised the secretary general and interested countries of some views which we hold on the economic aspects of this problem in terms of aid to Cyprus and proper supplementary action in connection with the responsibility of trying to maintain peace on that island.


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: As the
situation in Cyprus becomes more critical, and since there are a number of Canadian nationals there, can the minister give us any word as to the safety and well-being of these people? Likewise, can he give us any information about the safety of those who are being expelled from the Sudan at this time?


Paul Joseph James Martin: With regard to the Sudan, since we have no mission in that country we have had to rely upon the British mission there. As the hon. gentleman knows, there are a number of Christian missionaries in the Sudan. Their safety is being guaranteed to the extent that this is possible by action taken by Her Majesty's government in the Sudan.
With regard to the Canadians in Cyprus, every precaution has been taken to assist them in security and safety measures.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Guy Marcoux (Quebec-Montmorency):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of National Defence.
In yesterday's issue of he Soleil, the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Beaule) is reported as having said:
-that an investigation will be conducted, willingly or unwillingly, on the administration of the Valcartier armoury.
I would like the minister to tell us whether an investigation will be held and if so, whether it will be conducted willingly or otherwise.


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I have not heard of any inquiry that has commenced there. I will take the question as notice and try to determine if one is contemplated.



ST. SYLVESTRE, QUE.-EMPLOYMENT FOR CIVILIAN PERSONNEL OF RADAR STATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Auguste Choquette (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put to the Minister of National Defence a question which relates to the statement he made yesterday concerning the closing of the radar station in St. Sylvestre, county of Lotbiniere.
Could the minister tell the house if he had talks with the Minister of Labour about jobs for almost 90 civilians who will be dismissed following that development, and could he also tell the house whether those talks will be such as to ensure full employment for all those people?


Hon. Lucien Cardin (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the Department of National Defence is doing all it can to find work for the people who will be discharged following the closing down of the radar station at St. Sylvestre. We have not been in contact with the Minister of Labour, but we did get in touch with the national employment service. I must say also that the department has tried to find alternative use for the radar station facilities at St. Sylvestre and that it is still studying the possibility of transferring those facilities to other agencies.


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question-
Inquiries of the Ministry


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question in this regard-


Mr. Speaker:: May I interrupt to say that I am under the firm impression and conviction that this type of question is one for the order paper. The hon. member spoke to me before we met and said there was some particular urgency about the matter, but after hearing the question I think the answer could be very complete if he would put the question on the order paper.


Auguste Choquette: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker, in regard to the following urgent matter.
It concerns about 90 people who are in an insecure position and do not know what is going to happen to them. They would like to have some kind of hope and that is why I wish to put a supplementary question to the Minister of National Defence. Has he been approached-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sure we all appreciate the urgency, nevertheless I still hold to my first opinion.



SASKATOON


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. Nasserden (Rosthern):: I should like to ask the Minister of National Defence whether any civilian employees at the air station at Saskatoon have been recently discharged from employment? If so, what steps is the department taking to provide alternative employment for these people?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: I will take that question as notice.



BAGOTVILLE, QUE.    REPORTED DISMISSAL OF DOCTOR AT AIR BASE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Associate Minister of National Defence. Can the minister tell the house if he is aware that a physician of Lapointe county has been dismissed from the R.C.A.F. station at Bagotville, because he did not speak English well enough?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: I wish to thank the hon. member for giving me notice of his question. Unfortunately, I have not received enough
730	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry information yet to give him an answer, although I am personally convinced that it could not be the reason for his dismissal. I shall inquire into this matter and give him a report later.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the hon. member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville, the Minister without Portfolio. Can he tell us why after having complained because he had not been invited by the C.B.C., he refused to appear on a T.V. debate with the hon. member for Lapointe?


Hon. Yvon Dupuis (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, I would rather be without portfolio than without brains.
I have never refused to appear on a T.V. debate with the hon. member for Lapointe. However, I do not see why I should meet him on a T.V. debate when I have him before me all day long.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not see what possible supplementary question could arise out of that.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Could the Minister without Portfolio tell us whether it is true that he informed one of the C.B.C. directors that he would pick himself the journalists to interview him if he agreed to take part in a T.V. program?


Yvon Dupuis: Mr. Speaker, whenever I take part in a T.V. program, I shall face anyone willing to do so. I am not afraid of anybody, not even of the hon. member who has just spoken.



ROY FABISH


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Maurice Lamoniagne (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to give an answer to a question asked by the hon. member for Essex South (Mr. Whelan) on March 5, which was as follows:


Is it true that Roy Fabish, who is now an employee of the C.B.C. but was formerly executive assistant to the hon. member for Qu'Appelle when he was minister of agriculture, is being sent to mainland China by the C.B.C. to be there at the same time as the hon. member for Qu'Appelle?
I am informed by the C.B.C. that the answer to the hon. member's question is no. C.B.C. program plans in this respect date back to November, 1963, and are not in any way related to the activities of the hon. member for Qu'Appelle, either in China or in Hong Kong.



PARTICIPATION OF MINISTER'S WIFE IN TELEVISION PROGRAM

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Jolielle-L'Assompfion-Monicalm):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direcc a question to the Secretary of State and I insist on having a reply. Could the minister tell the house whether he feels that it is logical, normal and decent for the wife of the Minister of Forestry (Mr. Sauve) to keep on working for the C.B.C.?


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, I have already replied to that question.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: A point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question was out of order in the first place. To my personal knowledge it has already been asked at least twice.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: A question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. The Secretary of State made a false statement when he said that he has replied to my question. He has not replied to the question I asked him and I call on him as the minister who answers for the C.B.C. in the house to say whether he approves of the fact that the wife of a minister of the crown continues to get high fees from that crown corporation which comes under him?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Lisgar.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, a point of order. I addressed a specific question to the minister and it is his duty to answer.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Under the
rules as established by hon. members, not by the Chair, if the minister does not care to reply he cannot be forced to do so.


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, I submit that I do not refuse at all to answer the question, but on the contrary, I have already answered it.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Just the same old bunch.



MONTREAL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Georges Valade (Si. Mary):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State.
Could he answer the question I asked him last week as to the construction of C.B.C. buildings in Montreal east? The minister had promised a few days ago to give me an answer to that question.


Maurice Lamontagne: I have not as yet secured the information that would enable me to give an answer.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who is the minister responsible for the world fair.
Can the Minister of Trade and Commerce tell us whether the Canadian World Exhibition Corporation has reserved that lot for parking purposes during the world fair or whether a request to that effect has been made by the city of Montreal?


Mr. Speaker:: That surely is a question for the order paper.


Georges-J. Valade: On a point of order, I suggest it is an urgent question because there has been a delay. A definite date was set for the erection of this C.B.C. building when the resolution was passed in this house a few years ago, and I think the people of Montreal are entitled to know whether this building is to be built or not. If it is not to be erected, they want to know why. It is the population of Montreal, a million and a half people, which asks this question.


Mr. Speaker:: The point made is very interesting and there is no doubt about its eventual importance, or even its present importance. But its urgency, at this time, is another matter. I do not see it.


Georges-J. Valade: Would the minister or the parliamentary secretary reply to my question at a later date, then?
Inquiries of the Ministry THE BUDGET



REASON FOR EARLY PRESENTATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George C. Nowlan (Digby-Annapolis-Kings):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance and ask him whether the explanation for the decision to bring in the budget at such an early date is the fact that the government has accepted the advice of the opposition and is repealing, before March 31, the section which provides for an automatic increase in the sales tax on building materials and supplies?


Hon. Walter L. Gordon (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the hon. gentleman wait until budget night.


George Clyde Nowlan: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question which he can answer under the rules. Does he propose to bring down-I presume he does-the budget papers, the so-called white paper; and if so, at what time does the hon. minister plan to table it?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, that seems to be a more appropriate question.


George Clyde Nowlan: The other one was more appropriate, but more difficult for you.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I would hope to table the budget white paper either on Thursday or Friday of this week.


George Clyde Nowlan: You had better make it Thursday.


Mr. Marcel Lessard (Lake St. John):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance.
In view of the announcement made in newspapers concerning the effects of tax reductions in the United States, does the Minister of Finance intend to follow closely this development and increased American activity, in order to recommend tax reductions in Canada?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, it is next Monday that I am planning to bring down the budget.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: have a supplementary question for our very accommodating Minister of Finance, Mr. Speaker. Is he introducing his budget at an unusually early date in order to provide an opportunity to test public reaction so the budget can be changed if necessary before the beginning of the fiscal year?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.
732	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the engaging member for Kootenay West may I say that I have not yet introduced the budget. That will be done next week.



INQUIRIES OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stuart A. Fleming (Okanagan-Revelsioke):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In view of the fact that the current issue of one of the world's leading travel magazines is devoted to Canada, and as I assume the Canadian government travel bureau gave their full co-operation in the collection of the material for this magazine issue, can the minister explain why Canada's finest tourist and recreation area, the Okanagan valley, is completely ignored?


Mr. Henri Lalulippe (Compion-Fronlenac):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance a question. In view of the increase of the cost of living, salaries in general, prices of goods, and especially, in view of the fact that everybody lives on borrowed money, does the minister contemplate lowering interest rates?



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reid Scott (Danforth):: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to ask the Minister of Justice a question last week-in his absence from the house the minister's parliamentary secretary took notice of the question-as to whether the government will make available to the royal commission on the Coffin case the various documents, files and papers which it might have in its possession and which might assist the commissioner. I wonder whether the Minister of Justice is prepared to answer that question.


Hon. Guy Favreau (Minister of Justice):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. An officer of the Department of Justice, as I have already mentioned to the house, Mr. Gaspard Cote, has been sitting in at the hearings of the royal commission and has submitted to the commissioner such documents from the files of the department as appear to be useful to Mr. Justice Brossard; and the department will continue to render any assistance it can to Mr. Justice Brossard in connection with the inquiry.
[Mr. Herridge.I



STEPS TO DEAL WITH SO-CALLED &quot;HATE&quot; LITERATURE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, if I might preface this question, a number of letters have come to me in the last few days which enclose communications received by Canadians in all parts of our country from a certain group called the national white American party, the post office box number being given, asking for Canadian membership. These letters contain the most virulent and diabolical type of anti-Jewish propaganda and venomous attacks on the negroes of our country.
I wonder whether the minister, having given full consideration to this matter, does not feel that action could be taken under the sedition provisions of the Criminal Code as it is today. This matter affects all Canadians. Is there any reason why the Department of Justice should not lay charges to punish those who are now interfering with the good will of Canadians, the prosecutions, however, being left constitutionally to the attorneys general of the several provinces?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, as already appears from a few answers I have given this house, both the Department of Justice and the government are much concerned with the type of hate literature to which the right hon. gentleman has just referred. Not only the Minister of Justice but each minister of this government shares very thoroughly that concern.
With regard to the actual publication or the pamphlets which have been alluded to, this matter is presently being studied and looked into, with reference to which is the proper authority to assist in dealing with the matter, in the circumstances, once it has been fully investigated. However, a much broader question, as I have already said, is being raised, and it is that of ascertaining what would be the formula which could be devised and applied, which would be consistent both with proper respect of the individual, and of groups, as well as the respect of freedom of speech. As I see it, we must distinguish between the actual pamphlet under question, with regard to which I would not be free to give an opinion to the house at the moment, and second, the broader question as to what formula may be found.
I can only repeat that at four o'clock this afternoon I am meeting certain of the ethnic groups, that on Thursday I am meeting the Canadian Jewish Congress, and that both this house and those outside this house may be

assured that not only will the matter be dealt with thoroughly, but also very actively and intensively.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, if I may be allowed to say so, one of the great difficulties is to maintain freedom of discussion and not to deny within one's country that freedom of speech without which freedom cannot exist. However, in reading this I doubt that anyone would say that it came within the purview of freedom of speech.
I would ask the minister this question. It appears that all of this material is emanating from a post office box-I am not going to give the number-in Scarborough, Ontario. Has there been any investigation on the part of the Post Office Department to ascertain whether this is so? Also, what responsibility rests on the Post Office Department to deny the use of the mails to this most scurrilous, slanderous and infamous literature that is being distributed?


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, the letter in question or a copy of it was referred by my department to the Department of Justice a short time ago, as soon as we were able to get a copy. I have not yet had the advice of the Department of Justice.


John George Diefenbaker: I do not want to give the number of this post office box at Scarborough, Ontario, but is it held by the person named in the literature that is going out?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I would rather not give that answer at this time.


John George Diefenbaker: Why not?


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Justice. Has the department's consideration of what to do about the hate literature included an examination of two private members' bills that are on the order paper, Bill C-43 in the name of the hon. member for Winnipeg North and Bill C-21 in the name of the hon. member for Cartier, to see whether either of these bills might meet the situation? If it is ascertained that either one would meet it, would the government take one of these bills as its own so that the house can act on this matter at an early date?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I consider the two bills referred to as relevant information to place before the Department of Justice and the government, and no relevant information will be discarded. It will be completely made use of.


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice 20220-47
Inquiries of the Ministry concerning a matter that was discussed earlier this day, namely the subject of hate literature in the mails. Was the Department of Justice consulted in the first instance when Canada abstained from voting on this matter, when the subject was being considered at the last session of the United Nations general assembly?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman will find that this question was dealt with very adequately at the last session of parliament.



JOHN WASYLENCHUK


[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 Justice arising out of the question I put to him yesterday concerning John Wasylenchuk, a Canadian citizen who comes up for trial on March 24 in Seattle on a charge of complicity in a murder and a bank robbery.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I should have taken advantage of the opportunity when I was on my feet a moment ago to give the answer to the supplementary question put yesterday by the hon. gentleman.
It has not been the practice for the government to appoint defence counsel for persons extradited from Canada, and there would not appear to be justification for establishing a precedent in this case, particularly since it appears that competent counsel has been appointed by the United States court and that such counsel is being assisted in gathering evidence in Canada by Canadian counsel in Vancouver.
As to Sergeant Nuttal, it is my understanding that his evidence has already been taken on commission in Vancouver for fear that his health will not permit him to attend the trial. If, of course, there was any requirement for his presence and his health would permit, I am sure the necessary measures would be taken in this respect.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask a supplementary question. Is the minister aware that the counsel in Vancouver to whom he refers is not being paid, and that this man has no money to pay him since he was a parolee at the time he was extradited? Would the government consider providing some reimbursement to his counsel in Vancouver so he could gather such evidence as is necessary for this man's defence? After all, the government has some responsibility in this matter, since I am convinced that they extradited him illegally in the first place.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Guy Favreau: I stated what has been the practice in the past and what is felt to be a proper policy to be followed. I am quite sure that whatever the government has done and is doing in the present case, it is going at least as far as would be normally expected in the circumstances.



NOVA SCOTIA-APPOINTMENT OF COUNTY COURT JUDGE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Pictou):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. In view of the great interest and urgency, as well as the press speculation on the matter of the appointment of a county court judge for Pictou county-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Howard Russell MacEwan: Well, if hon. members would read the newspapers they would realize the urgency of this matter in so far as the bar of this area is concerned. I wonder when we might expect this appointment to be made.



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mrs. Margaret Konanlz (Winnipeg South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Has the minister received a submission from the government of Manitoba regarding a national air transport policy, and what action does he propose to take with respect to it?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I received this document at the end of the week. I have already begun to read it, and it is my intention to give it the consideration that I would be expected to give anything coming from Manitoba.



HASKETT, MAN.-PROVISION OF LANDING STRIP

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. I believe we are still within the hour, and I wonder if he is carrying around the answer to the question I asked on Friday in regard to the air strip on the border of Manitoba and North Dakota.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I am having inquiries made about that matter, but I have not yet got the answers to my inquiries.



DEFENCE PRODUCTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Industry with reference to several questions I asked on February 19 last. Is the minister now in a position to give more complete answers than he was able to give at that time, first in regard to the reconsideration he said would be given as to the C.P.A. repair depot in Calgary being given the continuing job of care and maintenance of R.C.A.F. planes stored in southern Alberta? Second, what has been the result of the conversations which he stated were instituted with various bodies to find alternative employment for the men who will lose their jobs as a result of the closing of that facility?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: Mr. Speaker, the review of the consequences of closing the C.P.A. operated facility in Calgary has been carried out. It has been reaffirmed' that in the light of the work load available in western Canada it would be more economical to operate the present storage and maintenance facilities on the basis proposed than to endeavour to shift the work load to Calgary. I regret that I am not in a position to say now, but I will be glad to inform myself and to inform the hon. member as to the precise outcome of the various conversations that have been held in relation to finding alternative employment for the work force at the C.P.A. operated depot at Calgary.


Douglas Scott Harkness: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I think the minister is perhaps under some misapprehension. Nobody has ever suggested that the planes should be moved to Calgary, but the work of care and maintenance could still be carried on under the direction of the C.P.A. repair depot there. If that is not going to be done, as the minister now states, who is going to carry on this work?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, the operation at Calgary was a repair and overhaul operation within the depot. Such repair and overhaul as now will be required to be done at the places of storage in southern Alberta will be carried out by field parties who will go to the storage sites and supplement the custodial forces there. It will not be necessary to take the work from the present storage sites to other repair depots.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Can the
Minister of Justice now give a categorical answer to the question I asked him, Mr. Speaker, on February 28 as to whether the agreement now being negotiated between the governments of Canada and Quebec regarding the transfer of responsibility for Eskimos in northern Quebec will be referred to parliament for confirmation?


Guy Favreau: am not yet in a position to give a final report on that. I was going to say "opinion", but I know I cannot give one.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Justice?
When does the minister contemplate holding a sort of referendum, once the agreements are signed, in which the Eskimos would be asked whether they are in favour of that transfer?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, it is a question I would not like to answer without previous consultation with the other party involved in the discussions, but my hon. friend can rest assured that if his judgment of the future is based on the past, or at least the most recent past, the agreement will be in the interests of the Eskimos and besides within a space of time not inconsistent with the objectives of justice.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Will the Minister of Justice meet Hon. Mr. Levesque in this connection?


Guy Favreau: That matter is of minor importance, Mr. Speaker. No definite date has been set for the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Laing) to meet with Quebec representatives.


Mr. Nielsen:: A supplementary question-


Mr. Speaker:: I do not wish to stop any member asking a question, but questions about the Eskimos in Labrador and Quebec have been raised so many times that I wonder if it would not be wise to refrain from pressing the matter any further.


Erik Nielsen: My supplementary question has a great deal of urgency in it, Mr. Speaker, since an agreement is now
20220-47i
Inquiries of the Ministry being discussed between the federal government and Quebec. Since the minister of northern affairs has told this house in an announcement that he intends to inform the Eskimo people after the agreement has been completed, I am wondering if the Minister of Justice or any member of the government can assure the house that the Eskimos will be consulted about the provisions of that agreement.


Guy Favreau: It seems to be public information now that the Eskimos will be consulted and must be consulted, as part of the understanding between both governments.


Erik Nielsen: That does not satisfy the question I asked.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please; I am sorry the hon. member is not satisfied, but that is the answer of the minister.


Erik Nielsen: The matter is of some urgency, Mr. Speaker, because these people are Canadians too-


Mr. Speaker:: Would the hon. member mind stating his question, please, instead of putting forward arguments?


Erik Nielsen: Certainly, Mr. Speaker, I will state it once more. The minister of northern affairs informed the house the other day-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Erik Nielsen: -that the Eskimo people would be informed of the provisions of the agreement after it had been completed. My question is, will he assure the house that the Eskimo people would be consulted as to the content of that agreement by the two governments before it is signed?


Some hon. Members:: No answer?


Erik Nielsen: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, that affects every member of this house, as well as thousands of Eskimo people who are concerned about the consultations taking place between the federal government and the government of Quebec. The minister should answer the question I asked him in order to provide-


Mr. Speaker:: Would the hon. member mind giving me his point of privilege, please?


Erik Nielsen: I was coming to it, Mr. Speaker. Obviously Your Honour could not hear it over the noise made by hon. members opposite.
My question of privilege is this. The Eskimo people, if they are not going to be consulted about the provisions of this agreement, should be given the opportunity to engage counsel or have some representative appear before the two governments who are purporting to make the agreement affecting the lives of these

Inquiries of the Ministry Canadians. I wonder if the minister cannot give the house the assurance I have requested of him.


Guy Favreau: If the hon. member is
suggesting to this government that all necessary means should be adopted to assure the greatest measure of justice for the Eskimos, including the protection of their human and fundamental rights, the answer is that the first thing to which each of these governments has agreed is that these rights will be preserved. In so far as consultation is concerned, the first thing that each government has agreed is that the Eskimos will be consulted.


John George Diefenbaker: After all, Mr. Speaker, these Eskimos are primitive people, and they are the responsibility-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: -of the federal government under the law. If their rights are to be transferred to some other institution or province, I ask the minister whether it is not proper and appropriate that they should be consulted before an agreement is entered into. In other words, they are being transferred from one jurisdiction to another without being consulted, unless they are given this opportunity, and I ask him whether they are going to have that opportunity or whether they are simply going to be transferred without regard for their wishes.


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I think the government is quite aware of its responsibilities in this matter, and does not need to be told of them by the right hon. gentleman.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lester Bowles Pearson: In reply to the question he has asked, perhaps I may say that this question has been answered four or five times already.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Lester Bowles Pearson: If it will prevent a further waste of time by additional questions, I will say once again that the Eskimos will be consulted before an agreement is signed.


An hon. Member:: Full retreat.


John George Diefenbaker: I cannot allow the last remark made by the Prime Minister to pass unchallenged. We on this side of the house have at last been able to get an answer indicating that these primitive people-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: -are not going to be treated as chattels by this government.


Lester Bowles Pearson: On the point of order, if the right hon. gentleman would read Hansard, he will find this question specifically answered by the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources days ago. I suggest he read the statement.


John George Diefenbaker: No, no. We got the answer today.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It seems to me this is the time for a quiet statement from the Chair, if I had one prepared.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I was going to speak on the point of order raised by the Prime Minister.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Yukon is well aware, or at least I think he must be well aware, that this is taking on the form and substance of a debate, and the question has been answered by the Prime Minister,
I think to the satisfaction of most people. May I suggest that we get on with the business.


Erik Nielsen: The Prime Minister raised a point of order which has not been settled by the Chair, and I think I am entitled to speak to that point of order. On the point of order raised by him, he said the house was informed on at least four occasions of the same answer he gave today. This is absolutely false, Mr. Speaker, because-


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Erik Nielsen: -because the minister of northern affairs said that the Eskimo people-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
gentleman has had the floor for some considerable time, as is his right, but I do not see where we are improving the discussion at the moment. May I suggest we go on to other business.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have another supplementary question which will clarify the problem in the minds, at any event, of the opposition. Will the Prime Minister assure the house that when the agreement is completed it will be referred either to a committee of the house or to the house itself? If that could be answered then this problem would be solved.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The government will carry out the appropriate procedure in this matter.


Mr. Mandziuk:: What is the appropriate procedure?



TRANS-CANADA AIR LINES TRANSFER OF REPAIR FACILITIES FROM WINNIPEG TO MONTREAL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Real Caouelie (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. According to T.C.A.'s annual report recently tabled, that corporation would save some $40 million on aircraft repairs if they were carried out in Montreal instead of Winnipeg. When does the department intend to take advantage of that saving?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, the government has the intention, and I understand the air line has also, of carrying out the undertaking given by the Prime Minister.


Gilles Grégoire: That is not an answer. You did not answer.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. H. Horner (Acadia):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Will he inform the house and the country at the earliest possible date how the government intends to divide up the Department of Agriculture?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, there will be legislation brought in to deal with this matter in due course, but if we don't get ahead with some business it will be a long time coming.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. L. Chalterton (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Minister of Transport would give an answer to the question I asked him about three weeks ago, with regard to the take-over of the Vancouver hotel by the Hilton group. I asked the question on February 21.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the hon. gentleman. I have been carrying around an answer to that question for days, hoping I could get it in during the first hour of the question period, but I don't have it with me today.
Inquiries of the Ministry


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Another American take-over.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, in the intervening period I have found the answer to the question put by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich, and I may as well give it now since we are just within the hour. The hon. member asked a question regarding the alleged replacement of certain officials of the Hotel Vancouver by Hilton personnel from outside Canada.
The management of the Canadian National advise that the union representatives are cooperating closely with the management to bring about the desired improvements in the hotel operations. Employee adjustments have been slight; two former C.P.R. employees elected to return to that company; one former C.N. employee elected to return to that company; one Hotel Vancouver employee elected to transfer to the C.N. There has been one separation and one resignation. Certain new key people who are all residents of Vancouver have been hired locally, and four have been transferred to the hotel from the Queen Elizabeth in Montreal. No Hilton employees have been transferred from the United States to the hotel.


Hon. Leon Balcer (Three Rivers):: I wonder if the Minister of Transport could tell us whether the Vancouver hotel has been sold or rented, or whether a managerial contract has been entered into with Hilton hotels. I should like to know also if the minister would be good enough to table the contract between Hilton and the C.N.R. relating to this matter.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. gentleman was, of course, a member of the committee on railways and so on owned by the government, which committee was last session informed of the fact that this transfer had been made. Also, as I understand, it was announced publicly in December when my predecessor was minister. I thought it was very well known to the public. As to the question of the contract, I would have to take that under consideration.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Tucker (Trinity-Conception):: May
I direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Would the minister please advise whether his department has received a request to go to the assistance of the Newfoundland sealing vessel Sir John Crosbie
738	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry which is hunting seals off the northeast coast of Newfoundland? If so, has an icebreaker been dispatched to the area, and is the crew safe?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The answer to the hon. gentleman's question is yes. The Canadian steamship Sir Humphrey Gilbert which was dispatched to the area will reach the disabled ship at about 4.30 p.m. today according to a report I have. The latest report states that the damage to the Sir John Crosbie is not as serious as first appeared, and the crew is in no immediate danger.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Terry Nugeni (Edmonton-Slraihcona):: I have a question for the Prime Minister. In view of the statement by the Minister of Transport that he has been carrying around an answer for so long, does the government wish members who have asked questions which have been taken as notice to keep repeating their questions each day to find out whether the minister has an answer ready, or would the Prime Minister prefer ministers to give the answers immediately they are available in order that we might get on with the question period a little quicker?


Lester Bowles Pearson: We would prefer to have notice of questions so they could be answered at once. However, that rarely is the case. In default, we would prefer to have proper questions asked and answered in a proper way as quickly as possible.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Would the Prime Minister answer my question? Yesterday, I think, the minister of northern affairs took a question of mine as notice. Is it necessary for me to ask each day whether the minister is in a position to answer it, or will the answer, and answers to other such questions, be given to the house as soon as they are ready?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Of course they will.


Arthur Laing: Yesterday the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona asked me a question and volunteered a method by which we could save some money. It involved the presumed purchase of some 140 homes to be shipped to Tuktoyaktuk, all to be delivered via Waterways. I can now give the hon. gentleman some figures which vill show that if his advice were followedid he can take these figures down and
Mr. Tucker.]

check them with Northern Transportation if he likes-we would lose one dollar per hundred pounds-


Mr. Speaker:: May I interrupt and suggest that the hon. minister send these figures over in writing.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: I would like them on the record, if that is possible.


An hon. Member:: Put the question on the order paper, then.


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: A supplementary question to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has indicated that he would like to be given notice of questions so as to expedite the question period in the house. Would he bring this to the attention of the Minister of National Defence, who had an answer for me for three weeks outside this house but desired that I ask a question during the question period? And would he explain to that minister that the way to expedite the business is not to promote questions in the house?


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


Malcolm MacInnis: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Last evening we passed a resolution setting up a committee to examine the rules of the house, and I was hoping to be able to congratulate all hon. members today on the fact that the question period had lasted approximately three quarters of an hour, allowing time for necessary procedures.
I wonder whether hon. members could not take my suggestion into account and help me, pending a modification of the rules, particularly with regard to the question period, in trying to keep the period down to one hour so that we could get on with the important business of the country.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: On a question of privilege, the minister was about to give a reply to the question I asked the other day. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, you were about to suggest that my question go on the order paper because it was not urgent, and the argument I advanced was merely to show why the question was urgent and should be answered orally rather than by means of the order paper.
Today the minister was about to give a reply to my argument, as he said, and I think the minister should at least be given the opportunity to give an answer to my question.
Is it true that there are 140 Eskimo houses called for tender, and are they to be delivered at Tuktoyaktuk? Those were the

questions, and I still think I should have an answer if the minister is prepared to give one.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the minister ready to give an answer?


Arthur Laing: I am pleased to reply to the hon. member's argument. The freight rates are as follows: Edmonton to Hay River, by truck, $2.85 per cwt.; by barge, Yellowknife Transportation from Hay River to Tukoyaktuk, $2.25 per cwt. for a total of $5.10 per cwt. Edmonton to Waterways by rail, $1.10 per cwt.; by Northern Transportation barge from Waterways to Tuktoyaktuk, $3 per cwt. for a total of $4.10. So we are saving one dollar per hundred pounds compared to the hon. member's suggested method of delivery.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: The houses are on order; one hundred and forty? Is that correct?


Arthur Laing: No, it is not correct.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Would you mind telling me how many?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sure this illustrates the difficulty attached to this type of individual reply. Questions at this time should be national in scope and extremely urgent.



REDISTRIBUTION


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, March 9, consideration of the motion of Mr. Pickers-gill (for the Prime Minister) for the second reading 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.
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I had just reached the point last night of making the motion on behalf of the Prime Minister when it was observed that it was ten o'clock. I would like to begin today by recalling very briefly what has already taken place with respect to the very important constitutional obligation of readjusting the representation of the country in this house which falls upon parliament every ten years.
At the last session an act of parliament was put on the statute books and an appointment made in the statute itself of a representation commissioner who is to have the administrative responsibility for the new method of redistribution, for financing it under appropriations from parliament and for carrying on
Electoral Boundaries Commissions all the housekeeping. So we have already made provision for what I might call the administrative side of the task of redistribution, which is of course not at all the really important side but without which it cannot be effectively done in the new manner which all of us seemed to agree, in the debate we had at the last session of parliament, was desirable.
It will be recalled also, sir, that at the last session of parliament we had, both on the resolution preceding the representation commissioner bill and on the bill itself, not what I would call an extended debate but a pretty full debate in which the general principles were, I think, unanimously accepted by the house.
I would say there were two general principles that were accepted by the house. The first and by far the most important of these was that we should not follow the pattern that had been followed in the first 90 years since confederation, of having the readjustment of representation in this place done in this place by its members directly, but that it should be done by somebody which would be as impartial as we in our collective ingenuity could provide and who would be as competent as we could find means to provide through legislation and subsequent appointment. It was also agreed that in this process the government should have no more voice than any other part of the house, because this was a business which was peculiarly the business of parliament, of all of parliament, where we all have an equal obligation and, I hope and think, an equal desire to see that the people are fairly represented.
The second principle was that in doing this we should not abdicate the final responsibility which is imposed upon this parliament, and we would have to find some means of making sure that we did not just turn this matter over to a commission without any final power in parliament at least to object if any palpable and obvious errors seemed by the majority to have been made.
It is to achieve these two objectives that the bill now before us has been drafted. The previous bill was in a form quite similar to the bill that is now before us, but not precisely the same. The bill was introduced at the very end of last session. If I remember rightly, it was introduced on the last or the second last day of that session. There was an understanding at that time which the Leader of the Opposition expressed in a statement he made in the house on December 6, 1963 to which I should like to refer. He said:
We shall give every co-operation in the passage of the legislation setting up the representation commissioner-

Electoral Boundaries Commissions
I acknowledge that every co-operation was given in all quarters of the house:
-of course, during the recess we shall be able to meet with representatives of the government and of other groups in the house to discuss this important matter of redistribution legislation.
It was not actually possible to have any such meeting during the recess, but in the opening days of the session, thanks to the co-operation of the representatives of all groups opposite, we did have a certain measure of conference and consultation. In that conference and consultation I made it very clear at the beginning that no one had committed anyone else at that meeting; that it was just for the purpose of trying to find out as far as possible what we all thought would be acceptable and putting that into the bill, so that the matters we would have to debate when the bill came before us would be those on which there were understandable differences of opinion.
It is not for me to say whether we achieved that purpose. All I can say is that I thank all hon. members on both sides of the house who took part in those consultations, and I want to make it very clear that they bound no one to anything at all and that every hon. member is perfectly free, so far as I am concerned at any rate, to express his views on this matter. There will be no allusion whatsoever in the debate to any of those discussions.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. gentleman, just for the record, tell the house what changes have been made in the present bill as compared with the provisions of the earlier bill? I think it would be very helpful if the hon. gentleman would do that.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think I could do that at a certain stage, Mr. Speaker. It might not be so consonant if I were to do it now, and perhaps I could do it on clause 1 of the bill when it is being considered in committee. I say this because I must admit quite frankly that I would almost have to interrupt my speech to make absolutely sure that I had every last detail, if I were to do it at this particular moment. I think the changes were not what most of us would regard as being in the most important sections of the bill, but there were some things in it that all of us felt were not what we would really want in the bill. Certainly at the beginning of the committee stage I shall be very pleased indeed to do what the right hon. gentleman has suggested. It would of course involve, in any event, a reference to individual clauses.
I do not intend to discuss the individual clauses as such; I would rather discuss the general scheme of the bill. The bill does provide-and this is something, of course,

that was a matter of difference in our debates before the prorogation of the last parliament-that there shall be a separate commission for each province. I am frank to admit that this is a matter on which there is not- certainly so far as I know-agreement in the whole house. But I want to explain very briefly why my colleagues and I came to the conclusion that we should at least put the bill forward in that form at this time for the consideration of the house. I think it was made abundantly clear to me, and I think to my colleagues, that it would not be possible within the life of this parliament to have a single commission for the whole country carrying out the necessary work in the time that would be available, to make sure that in this parliament we did perform the constitutional function that we are called upon to perform. Because the amount of physical work which would be required in the delimitation by any commission, however diligent, raises a problem here.


Erik Nielsen: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am seeking to follow a certain line of argument here, so would the hon. member save his question until the end?
With regard to the personnel of commissions, I should like to say parenthetically that there is a real problem in getting people who will not only be fair but who will appear to everyone to be fair. Also I do not think there will be any disagreement that it is going to be essential to get people who occupy eminent positions in the community. People who occupy eminent positions in the community are people who, in general, have other duties to perform in the community in addition to the duties they would have as commissioners, and to get men or women of sufficient eminence who would be able to devote their full time to this task over the period which would be necessary to effect redistribution for the whole country would, I think, be an impossible task.
I think if it were not for the time factor I would agree with what several hon. gentlemen, including the right hon. Leader of the Opposition, said in earlier debates, that ideally it would be preferable if one commission could do it for the whole country. In that event you would be quite sure that they would follow precisely the same criteria throughout. But once we became convinced that that would be virtually impossible within the probable life of a parliament, the next idea which occurred to those of us who were working on the matter was that we might have four commissions. It was quite clear that the two provinces which presented the largest problems and which would take the

largest amount of time were the provinces of Quebec and Ontario, and that the time which would be required for the delimitation of the constituencies of the other provinces would obviously be much shorter if there were the same diligence and competence applied to the problem. It did seem that perhaps if we had one commission for the four eastern provinces, one commission for the four western provinces, one for Ontario and one for Quebec, that might be sufficient.
Then when we began to think of what that would mean, unless it was a very large commission there would probably be only one person on the commission from each of those provinces. There would only be one person from each province who would be apt to have that kind of local and particular knowledge, such as geographical knowledge, knowledge of the history of the province, topographical knowledge, and knowledge of other matters which are really essential to do this job properly, and as a result it would be unlikely that there would be agreement to just one person from each province.
I must say that I myself reached the conclusion that the only answer to this problem which was feasible and practical was to have a separate commission for each province. Obviously in the case of some of the smaller provinces the commission might not take very long to do its work; but if it did not take very long to do its work it would be correspondingly less costly, and therefore, from the point of view of economy or anything of that nature, nothing would be lost by having one commission for each province.
I must confess that when I came to this conclusion in my mind I had not yet heard the report that Mr. Castonguay brought back from Australia. After his return from that country he told me that the same question had arisen there at the very beginning but that it had been discarded, he did not know for what reason. In Australia they had always had one commission for each state for the federal redistribution, and it seemed to me that because the experience in Australia had on the whole, I think, been a very satisfactory one-there has been very little political or partisan controversy about the results of their redistributions-it seemed powerfully to reinforce in my mind the impression that I had reached. It is for that reason that the proposal to set up 10 commissions has been left in the bill.
Next we came to the very difficult problem of determining the composition of the commissions. I think I expressed the view, which I think the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre also expressed, although I am speaking from memory and if I am wrong I should like to be corrected, that the experience in 20220-48
Electoral Boundaries Commissions Manitoba with redistribution had been very satisfactory. In Manitoba the chief justice of the province, the president of the university and the chief electoral officer were designated in the legislation by office and not as persons. This produced a commission that commanded universal respect and confidence, and whose report was, I think, only altered with respect to one or two names. In every other respect it proved very satisfactory.
I must say that a good many of us racked our brains to see whether we could find people who, first, this parliament would have the right to designate. It is one thing for the provincial legislature to say that the chief electoral officer of the province should do something, but he is an officer of the province. We might achieve the same thing by getting their consent to it, but the parliament of Canada could not impose that duty upon him by naming his office; at least I would think it would be a very dubious proceeding to try.
However, I do not think that at all rules out the possibility that with the consent of a provincial government the person who occupies the position of chief electoral officer might serve, and serve very acceptably, on one of these commissions, or as far as that is concerned on all of them. But quite frankly, apart from the chief justice of the province or a judge designated by the chief justice of the province-and here I must say I was very much influenced, as I think were others too, by the Manitoba precedent-it did not seem to us that there were any other persons we could designate who would have the same title and position in all provinces. In any event, what we really wanted was to be assured of impartiality.
After various other possibilities were considered the government finally agreed to put in the bill the suggestion that the chief justice of the province should nominate the chairman from a member of his court; that the leader of the government, the Prime Minister, should nominate one of the members of the commission; and that the Leader of the Opposition, who is an officer of parliament, should nominate the other. I say unreservedly that I have every confidence that no matter who occupies those offices, any person who becomes leader of the opposition in the parliament of our country or prime minister in the parliament of our country would take this responsibility seriously and make the kind of nominations that all of us would feel were appropriate under the circumstances. I do not hesitate to say that with respect to this provision or with respect to any other method which commends itself to the house or to a majority

Electoral Boundaries Commissions of the house and which seems likely to produce as fair and effective a result, the government will be quite prepared in committee to consider on its merits any amendments to this procedure.
The fourth member of each commission, and I think this met with general approval in our debates last session, would be the representation commissioner himself. The reason for making this suggestion is that he would be able by being there, not only to provide the tremendous technical knowledge that we all know the particular representation commissioner we now have possesses, but also by his presence on all the commissions he would go a long way toward assuring that similar methods, similar techniques and similar criteria would be used by the commissions in performing their functions.
Frankly, sir, up to now this is the most satisfactory suggestion we have been able to think of for arriving at the composition of these commissions, but I hasten to say again that if anyone in any quarter of the house can produce a better method we have an open mind. It is, I say once more, not the special responsibility of the government but the responsibility of all of us to do this in the best possible way.
We come then to the next question, the preparation of the reports. It will be noted that the most important aspect of the preparation of the reports is not, of course, the basic question of how many members each province shall have, which is determined by the British North America Act as amended, but how the constituencies within each province shall be divided. The method is a very simple one. Basically I think it is perhaps the only possible method. It is exactly the same method suggested in the bill introduced by the right hon. gentleman in another parliament although the details are not the same. It is that the population of a whole province be divided by the number of members to arrive at a quotient which should be the basic, standard representation for each constituency, and that the commission should have a certain tolerance above and below that quotient.
I think it was clear from the debates we had before prorogation that this is the point on which undoubtedly the sharpest differences are likely to occur in the house. We recognize that. The government for its part has suggested that the tolerance should be 20 per cent each way; in other words, that a constituency might have one fifth more than the suggested number of residents or one fifth less. This represents, of course, quite a large number of people.
At the same time I recognize as much as any member of the house, I think, that there
[Mr. Pickersgill.l
are geographical peculiarities about our country, that the northern constituencies in nearly all the provinces have huge areas, that they do present special problems and that it may be felt by a majority of the house that a 20 per cent tolerance is not large enough.
I doubt that we would have any strong argument that it is too large, though it is interesting to note that in Australia it has been proposed for quite a long time, though actual legislation has never been put on the statute books, that the tolerance be cut to 10 per cent, and in New Zealand it is only 5 per cent. But I do think particularly at this time, having regard to the fact that this is the first redistribution to be carried out under this system, that 20 per cent is the lowest tolerance I would be prepared to recommend.


Mr. Vincent:: What about France and England?


John Whitney Pickersgill: In England, of course, the actual operation of the tolerance is not as great, generally speaking, but the plain fact is, I think, that whatever the tolerance may be the commissions in normal circumstances will be bound to take account of the standard. After all, our real objective is to bring about a fair distribution of the representation for the whole country. That is what we are seeking to do. That is our constitutional obligation, and any commission of fairminded men and women that may be employed is bound to try to accomplish that end. Therefore, speaking personally, I would feel that if 20 per cent is not exactly the right figure, if good arguments are put forward and a majority of the house feel the figure should be different, I am not going to say that our minds would be closed on this at all.


John George Diefenbaker: You have an open mind on that too?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think it is the proper thing to have an open mind, because this is a very big and difficult question. I had intended to go into this a little later in my speech but | since the right hon. gentleman has raised the question perhaps it would be appropriate at this point if I were to repeat the words I used last session on this subject and I think I will just read them as they appear on page 5111 of Hansard for November 26 last.
I may say at once that the government has no intention of trying to impose its will, and has no desire to do so; I want to emphasize that. As I said earlier, we are committed to the principle of an independent impartial redistribution to be performed outside this house. But as I indicated in answer to a question from the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre the other day, we in the government do not feel that we are committed to any detail on either of these measures.

We had two bills at that time.
We do not intend to regard the bills as government measures except technically. Because technically they are government measures-
They have to be under the rules of the house.
-they are taken up in government time and are introduced by a minister of the crown. However, we feel that the collective wisdom of this house should be brought to bear on this problem and that any good suggestion from any quarter should be incorporated into these measures without any thought of partisan consideration. We will welcome improvements from any quarter of the house-
I want to reiterate that statement.


John George Diefenbaker: A most commendable statement.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Electoral Boundaries Commissions census for 1961, not just to carry out the provisions of the constitution of 1867, but to add something to that constitution which, if we do well, will be available for a long time to come in order to insure what after all is the most priceless of all our constitutional rights in this country, the right of all our citizens to have as nearly as possible an equal voice in the government of this country.


Mr. MacLean (Queens):: Will the minister permit a question? In the bill the minister has introduced, there is no specific provision whereby the commissions concerned might recommend the continuation of dual ridings. Am I correct in assuming that this means commissions will not be allowed to recommend dual ridings and that, in effect, by the passage of this bill we are legislating the two dual ridings we now have out of existence?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think the hon. gentleman is correct in saying that would be the effect of the passage of the bill without any amendment. Of course, the result of the passage of this bill will be to legislate out of existence all the existing ridings and create new ones. Some of them may be exactly the same as the old ones, but that happens with every redistribution, because a new map is drawn.
Of course, there could be a debate on the matter in the committee stage and it would be quite possible to make an amendment to the bill if the majority of the house thought an amendment would be desirable.


Mr. Churchill:: May I ask one question of the minister? I understand the spirit in which he is approaching this subject, but quite frequently he closed a paragraph by saying a matter could be settled by a decision of the majority of the house. This may be all right under some circumstances, but dealing with a situation like this should we not attempt to get an agreement before we reach the point of attempting to decide a matter by the majority of the house. In a house of this nature, there might be a majority of one.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think the hon. gentleman would be in agreement that if a question has to be decided there is no other way of deciding it. Even a majority of one is still a majority. We could not have parliamentary government without that. I agree, nevertheless, with the spirit of what is implied, I think, in his question. I would hope that when we have completed consideration of this bill we will all feel that nothing has been imposed upon us and that, as far as we can, we have reached a consensus. If something has to come to a vote, and it has to be decided by a majority, I hope it will only have been decided by a majority after a most

careful weighing of all the circumstances. If, by chance, we can do it without ever having to have a vote in committee, by making the necessary adjustments by a consensus, I would be even more pleased. We are, I hope, trying to do the task together.


Mr. Lambert:: Just for the purpose of clarification, perhaps the minister could answer this question. Assuming this measure will be adopted, is it in the thinking of the minister that the application of section 29 of the bill whereby the Representation Act is repealed and all the ridings as they now exist, ipso facto fall to the ground, would entail the vacation of office by all returning officers? Will this mean new returning officers will have to be named for all the ridings?


John Whitney Pickersgill: As hon. members opposite know, I am not a lawyer. When a formidable counsel like the hon. member for Edmonton West asks a question of this nature, I think I should get legal advice. I will attempt to answer that question later.


Mr. Rapp:: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Transport. Will any consideration be given to urban areas and rural areas, in that population is much more dense in urban areas while at the same time a rural riding often is much larger in size than an urban one?


John Whitney Pickersgill: That would be the reason for a tolerance of at least 20 per cent, and perhaps the house might decide it should be somewhat larger than 20 per cent. You need a tolerance in order to follow municipal boundaries so far as possible and, without saying that the voters in certain northern rural areas, which are sparsely populated, are better people than the voters elsewhere, I believe most of us would agree that the problems of representing rural areas like that should be taken into consideration. Even the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher), who is a great exponent of equality in theory, made this argument during the debate last session.


Clément Vincent: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) who said that, in his opinion, there could be a minimum tolerance of 20 per cent.
Could the minister tell us what would be the maximum tolerance that would be accepted or acceptable?


John Whitney Pickersgill: As a matter of fact, without making a joke about it, I have never conducted an auction. I am not an expert in these matters, and I would prefer not to give

any figure. If you pressed me hard, I would say in my judgment 20 per cent is a good figure. I would not have put it in the bill if I had not thought so; but I am not so wedded to it that if there were a general feeling that it should be something else, I would not be willing to acquiesce in that other figure.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. I must point out that in this series of questions we are getting away from the normal procedure at this stage of a bill.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, in a moment I shall outline the position of the Progressive Conservative party, with respect to Bill No. C-72, so far as I am able to in the time at my disposal. But before I do so, I believe I misinterpreted some remarks of the minister when he referred to agreement between the parties prior to dissolution last December. I take it he did not mean that any of the details in the content of the bill had been agreed to by the parties at the time of those discussions.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Could I clear that up? I had no such thought or suggestion, and I thought I made it very clear that I did not think that. All there was agreement on was that there should be some discussion about it, and there was general agreement about the general principles on which the bill was based.


Erik Nielsen: I thank the minister for clarifying that.
The stand taken by the Conservative party was very thoroughly outlined by the Leader of the Opposition during the discussion last session when this bill came before the house on November 26, 1963. At that time he outlined in general the stand of the party back in 1900, and indicated that that stand had always been in favour and in support of an independent judicial review of redistribution.
As recorded at page 5126 of Hansard for November 26 last, the Leader of the Opposition quoted a resolution from Hansard of September 25, 1903, and I do not think it would be amiss if it were put on the record again. The resolution excerpted from the 1903 Hansard reads as follows:
First, that a commission to consist of the chief justices of the highest courts of judicature in each of the provinces of Canada shall be appointed for the purpose of fixing the boundaries of each constituency entitled to elect a member or members of the House of Commons-
Then after some further general remarks the resolution continued:
-that such commission in so doing shall consider the distribution of population according to the then latest census of Canada and the public interest and convenience-
Electoral Boundaries Commissions
I think those words are rather important.
-and shall particularly have regard so far as practicable to the boundaries of the counties municipalities and cities.
That was the stand of this party at that time, and that has been the consistent stand of our party throughout the intervening years, even during the difficult discussion in 1952 when the Liberal party of that day, and other parties in the house, failed to support an amendment to a resolution, introduced by the then leader of the opposition, Mr. Drew, calling for the establishment of an independent judicial tribunal to review redistribution.
The remarks of the leader of the opposition, as recorded at page 5126 and subsequent pages of Hansard for last session, point out some very material differences between the bill that was introduced while the Progressive Conservative party formed the government and the bill which is now before the house. Incidentally the minister, in making his remarks, referred to the introduction of the bill when this party formed the government as having come before the house in December. I believe that was his reference, but actually it was introduced in March of 1962.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Just for the record, I do not think I made a reference to any date. I referred to the legislation, the bill, which was introduced just before Christmas last year.


Erik Nielsen: I thank the minister for his clarification. His stand now is vastly different from what it was when the previous administration introduced its bill.
The material respects in which the bill now before us differs are important enough to generate discussions before the bill reaches the committee stage because, as the house leader for the official opposition has stated, it might be an expeditious thing for all parties to get together and agree to all the amendments necessary, and to these general principles, before we reach the committee stage. If there is any genuine interest in speeding up the business of the house in respect to this particular measure, then perhaps that course might be considered by the minister and the government.
There are three important material respects in which Bill No. C-72 differs from that which was introduced when the Leader of the Opposition was prime minister. The first is the establishment of ten independent commissions rather than one single commission. The second is the percentage tolerance which has been written into Bill No. C-72, namely 20

Electoral Boundaries Commissions
per cent, whereas the bill introduced by the previous government it was set out as one third.
The third material respect in which it differs-and perhaps the minister will, in his subsequent remarks, cover all these points as was requested by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker)-lies in the making of rules. I think the rules, under Bill No. C-72, may now be made by each of the commissions. Thus we have a situation which could generate a good deal of disunity between one commission and another. The stand taken by this party has, as I have said, been consistent. The observations of the leader of the official opposition, as they appear on page 5128 of Hansard for November 26, 1963, read:
We believe, as I said, that there should he one commission consisting of five members, one of whom shall be the person for the time being holding the office of chief electoral officer of Canada-
I do not believe there is any disagreement now, since the bill establishing the office of representation commissioner has been passed by the house, as to this position being held by that designated officer.
-and the remainder to be named in the proclamation.
To this extent, I think, all members of the house agree, namely that the representation commissioner should be a member of the commission.
Again, as reported on page 5129 of Hansard, the Leader of the Opposition suggested that the tolerance be one third rather than the 20 per cent which now appears in Bill No. C-72, because of the vast difference in the factors affecting rural as contrasted with urban ridings. My right hon. friend said:
My suggestion is that the commission might depart from the electoral quota for the province in question, for any constituency, to the extent of not more than one third or less than one third. This means that if the quotient is 70,000 any constituency would be allowed to have no more than about 94,000 and no less than approximately 46,000. I place that before the committee as a fair and reasonable basis.
And again, on the same page:
But no matter what we do in order to bring about a compromise, to bring about fairness and justice, there will be some who will suffer. Some might suggest 20 per cent. I do not think that will cover the situation at all. I think that a 20 per cent tolerance would have very serious consequences. I do not think it is enough. I point out what the situation will be in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, where ridings that have been represented through the years, which members have served with distinction, will find themselves obliterated if we follow the principle of representation by population literally.
I speak as one who comes from a riding which is not touched at all by this bill. In that respect, at any rate, I have no axe

to grind. But I can see that there is a good deal wrong with holding the tolerance to 20 per cent. The minister who, as was pointed out last session, has travelled extensively in Canada and has represented more than one riding in Canada-I believe Winnipeg is where he started out and Newfoundland is where he wound up-


John Whitney Pickersgill: On a question of privilege,
I have represented only one riding. I have represented it continuously and I hope to go on representing it, or its successor-which, perhaps, will be somewhat different-for a long time to come.


Erik Nielsen: It has been suggested that there is some doubt the hon. gentleman could be a representative of Manitoba. I only came to the conclusion that he had represented more than one riding because of my observation, both while he was in opposition and now that he is sitting on the treasury benches, of his activities in directing other members around him as to what they should do and say at particular times during discussions in this house; he seems to be all over the place. At any rate, I apologize to the hon. gentleman if I have hurt his feelings by suggesting that he has represented more than one riding. However, the factors I have mentioned are of sufficient importance to warrant very serious consideration being given to this proposed tolerance of 20 per cent. Questions such as travel, geography, and the many different factors affecting rural as distinct from urban ridings all come to bear on the advisability of holding the tolerance to this restrictive figure. I believe all parties could come to an agreement before the bill reaches the committee stage on a figure of one third as was suggested by the previous government in the legislation which it brought forward.
It is interesting to note the affability of the Minister of Transport today in the light of the stand he took while in opposition when his party was confronted with the bill put forward by the Progressive Conservative government of the day. I feel there were certain dishonest statements made both inside and outside the house in the course of the criticism levelled at the previous government with regard to the bill which was introduced, and its interpretation. This applies also, in my opinion, to the criticisms made of the so-called delays with which the government of that day was charged. Not the least in putting forward these criticisms was the hon. gentleman who is now introducing the present measure.
I must say I go along with the observations made by the hon. member for Queens (Mr. MacLean) when he says he is always wary of the Machiavellion hand of the minister when he comes before the house with a

smile to present legislation of this nature. The hon. gentleman made several criticisms during the last parliament, but one of the most pointed was that we did not present our bill early enough. He said at that time that we should have presented the bill calling for the setting up of an independent commission for redistribution before the election of that year. He realizes, now, of course -as I am sure he did then-that this could not have been done until the census of 1961 had been completed. I am sure he will agree with me now that the legislation introduced in the early part of 1962 was brought down immediately it was possible to do so after the completion of the census, and I suggest to him that in taking the stand he did then, as opposed to the stand he takes now, there is dishonesty in one or the other. I suggest that the dishonesty existed when he was in opposition, because some display of responsibility must be ostensible when an hon. member occupies a place on the treasury benches.
The hon. gentleman also asked for the names of the commissioners. He shakes his head, now, indicating that he did not do this. However, the fact remains-


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to correct the hon. gentleman. I was not shaking my head for that reason. I was just reflecting on the conduct of hon. members who accuse others in this house of dishonesty. That is not usually done, but I was not intending to take exception to it.


Erik Nielsen: When 1 sat on that side of the house and when the hon. gentleman sat in opposition I heard the epithets which were directed against the chief minister in this land accusing him of dishonesty, conspiracy and fraud-all sorts of lowdown epithets. I do not think that to use the word dishonesty is unparliamentary if it is applicable. Dishonesty is defined in the concise Oxford dictionary as fraud, and fraud is again defined as deception. I do not know which term the minister wishes to apply to his conduct while in opposition or to his conduct now. He may take his choice. Nevertheless, the stand taken then was altogether different from the stand taken now. He did say when he was in opposition-I remember it quite distinctly-that the members of that commission should be named before parliament was asked to consider the bill.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is quite correct. That was the position I took then, and I have changed my mind about it.


Mr. Pugh:: Oh, he has changed his mind.


Erik Nielsen: Again, Mr. Speaker, if that is not deception, I do not know what is; because
Electoral Boundaries Commissions the minister stood on this side of the house when he was in opposition and took a particular stand, and now he has completely reversed his view. A similar situation developed with regard to the Columbia project. They had members saying one thing when they were in opposition, and then, when they formed the government and those members became parliamentary secretaries and ministers, they said another thing.


An hon. Member:: Let us get on with it. We have heard this for 25 years.


Erik Nielsen: You will have your opportunity to speak. The hon. member has been a member of this house a good deal longer than I, and going back over Hansard I have found he has had a great deal to say on this subject over the years. This is my first speech on redistribution since coming to the house.


Mr. Patterson:: Come to it.


Erik Nielsen: I have been doing that. If the hon. member will contain himself in patience, I will get on with my remarks. He will have an opportunity to make his own speech later.


Alexander Bell Patterson: Say something for a change.


Erik Nielsen: I have been saying something. The hon. member is obviously too far away to hear what I have been saying.


Alexander Bell Patterson: I can hear all right.


Erik Nielsen: I am criticizing Bill No. C-72 because of the tolerance provision in it. I have been criticizing Bill No. C-72 because of the fact that it sets up ten commissions, which is a duplication-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. I think it might be just as well if we got back to the substance of the bill before us.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I really do not know how I was off the subject of the bill. When Your Honour interrupted me I was talking about the tolerance provision in the bill and about the single commission, as opposed to ten separate commissions. I do not know how much closer I could get to the provisions of the bill. When the minister was in opposition and was tramping the country in the last election campaign he was saying that the rights of Canadians were denied because the then government did not bring before this house any measure which would set up an independent judicial commission to review distribution. I have a clipping here from the Toronto daily Star of November 27, 1963. I think a quote or two from this article would be in order. The headline is:
Can't redraw riding boundaries until 1965, Pickersgill tells house.

Electoral Boundaries Commissions
Here he was saying, in 1962, that we could have done this job before the election in 1963. He was saying that in the fall of 1962, within six months of the election. He said that the boundaries of the electoral districts in Canada could have been redrawn and the independent judicial review of all constituencies in Canada could have been carried out. And now he says it will take three or four years.


Mr. Winkler:: Liberal deception.


Erik Nielsen: It seems to me that is precisely what it is. They say one thing now they are in positions of responsibility, and when they were in positions of irresponsibility on this side of the house-and that is the way they conducted themselves-they said quite another thing.


An hon. Member:: Shame.


Erik Nielsen: I quote from the same article:
Mr. Pickersgill said that even it ten separate provincial commissions are put to work by next February, they won't be able to complete the job until 1965. That meant an election, based on new boundaries, couldn't be held until autumn, 1965.
If the government bill is delayed until April or May, Mr. Pickersgill said, then an election would have to wait until the spring of 1966.
I wonder whether he believes that now.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is correct.


Erik Nielsen: The minister nods his head, asserting that he does believe that to be the case. I, like the hon. member for Queens (Mr. MacLean), am still a little suspicious. It does not make any difference, of course, whether the minister is right; but I have reason to believe that the commissions can work a good deal faster than that, particularly since Mr. Castonguay is going to be a member, if the bill passes setting up all ten commissions, of each one of those commissions. I say that because he is certainly familiar with the constituencies. I dare say a good deal of work has already been done in anticipation of this measure passing; that would be my guess. But the statements in regard to the stand that was taken by the minister when he was in opposition are not the only ones that were made which were of a rather deceptive nature. The Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), when he was in opposition, was just as bad as the minister who is now introducing this measure, because in Saskatchewan-


Eric Alfred Winkler: That is pretty tough.


Erik Nielsen: Yes, it is pretty hard to be worse than the minister. In Saskatchewan, as reported in the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix of September 29, 1961, just after the census had

been taken, here is what the Prime Minister is quoted as having said. The headline is:
Province stands to lose four seats in Commons.
I have had other words to say about political expediency with regard to the Columbia river project. In that connection we had a flip-flop, and here is another example of this by the Prime Minister. I say it is dishonest misleading of the electorate, when he says things like this. He said:
After the 1951 census the Liberal government provided a formula whereby no province lost more than a certain percentage of seats in any election.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) will remember this discussion in committee when the formula was devised.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I remember it very well.


Erik Nielsen: This article continues:
If the Liberals were now in power this formula would apply. Since some of the maritime provinces are guaranteed a certain number of seats by the B.N.A. Act "it is unfair that Saskatchewan, with the great territory involved, should have the strictly mathematical application applied literally", he said.
If that is not political expediency, and if that is not at complete variance with what he is now saying, then, sir, I do not know what is. I believe that is deception and I think he is deceiving the electorate of Saskatchewan when he goes out there and says, "If you vote for me I will make sure that the mathematical formula applies in such a way that you will lose no seats". Then he comes back here as Prime Minister of the country and purports to introduce legislation in this house, as head of the government, which does exactly the reverse of what he is guaranteeing, for political expediency, to the electorate of Saskatchewan. What did they say in some of their electioneering promises? Quite apart from the redistribution which they said would come about, they said:
The Liberal party believes that redistribution of membership in the House of Commons should be carried out by a non-partisan commission.
They just as belatedly saw the light here as they did with regard to the Columbia river project. For years they were opposed to an independent judicial commission. Every time the matter was raised, they opposed it. Over 22 years as disclosed in Hansard and committee reports, there has been amassed evidence of outright gerrymandering such as has never before been seen in the history of Canadian politics. They did it in Lake Centre, where they redistributed the right hon. Leader of the Opposition out of existence. It did not do them any good, mind you, because he came back and he will continue to come back as long as he sees fit to run for

parliament; I can say that. They did it in Yukon and Mackenzie. In 1952 this was a riding that had been held for years by a Conservative, but because they wanted to unseat that Conservative they joined to the Yukon constituency the Mackenzie territory. Then they went tramping up and down the Mackenzie river saying, "Look; we are giving you the franchise. Now, of course, you will vote for us because we are an enlightened party and we are giving you the franchise". They should have added, "Mind you, we forgot to do it for 15 or 20 years, but we are giving it to you now". They said, "We have given it to you, and you will have to vote for us". The electorate there did, and they had a Liberal member sitting in this house for eight years.
That was the typical approach of that party, and now it comes before the house all lily white, with halos shined up. Mind you, Mr. Speaker, as an hon. member said the other day there is only two inches difference between a halo and a noose, so I think the minister might have regard for that warning.
Then they went beyond that and said that they would pay election expenses out of the federal treasury, that they would limit election expenses and bring about all sorts of reforms. These are some of the promises which appeared in their literature and which I did not have time to put on the record the other day. I think, sir, that that is deception; I called it a dialogue of deception when I spoke in the throne speech debate.
The stand of the Liberal party on redistribution, until they were shown the light by the introduction of the legislation calling for an independent judicial commission to be set up, had always been one which would obtain the biggest possible political advantage. Now they see matters quite differently, of course. They now call themselves the "new Liberal party". I think that appellation appears each time they adopt one of these more enlightened pieces of legislation which were introduced by the last government. However, as the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon) has often said to me, they are still the same old bunch, but they are trying to appear in a little different mantle.
The question of one third tolerance compared with the 20 per cent tolerance is dealt with in clause 13 (b) (ii) of Bill No. C-72. In a bill introduced while we were the government it appeared in section 12(c) (iii). I believe the government should take a very hard second look at this clause because of the varying factors between the urban and rural constituencies, and alter the bill so as to make it a one third tolerance rather than the existing 20 per cent. I know the hon.
Electoral Boundaries Commissions member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) favours the 20 per cent; at least that appears from what I have read on the record. But I appeal to him to give the matter a hard second look. He tells us that he comes from a tightly-knit urban centre, and while he may have travelled extensively around Canada, he has overlooked some of the more critical factors which exist in a rural riding, especially those ridings which are far flung and in which a city of, say 5,000 people exists at one point without another city of comparable size within 50 or 60 miles.
I also suggest that there should be one commission rather than 10. Clause 5 of the bill introduced by the former government sets forth the composition of the commission, and states:
The commission... shall consist of five members one of whom shall be the person for the time being holding the office of chief electoral officer of Canada and the remainder of whom shall be named in the proclamation establishing the commission.
I should now like to refer to the last section of the same bill introduced by the former government, clause 20, which reads as follows:
The governor in council may make regulations, generally, for carrying into effect the purposes and provisions of this act.
Clause 16 of this present bill provides that a commission which is set up-
-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.
That means that there is the power in each one of these commissions to make its own rules and regulations, and we might wind up with having as many different sets of rules and regulations governing the conduct of each commission as we have commissions, which seems to me to be one of the more serious defects in this legislation.
This opinion is shared by the editor of the Edmonton Journal who on December 2, 1963 set forth his criticisms in an article, to which I should now like to refer:
The federal government is proposing ten commissions, one for each province, to work out the redistribution of parliamentary seats. How can such a system expedite the task and serve better than a single commission?
The difficult and time-consuming parts of the job would be the working out of an acceptable formula for redistribution and the settlement of the vexing questions of equitable application among provinces and regions of the country.
Those are the rocks on which redistribution, when not frankly a gerrymander, is most likely to founder. Ten commissions will have far less chance of avoiding the shoals than one. And even if they should scrape by, they would almost certainly take longer than a single compact body to chart a common course on paper and to agree finally on how to sail the flotilla, intact, into harbour.

Electoral Boundaries Commissions
It is not difficult to imagine the ten sailing away in different directions and having a bitter time reassembling near the end of the voyage. Mr. Nelson Castonguay, the chief electoral officer, would have an unenviable task as co-ordinator-in-chief, shore-based at Ottawa.
I know the minister is a nautical man so perhaps he has a certain amount of sympathy with the tenor of this editorial, which concludes as follows:
Why not make him operational commander of a single commission and divide up the work among the members as necessity demands? That is close to what the opposition advocates and it looks like a much more promising procedure.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that by duplicating commissions it will only have the result of duplication of effort. I realize the argument is that a commission in each of the provinces will be more familiar with local conditions, but at the same time the overwhelming argument is to get the work done as quickly and as efficiently as possible. I think ordinary principles of management might dictate that one commission would serve much more effectively than ten. There is also the problem of 10 different sets of rules; there would be no assurance whatsoever that the commissions would come up with a uniform set of rules and regulations governing their procedures and hearings even though there was the co-ordinating influence of Mr. Castonguay on each one of the commissions. It is more probably the case that you would likely have 10 disunified commissions. Therefore, this is another argument for a single commission.
Another argument lies here. The legislation stipulates that the chairman of each commission has to be the chief justice of the province-I think that is the phrase used. According to clause 6 it is provided that:
The chairman of the commission for a province shall be appointed by the chief justice of the province from among the judges of the court over which he presides-
I realize that the minister is not a lawyer, but there is some doubt existing in some provinces as to who is the chief justice of the province. Recently there was a case in the province of Saskatchewan in which doubt was expressed as to whether the chief justice was the chief justice of the court of Queen's bench or the chief justice of the court of appeal. Which chief justice does the legislation mean here? I see the minister is laughing at my remarks, but I am quite serious when I say this; and there is a case on the law books of this country which will disclose, if the minister cares to get his advisers to look at it, that there is some very serious doubt in this regard.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It being five o'clock the house will now proceed to the

consideration of private members' business, as listed on today's order paper, namely private bills, public bills. There being no business listed on today's order paper under private bills, the house will proceed to the consideration of public bills.



INDIAN ACT


Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni) moved: the second reading of Bill No. C-6, to amend the Indian Act (liquor rights).
He said: Mr. Speaker, my purpose in moving second reading of this bill is not so much that I consider the matter of the right of Indian people to consume liquor to be one of overwhelming importance but rather that I consider the principle involved in the bill a most important one. I feel that the passage of the bill will serve as evidence to the Indian people of our good faith, and indicate that we in this parliament are willing to take definite steps toward the restoration to these people of the rights which over the years and, indeed, over the centuries we have gradually taken away from them.
Hon. members will recall that a bill in identical form was moved during the last session of the house, and its purpose is quite simply stated. It will remove from the Indian Act the discriminatory features which make it possible, and I think one might go so far as to say encourage, provincial jurisdictions to deny to the Indian people the same rights in respect of liquor laws that are possessed by the remainder of the residents of the provinces. The bill is on all fours with the recommendation of the joint committee on Indian affairs which made its second and final report to the House of Commons on July 8, 1961. No action has been taken by either government since that time to implement the recommendations of this committee.
In my opinion it is high time that we made some progress in implementing the recommendations of that committee, recommendations which many of the Indian people of this country felt were almost as good as law once the report of that committee had been accepted by the house. In my view we have been moving very slowly in this field as well as in the general field of the restoration of the rights of the Indian people. As far as action in the house is concerned, we have fallen far behind the considered opinion of people who are expert in this field.
To illustrate my contention I should like to refer briefly to the report submitted to the government and the legislature of the province of Manitoba by the social and economic research office of the department of

agriculture and immigration of that province. The report is a study of the population of Indian ancestry living in Manitoba and, as I say, the study was undertaken by the social and economic research office under the direction of Jean H. Lagasse who was director of the research office at that time. The report was made in the year 1959, some two years prior to the report of the joint committee of the house and the other place on Indian affairs. I wish to refer to page 165 of volume 1 of the report where there is a quotation from an earlier report on an investigation in 1955 by the Manitoba liquor inquiry commission under the chairmanship, I understand, of Mr. John Bracken. In their report that commission had this to say:
It is our view that while Indians have many problems arising from the use of liquor, that so long as they continue to be wards of the state and denied privileges others receive and are thus forced to buy liquor illegally at double the ordinary price, and to consume it in circumstances far from respectable, that the present unsatisfactory conditions will continue.
There we have the considered opinion of the Manitoba liquor inquiry commission as long ago as 1955. The report of the Manitoba social and economic research office goes on to say that conclusions similar to those reached by the Bracken inquiry were reached by the Hawthorne study of Indians in the province of British Columbia. In fact, the report states:
Similar conclusions were reached by Hawthorne in his study of the Indians in British Columbia. Federal authorities could be approached, with a view to working out a method for placing the Indians under the same liquor legislation as other Manitobans.
As I mentioned earlier, the Bracken report was made to the government of Manitoba in 1955. Yet it will be recalled by some hon. members that in 1956, even after studies of that kind had been initiated and were under way, the discriminatory provision which I seek to remove by my bill was put in the Indian Act at that time, the last time that the Indian Act was amended in this regard. The general effect of the 1956 amendment was, shall we say, to liberalize the opportunities of Indians to enjoy their rights as citizens in this connection, but the discriminatory provision which gave the provinces the option of deciding whether the Indian people could enjoy the same rights as provided under the laws of the provinces for other citizens was retained in the Indian Act.
So I feel there should be little argument or discussion about the immediate passage of this bill by the house. I realize this is only a small segment of the action which should be taken by the house in connection with the affairs of the Indian people. It is a perfectly simple, straightforward proposition. It will implement a recommendation in almost the exact terms
Indian Act
which was adopted by the house in an earlier parliament. Therefore, as at least an indication of our desire to move forward more rapidly than we have been in restoring to the Indian people their rights and privileges, I believe that the least we can do at this time is to pass this bill.
I should point out that the bill I am presenting preserves the right of the Indian people to decide for themselves whether or not they wish to have liquor upon their reserves. The present provisions, which provide for a plebiscite, are carried forward. The bill simply consolidates those sections of the Indian Act which have to do with the whole matter of the use of liquor by Indians. It eliminates the superfluous sections and sets out a simple, straightforward proposition that the Indians in any part of Canada will enjoy the same rights and privileges as other residents of Canada in respect of making a private decision as to whether or not they shall partake of spirituous liquors in any way, shape or form.
I hope, therefore, that the house will be prepared to give second reading to this bill at this time in order that we can go into committee of the whole to consider the matter. I feel quite certain that if there should be any minor, technical objections to the phrasing of the bill, we can very quickly straighten them out in committee. I am not interested in every comma that may be in the bill, but I do feel we could proceed at this time to approve of the bill and perhaps deal with it expeditiously in committee.


Mr. Bert Leboe (Cariboo):: Mr. Speaker, I only rise to take part in this debate for a very few minutes. In doing so, I should like to express the feeling that the problem of liquor, while not confined to Indians by any means, is a very grave problem indeed. This question of liquor for the Indians has many ramifications, the results of which are not very good in some cases. We all agree that there has to be a time when the Indian population will take upon themselves the responsibilities and privileges which are accorded to all citizens.
However, there is a great deal of difference in the capacity of individuals to consume spirituous liquor. This individual capacity has created a far reaching problem so far as the Indian population is concerned. I do not believe there is anyone who could be more concerned with this problem than those individuals who live close to Indian populations and have had the opportunity of assessing the influence of liquor upon them. It is a heart rending sight to see these people, who are just as much human beings as we are and have all the rights and privileges we have, with black eyes and torn clothes emerging from alleys. It is true that there are

Indian Act
a good many white people in some of these districts who do the same thing, but many of these white people have had an opportunity to consider this whole problem. The criticisms that may be made of a white person should not be made of an Indian in many cases. As I say, we are hoping that the time will come when the Indian population is able to take on the responsibility it should have.
We must be careful, however, in anything we do in this House of Commons to ensure that there is not a continuation of the buckpassing we have seen in connection with Indian affairs between the provincial and federal jurisdictions. In many cases, no one seems to be able to define exactly whose responsibility it is to do certain things on behalf of the Indian population. We are aware also of the fact that many of the Indian bands are not in accord with the idea of having liquor on their reserves at all. This is covered by the fact that there is a provision for local option. I do not think the cost to the province, so far as liquor for Indians is concerned, is any greater than it is so far as whites are concerned. I think there is more destruction and mischief in this connection so far as the whites are concerned. If this is true, then I believe that the provincial governments concerned, or any other jurisdictions concerned, should be prepared to spend more money and more time in getting expert advice and counsel in connection with this problem. I believe that one of the things that has to come, and the sooner the better, is a complete clarification of the situation of the Indian population in respect of their citizenship. As has been pointed out, there are many situations in which the Indians are given the feeling they are second class citizens. I am in favour of eliminating this situation at the earliest opportunity.


Mr. Hubert Badanai (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on this subject not only because it is a question that comes under the jurisdiction of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration but because in my constituency, almost within the city limits of Fort William, there is an Indian reserve where I have many friends whose friendship I cherish. These Indians are wonderful people, quite capable of integrating into our white way of life. Some of them are still suffering from a low economic standard because they have inadequate training. Some of the younger generation are taking advantage of the educational facilities available, and I expect that within a few short years their standard of living will rise to the level of that which is now enjoyed by the average citizen of our country.

The bill under discussion is similar to Bills Nos. C-26 and C-124 introduced by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) on January 22, 1963 and September 11, 1961, respectively. It is identical to Bill No. C-34 introduced by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett), which was debated on December 6, 1963. The principle of the bill, Mr. Speaker, is quite acceptable in that it proposes to do substantially what we have included in our own preliminary draft amendments to the Indian Act. The bill, in effect, repeals the liquor provisions of the Indian Act, sections 93 to 96A, and substitutes provisions which would make it an offence to sell, give, possess or manufacture liquor on an Indian reserve, subject to local option with respect to possession.
Amendments to the Indian Act will be proposed at the appropriate time. The liquor provisions will be considered then.
It is not a question, however, of the Indians not being able to obtain liquor privileges. The act as it now stands provides the means. The question is whether it is desirable to proceed with a separate bill dealing only with the liquor provisions.
The reason for this has to do in part with the need to consult with the Indians on the proposed legislation. It is the firm policy of the government to consult Indians on matters of importance to them in the legislative field. In view of their interest and, it may be added, their divergent views as expressed in the past on the subject of liquor, they ought to be given an opportunity to make their wishes known.
There is no question of urgency about passing Bill No. C-6. The privileges proposed by the bill are already available to Indians where the provinces of which they are residents are prepared to grant them. The Indian Act now provides for a gradual assumption of privileges. In the first place, under section 95 partial privileges may be given; that is, the right to purchase and consume intoxicants in public drinking places. This right has been granted in British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Yukon and Northwest Territories.
Indians may also purchase and use liquor off their reserves in the same manner as other residents in Ontario, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Yukon and the Northwest Territories. In these provinces, therefore, the Indians may either drink in public drinking places or in any home or place off a reserve.
Finally, in some of the provinces Indians may, on a local option basis, have liquor on their reserves. As a matter of fact there are many reserves where this privilege has already been granted, such as British Columbia,

55 bands; Saskatchewan, 13 bands; Manitoba, nine bands; Ontario, 42 bands; New Brunswick, five bands, and Nova Scotia, three bands. It is clear that the Indians may, and have in fact, been receiving liquor privileges since the Indian Act made provision for this for the first time in 1951. The way is open, therefore, through appropriate action of the provincial authorities and/or the band councils, and concurrence of the governor in council, for liquor privileges to be extended to the extent of that contemplated in Bill No. C-6.
The only provinces where liquor privileges to Indians have not been available are Alberta, Quebec and Prince Edward Island. As far as is known there has not been any strong agitation on the part of the Indian people of these provinces to have the privileges extended to them.
I am an ardent advocate of lifting the standard of living of our first citizens, by every means available. Opportunities must be provided for opportunities for employment, in mines, in fisheries, on farms, in industry and in city jobs.
Senator David Croll, speaking to a meeting of the Catholic charities council a year or so ago, suggested that the Indians should have direct representation in the House of Commons. This suggestion would cut across tribal lines and give them a sense of participation in Canadian affairs. I submit that one or more constituencies could be created with an elected member from each. This is one sure way of bringing the Indian people into the Canadian stream of life quicker than by any other method.
Indian Act
Anyone who has lived or worked with Indians must admit that they have a fine sense of humour and spend much time laughing over the incongruities of our ways of life and how we make choices which they think are so stupid.
They are very observant people because they enjoyed a hunting and fishing culture such a short time ago. Keenness of observation in this culture was the difference between life and death in the battle with the elements and the animal world for food. They notice things about people that we do not even suspect.
They have a mixture of their own culture and what they have accepted from the newcomers to their land. It is a changing and growing culture, we might call it the adolescent part of society which has evolved lately in Canada and, like all adolescents, they are rebellious and not certain of what they want. They are a proud people and wish to preserve their cultural identity but they do not fully realize the price they are paying for this and will have to pay in the future to preserve this status.
Their native intelligence is equal if not better than the rest of Canadians but for lack of educational facilities and lack of motivation for formal education, they impress teachers as being a dull lot with very few outstanding students. This is unfortunate because it does not give a true picture of the Indian's ability. This can only be changed by time and effort.
I was a member of the joint parliamentary committee on Indian affairs during the 1958, 1959, 1960 and 1961 sessions of parliament,' and in all the submissions presented to the committee by several bands from coast to coast, none of them made requests for liquor rights in reserves. Their primary concern was with schools, health facilities, timber cutting rights, fishing and hunting rights and better housing.
It seems to me that there is no urgency in the question contained in this bill.
I have great faith in this government. I have confidence in the good intentions and good will of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, to bring about legislation which will bridge the gap between the old and the new way of life for Indians everywhere in Canada.
Lest I should be misunderstood, I wish to make it clear that I am not advocating the compulsory abolition of the reserve system as such. I think the Indians themselves would strongly oppose being all of a sudden deprived of their reserves. What I am advocating is a system which would improve the lot of the Indians by education and job opportunities, by developing their agricultural and reforestation potentials within their own reserves, such as those in the Thunder bay, Kapuskasing and Cochrane areas in northern Ontario.
Reverend Father Mulvihill, a missioner who lived for 20 years in Indian reserves and who has great practical experience of Indian education in British Columbia, not long ago wrote a pamphlet, and I wish to quote a few paragraphs from it:
m the memorandum of the joint parliamentary committee on Indian affairs in 1961, a reference was made to the question of liquor, and I wish to quote two short paragraphs from it:
It is suggested that serious consideration be given to removing the liquor provisions of the Indian Act with the possible exception of local Indian option for on-reserve possession. This would place basic responsibility respecting the use of intoxicants by Indians at the provincial level where it now rests in so far as use by other citizens is concerned.
With regard to the retention of local Indian option for on-reserve possession, it is envisaged that referendums would be held at the request of the band council. Such a provision would to a degree keep Indians in a separate category. On the other hand, since possession of intoxicants on a reserve would be a matter of choice by the Indians, the Indian Act could not be regarded as arbitrary in this respect.
So it will be seen that this question was considered at the time when this particular parliamentary committee heard so many submissions from Indians all over the country.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Tremblay) has indicated to me that it is his purpose to

Indian Act
follow the forward looking Liberal policy in dealing with Indians which was promised by his distinguished predecessor, the present Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau). This government has every intention of extending to the first citizens of this country every consideration in matters of education, housing and employment.
A few days ago the minister announced that a conference with the provinces would be held in May for the specific purpose of discussing Indian affairs to enable the Indian people to gain equal access to social and economic welfare with other Canadians. Presently before the United States congress is bill number HR-980 called the civil rights bill for Indians. This measure calls attention to the civil rights of Indians and mentions the Indians as being a forgotten race; while everyone pays lip service to the fact that the white man owes a great debt to the Indian people, little is being done, notwithstanding.
I am confident that this government will tackle the problem by extending job opportunities to them in every way possible. In short, I have every reason to believe that it is the present government's intention to greatly strengthen the administration of the Indian affairs branch and encourage participation of trained and educated Indians in carrying out the program to promote the welfare and to improve the opportunities of Indians, so that they can share to the full in the life of their country.


Mr. S. J. Enns (Porlage-Neepawa):: I am not too well prepared to participate in this debate, but I feel I want to say something in support of the bill as moved by the hon. member promoting it.
I feel I can support this bill only on the basis of the principle that we must not categorize people. When we find different pieces of legislation aimed at different groups of individuals I seem to want to be against them. If there is really no other way of helping Indians with their liquor problem, and it certainly is a problem, my statement in support amendment or liberalization of liquor laws for Indians does not take away from my acknowledgement of the fact that this is a very real problem in that society. It still means we should basically have one application of the law for all the people in this country. When we say Indians must have greater rights and must share in the rights of citizens, then, of course, along with any rights come responsibilities, and one of the biggest problems Indians face in living with this liquor problem is the problem of not knowing how to handle liquor, as has often been said. Many times we felt sure, in making liquor available to Indians through
[Mr. Badanai.l
public sources, commissions and so forth, that we were doing right, but we did not seem to go along with providing the education to meet the problems that would arise from the abuse of liquor. This is a problem which does not face the Indians alone.
There are many in the white community who abuse liquor, and many of us who have dealt with the failings of our fellow men know we cannot single out any one ethnic group as being more afflicted than any other by this kind of problem. While we look askance at the excessive consumption of liquor by people of Indian background we might also look for the real cause which leads them to use liquor to excess. If we look at some of the problems which the Indian people face through lack of education and job opportunities, and failure to find a place of acceptance in this country of ours, sometimes, as the fellow says, we can understand why it is enough to drive them to drink. Perhaps this is what the Indians as a people are doing, because of the confusion they face in trying to find their rightful place in our country.
Maybe this is only one way of helping the Indians. Maybe this is only one way of making them feel that they rate with the rest of us and have the same freedom as you and I do to abuse liquor and waste money. We have this freedom. Why does not the Indian have it? We say: You must be more careful how you spend your dollars. But I do think we have other ways of helping them than by legislating against the use of liquor. You cannot really legislate conduct, nor can you legislate people's attitudes. Our problem really is to find ways by which we can help those with liquor problems to better themselves. I know that in my own home town the provincial jail for women has its population predominantly composed of liquor offenders, and the greater number of these are women of Indian origin. It certainly is a problem, when you think that many of these women have families from whom they are separated during the period of incarceration. Yet these institutions which have people for limited periods of time are not able under present arrangements to offer any real, solid help to people with this problem. I think that when we have a more responsible and more conscientious attitude toward the whole problem of alcoholism-and this is something we cannot legislate-we shall have taken a long step forward.
Reference was made to the liquor option by the mover of this motion. I was interested to learn from the parliamentary secretary that in so many cases the different bands have already elected to permit liquor on their reserves. But I have experience of people with

this problem on a reserve within my own constituency at Sandy Bay, where this is not the case, and where the nearest police magistrate feels it is working a real hardship and a real unfairness on the residents of the reserve. You have on the one hand the privilege and the freedom of Indians to purchase liquor from the local hotel or liquor commission, yet they are not permitted to take it back to the reserve. This forces them to go to the houses of friends and consume more than they can properly handle or, at any rate, to get rid of it before getting back to the reserve where they can be fined for having it in their possession. It is apparent from the behaviour of the persons who are intoxicated that they have imbibed too freely. The local constabulary certainly finds on the highways persons proceeding to their homes who have imbibed too freely because of this legality which prevents them having liquor in their own homes.
So here we have not only a problem of liquor to the individual who is excessive in the use of it, but also a public danger on the highways from people driving while under the influence of liquor. I feel that while, in many instances, people feel they should control the use of liquor by preventing its presence on the reserves, they are really adding to the difficulty and adding to the danger. I I do not want to speak at great length on this matter because, as I said, I support the bill and would like to see it referred to committee for further consideration. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, Mr. Speaker, I think that basically it is a question of education, of counselling and helping these people to understand how they should use liquor, rather than legislating and preventing its use at all. For these reasons I would support the motion.


Mr. Ian Watson (Chateauguay-Hunlingdon-Laprairie):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett) has proposed Bill No. C-6, to amend section 93 through 96A of the Indian Act by combining sections 93 and 94 and making them applicable only to Indians living on a reserve. In addition, sections 95 through 96A would be repealed and replaced by a new section, 94 which removes the necessity for a request by the lieutenant governor in council to the province in order that the governor in council may proclaim that these subparagraphs relating to the sale of liquor to an Indian outside a reserve and to an Indian who has intoxicants in his possession outside a reserve, shall be no longer in force.
I support that part of the hon. member's amendment in that I think if a band council could refer directly to the governor in council unnecessary delays could be avoided. Moreover the amended section 94 proposed in Bill
Indian Act
No. C-6 retains the right of the governor in council to make regulations respecting votes and referendums, and maintains the requirements outlined in section 96A, paragraphs 3 and 5, conditioning the issuance of a proclamation by the governor in council on a request by a band council and referendum of the band. This guarantees that the band has an option. It eliminates the necessity for a resolution being presented to the attorney general of the province in which the reserve is situated.
I spoke on this bill when it was introduced last session and I dealt with what I considered to be three major objections to it. I shall go through these objections again because I feel they are valid and I honestly believe that this bill is not a good bill. I think the hon. member for Portage-Neepawa (Mr. Enns) touched on two of the main objections to this bill. He mentioned that people living on the reserve located in his constituency have voted in favour of eliminating the two paragraphs of the Indian Act which forbid the sale of alcohol to Indians off the reserve. However, these Indians are still subject to the rules governing the possession of alcohol within the reserve. One reserve located in my constituency has not voted. There has been no local option. The result is that the Indians on the reserve located in my constituency, who are living within five or ten miles of downtown Montreal, are not permitted to buy alcohol even off the reserve, nor are they permitted to have alcohol in their possession on the reserve. It appears to me that this is completely archaic. Most of these men are working in the United States, where they have the right to consume alcohol anywhere at any time. When they come back across the border they find themselves subjected to this completely antique, outdated and ridiculous hangover from the 19th century.
As I said, Bill No. C-6 is, I think, a slight improvement on the present act. Although it may be more flexible than the present act, it is less flexible than what is needed in the context of 1963. We are all prepared to admit, I think, that the abuse of liquor increases in direct proportion to the number of restrictions which are placed upon its use. I do not remember, but I think many hon. members of this house will remember what happened during the period of prohibition in the United States. This truism is certainly no less applicable to our Canadian Indians than it was to the American public during the 1920's. There is no question that the Indian Act regulations governing liquor must be amended, as must other sections of the Indian Act, to keep abreast of the rapidly changing circumstances of the Canadian Indian. Although it

Indian Act
may be true that in certain northern areas of our provinces-X am excluding the Northwest Territories because they do not have any reserves up there

regulations as stringent as the present regulations are necessary, in the vast majority of the reserves situated in southern Canada the present liquor regulations contained in sections 93 to 96A of the Indian Act are completely archaic. I am hopeful that the government will in this session decide to alter the present liquor regulations applicable to Indians in a manner which will mean that Indians throughout Canada will be subject only to the liquor regulations of the province within which their reserve is situated.
In order that the transition from stringent regulations to the normal, existing provincial regulations should not result in excesses in northern areas where such regulations have heretofore been rigorously enforced, it is my opinion that the minister should be given discretion to maintain certain of the regulations in force with regard to specified reserves only with the approval of the local band council, or with regard to reserves where he is requested to do so by the local band council. I would submit to the hon. member for Comox-Alberni that this would permit the flexibility which is necessary and which his bill does not provide.
As I mentioned earlier, Bill No. C-6 preserves these anachronisms. I find it very difficult to conceive of any law in Canada which could be more anachronistic than the present liquor laws as they apply to the Caughnawaga Indian reserve. Bill No. C-6 would continue, in part, this unfairness to a section of our population. A good portion of the present Indian Act is an indignity to our Indian population. The Indian Act regulations concerning liquor most certainly, I think, head the list of those regulations which do nothing but place our Indian population in a second class citizen category.
It reaffirms, as do a number of regulations in the Indian Act, the theory that the Indian is not equal to his fellow Canadians because he does not possess the qualities of self-control and self-regulation which the remainder of our population possesses. This theory is not tenable. It is completely without foundation and it has encouraged in this group, as it would in any group to which such regulations were applied, the very excesses which they were designed to curb.
I think the hon. member for Portage-Neepawa (Mr. Enns) made the point that our whole attitude toward the so-called sin of alcohol and its consumption is wrong; that the basic causes behind alcoholism are to be found more in social conditions and the environment in which any individual is living

and brought up, rather than in any other fundamental genetic weakness which might, according to the earlier theory, be the cause of alcoholism in individuals. Certainly I am not one of those who would consider for a moment that the Indian population of this country has any genetic weakness which makes it more subject to the evils of alcohol; this is simply not so.
The third major objection which I raised the last time when speaking on the bill is this.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Would the hon. member permit a question before he goes on to his further point. With reference to his statements about the preservation of the right of local option, and in line with the earlier remarks of the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Badanai) about preserving Indian reserves, would the hon. member not agree that unless and until there is some broad and fundamental reallocation of jurisdiction -in other words, as long as we have the present Indian Act-this parliament should preserve the right of the freedom of Indians from having imposed upon them, on their reserves, laws in the provincial jurisdiction to which they might not agree?


Mr. Watson (Chaieauguay-Huniingdon-Laprairie):: My answer to that, Mr. Speaker, is that the Indian Act should be revised so that the remaining regulations would be there only to protect what special rights our Indian population has by treaty. They should be there only to protect their special rights. Any other regulation in the Indian Act which in any way allows even a hint that our Indian population is being treated as second class citizens should be eliminated. I hope this government will take steps in this session to eliminate these many regulations which, in one way or another, place Indians in this inferior category.
I am in full accord with the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Bamett) about the necessity for retaining reserves in Canada, especially in the southern areas of the country. Unless Indian reserves are maintained, Indian culture in Canada will disappear completely. I think everyone in this house would agree that in this country of ours diversity culturally is much better than the sameness which permeates our neighbour to the south. I think that the Indian culture of this country has a role to play in our future. I think we should do everything in our power to encourage our Indian population to retain that culture. I also think that the Indian reserves of this country can be, if not viable economic units supporting the local Indian

population, at least the cultural home of the various Indian tribes living across the country.
My third main objection to Bill No. C-6 is that a piecemeal approach to remedying this particular liquor problem is not what is needed today. A piecemeal approach to an amendment of the Indian Act is not going to work. I will give an example of this. At the same time as we make fundamental liquor changes in the act we should also make sure at the departmental level that municipal policing regulations are placed in the hands of the local population. I think the Indian liquor problem, if such a thing exists, can be handled and best solved by the Indians themselves. I feel there has been a lack of support here from within the department. It is possible for local reserves to establish their own police force, but there has been a lack of support by the department for any move in this direction. I feel that this is one way in which we can give our Indian population the feeling that they are playing an equal role in the Canada of 1964; but we should encourage them to set up their own police force, and I think this should be done at the same time as we make these very necessary changes in the liquor regulations.
May I call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. It being six o'clock I must advise the house that the hour for the consideration of private members' business has expired. The house will now revert to the business which was interrupted at five o'clock.



REDISTRIBUTION


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Pickersgill (for the Prime Minister) for the second reading 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.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: It being six o'clock I do now leave the chair.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.
Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, before the recess I was speaking about the main objections that we have to the bill in its present form. I think I might summarize these by quoting
Electoral Boundaries Commissions again from Hansard of November 26, 1963, when the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Dief-enbaker) put these words on record:
We feel that the appointment of 10 commissions is not the answer to the problem. There should be a national commission.
While the house was adjourned for the supper recess I had the opportunity of looking up the precise date on which the resolution was introduced in the house by the former government. It was on April 9, 1962. The resolution was introduced by the then prime minister, now the Leader of the Opposition and, as found on page 2645 of Hansard for that date, it was in this form;
That it is expedient to introduce a measure respecting the establishment of an electoral boundaries commission for the readjustment of representation in the House of Commons; to provide that certain members of the commission may be paid such per diem allowance as may be fixed by the governor in council; to provide for the payment of reasonable travelling and living expenses for the members of the commission; and to provide also that the commission may engage the services of such technical advisers and other staff, including a person to act as secretary to the commission, as it deems necessary.
Having had an opportunity to read the debate following the introduction of that resolution, I should not have been surprised but I was rather astonished to notice the extent to which the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill), who has introduced the resolution now before the house, went in support of the resolution introduced at that time. He said this, as found on page 2650 of Hansard for that date:
I may say at once that the principle underlying the proposal is completely acceptable to the official opposition in this house. It is not only acceptable, but a resolution to that effect was formally adopted by the national council of the Liberal party.
Later he read from the resolution adopted by the Liberal party in these terms:
The Liberal party believes that redistribution of membership in the House of Commons should be carried out by a non-partisan commission.
There is no suggestion of any commissions, plural, in that resolution. He went on to quote the position of the Liberal party in these words:
Until now, this has been done only in the province of Manitoba, where the commission was established by a Liberal government. Redistribution means redrawing the boundaries of constituencies according to population.
Then he went on to discuss the technical requirements after each decennial census. Again, as found on page 2650 the minister had this to say:
It seems to me that the commission cannot be expected to make its own rules. That is our responsibility here in parliament.

Electoral Boundaries Commissions
Again it seems to me that the minister has departed from that in the provisions of the bill.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the hon. gentleman permit me to interrupt him to clarify that point? I had the thought then that rules would embrace what is in the bill itself, that is, rules as to how redistribution should take place, which are in the bill now before the house, not rules about whether they would sit in the morning or afternoon or things of that sort.


Erik Nielsen: I thank the minister for his explanation. It seems to me it would have been more timely when he made these remarks and was being so critical of the introduction of the resolution when he was in opposition. Nevertheless, I hope he recognizes the point I have already made concerning the making of rules and regulations by 10 separate commissions whereby the likelihood will be that you will have 10 separate sets of rules and regulations emanating from 10 separate commissions.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder whether I could ask the hon. member a question for clarification. He commended, I thought with approval, the provision in the bill introduced some time ago by his leader that the rules should be made by the governor in council. Is that what he would think would be more appropriate?


Erik Nielsen: The rules that would have been made, as I anticipated the legislation, would have had this result, that parliament when considering the establishment of a national commission would have also considered the rules that would have been applicable to the procedures followed by the commission when it was reviewing the redistribution problems in the various constituencies across Canada. In the light of discussion as to what those rules and regulations should have been, I would have supposed that any government as reasonable as the last government was would have taken into consideration those discussions in establishing the order in council rules and regulations. This is a common procedure, and in a good many cases I am not fully in accord with the governor in council making rules and regulations under legislation, as a matter of fact because, with the superimposition of the federal authority on the peculiar situation we have in the Yukon, some 65 per cent of the ordinances and laws there are the result of orders in council and the making of regulations behind closed doors. The minister went on to say, as found on page 2651 of Hansard for the same date:
It seems to me that another thing that must be prescribed in addition to the maximum and minimum are what geographical, what historical and

what other conditions the commission is to take account of, and what exceptional provisions are to be made.
I take it that he was referring there to whether the tolerance should be 20 per cent or one third.
They must not be left to do this thing capriciously or without rules; that is our responsibility here.
Again I think I am in accord with the proposition the minister expounded there but it does not seem to me that it is clearly spelled out in the legislation, certainly not the minima and maxima in terms of geographical, historical and other conditions that might affect the setting of boundaries, and redistribution in the various constituencies. Arising from that debate and the debate that followed on April 10, 1962 there were press interviews given by the minister, and press reports based on the debate. I have one report here from the Edmonton Journal of October 13, 1962, which is rather humorous. It is written by Don McGillivray of the press gallery, and it reads in part as follows: Douglas Fisher, one of the biggest members of the Commons who represents one of the biggest ridings in Canada, moved that redistribution of constituencies be handled by a commission independent of the House of Commons.
The amusing part of the article is this:
Liberal Jack Pickersgill, still smarting under an attack on the Liberal party by Mr. Fisher, said the Port Arthur member was a "sort of grassroots egg-head" who had "joined the Prime Minister in a witch hunt for bureaucrats".
I recall that this was at a time when a resolution concerning the setting up of a national commission was under study. The article goes on as follows:
But he said the commission proposed, not responsible to parliament, would be a group of "superbureaucrats".
It seems to me that the bill that is now before us, introduced by the minister, compounds this situation 10 times, so that we have 10 times the number of superbureaucrats described by the minister now being proposed as acceptable to the house.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think perhaps the hon. gentleman would like me to clear up that point. I was referring to people who would be appointed by the government of the day. I took exception to the government of the day appointing any of the commissioners, and I have not changed my opinion. I think the commissioners should be prescribed in some way or other by parliament, or appointed by officers prescribed by parliament, and that is what the present bill would do.


Erik Nielsen: Here again, sir, when the last government appointed anybody, the appointee was a bureaucrat or a superbureaucrat. Now,

however, when the minister is sitting on the treasury benches any appointment made by his government is a proper appointment.


John Whitney Pickersgill: But none of these appointments would be made by the government; that is the point the hon. gentleman does not seem to grasp. Under this bill, no appointments would be made by the government at all, and that was precisely the thing to which I objected during the debate two or three years ago. I said that we were not going to transfer redistribution from parliament to the cabinet. I have never varied from that view, and it is for this reason that in this bill we have been very careful to have no appointments made by the government, but to have appointments made by parliament or officers of parliament.


Erik Nielsen: We were doing precisely that in appointing the chief justice. This is a government measure, and the minister cannot get around the fact that any government bill is going to be passed because of the government's majority. Let there be no mistake; the government has a majority in consequence of the arrangement that exists between the Liberal and Social Credit parties in this house. Whatever you call it, this is still a government appointment.
I have a press clipping here from the Ottawa Citizen dated April 18, 1962, in which the minister who is now holding forth about this being a perfectly acceptable proposal, criticized the intention to appoint judges to the commission because this, he said, would tend to drag the courts into politics. None the less, he is saying to the house that what he is proposing now is a proper thing. No doubt what he said in 1962 is quite wrong and I suppose that he has had another change of heart in that regard.
On April 10, 1962, this minister was accusing the former prime minister of delaying redistribution, of holding back progress for two years. He is saying now, however, that even if this bill is passed by this May it will be the spring of 1966 before anything can be completed with regard to redistribution. The Ottawa Journal of April 10, 1962, also carried an account of the minister's remarks at that time when he said that the government's delay in introducing it-meaning redistribution-would mean that no redistribution of parliamentary seats was likely for another two years. Then, the article continues:
He added that redistribution must not be taken out of the Commons to be placed in the hands of the cabinet. The commission's report should be presented unchanged to the house in the form of a representation bill.
Both of these matters were in the legislation introduced by the former government. I continue to quote from the article:
Electoral Boundaries Commissions
We are certainly not going to approve any measure that sets up a commission comparable in any way to the board of broadcast governors. We have had enough of that kind of impartiality in the last few years.
These words sound rather strange coming from the mouth of the Minister of Transport, who was for some time responsible for the activities of the C.B.C., particularly in the light of the C.B.C. programming and its notable partiality to his own party.
There is another excerpt from an article appearing in the Montreal Gazette of December 12, 1961 in which the minister referred to a commission rather than ten separate commissions. He said at that time, as reported in the Gazette of that day:
Liberal party spokesman J. W. Pickersgill said yesterday the official opposition will support Prime Minister Diefenbaker's plan to have an independent commission-
No suggestion here of any plurality of commissions.
-redraw the federal electoral map on the basis of this year's census.
In the Calgary Albertan of December 14, 1961, we find the editor saying this:
It is therefore encouraging to note that Hon. J. W. Pickersgill of the Liberal party has voiced his approval of the Prime Minister's intention.
This is a reference to the setting up of a commission. All of these things taken together, the statement by the present Minister of Transport when he was in opposition and the statement made by the present Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) which I quoted from the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix, in which he held out the hope to the electorate of Saskatchewan that the minimum number of seats held by that province would not fall below what it now holds if a Liberal government were in office, all go to show that they are not so lily white as they are now trying to paint themselves. Before the recess I called these statements dishonest, fraudulent and deceitful, and so they were. I was mildly taken to task by the Minister of Transport for doing this. When I go back over some of the words that were used in this house about the prime minister of that day, now the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Dief-enbaker) I find that the words I used were mild indeed. The words that were used by the present Prime Minister, then leader of the opposition and those who sat with him including the minister, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) and the then member for Laurier, now our high commissioner to Great Britain, are remarkable examples of the extent to which they went. I cite such words as, "incredible effrontery"; "gross"; "unpardonable deceit"; "jeered"; "lying and betraying"; "besmirching the good
7G0

Electoral Boundaries Commissions name of Canada"; "greater deceit"; "absolute rubbish"; "sneered"; "original as it is false". These are just a few examples of the terms that were applied to the prime minister of that day in what amounted to a complete disregard by those members who now sit over there of the dignity of the office of the prime minister. I say, sir, that when I described the words of the present Prime Minister and those who sit with him on the treasury benches as being deceitful, in the light of what they are trying to ask parliament to believe now, I am certainly not overstating the case.
Suffice to say that this measure is substantially the same measure that was introduced in April, 1962, by the Leader of the Opposition. There are three material defects in the legislation which I would hope could be changed by common agreement before the bill reaches the committee stage. The first is that the 20 per cent tolerance should be increased to a third, and I hope we shall find support from our friends to the left for that proposition. The second is that ten commissions, one for each province, will unnecessarily complicate and delay the work of redistribution. There should be one commission. There should be one commission predominated by judicial appointments.
When the Conservative party was in power it was suggested that these appointments should come from the Supreme Court of Canada and other judicial bodies. The fact remains that one commission can do the work in very much less time than can 10. I also think that a very strong argument in support of the one commission theory is the fact that 10 commissions, making 10 different sets of rules and regulations governing the procedures of their sittings, will contribute to chaos rather than uniformity of considerations applied to redistribution, despite the co-ordination by Mr. Castonguay, with all his excellent experience and knowledge being applied in that regard.
His running around to all these commissions, guiding them, giving them explanations and assisting them in the preparation of their work will be like a drop of water on a hot griddle, and it will take longer than one year to complete the work if the 10 commission theory is held to prevail. A further thought is that in making the rules and regulations, my personal view is that these should be submitted to the scrutiny of the parliamentary standing committee on privileges and elections, or that they should be discussed and some common agreement reached by all parties before the setting up of the commission.
Having set them forth, I would urge that the minister and the government take into

consideration these three proposals from this side, in the hope that we can reach an allparty agreement before the committee stage, and so expedite the passage of this very important legislation.


Mr.   Cole@Longueuil: May I ask the hon. member a question. Supposing Mr. Castonguay suggested 10 different commissions, would he be in favour of it?


Erik Nielsen: Well, I have heard no such suggestion from Mr. Castonguay, but I am sure that if the government proposes sending this legislation before the standing committee on privileges and elections I will be given opportunity of inquiring into the views of Mr. Castonguay. At the moment I do not know whether he proposes this or not.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I propose to base my opening remarks on the legislation that is now before us and not on the tenor of the last speech. I recall with interest the fact that when we were debating a companion bill on November 26 last I at that time, as today, had the opportunity of being the third speaker. The first one was the then secretary of state, now the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill). The second was the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker), and at that time I was in a position to say I felt in that debate we were demonstrating that the greatness of parliament is not only something of the past, but that it is something we can portray today.
I still feel, in what we are doing in this piece of legislation, that we are having an opportunity of redeeming parliament. In my view one of the blots on the Canadian parliament is the way in which redistribution has been handled throughout the decades of our history. I have had the personal experience of going through it twice. I was a member of the committees that sat in the 'forties and in the 'fifties and, as have other hon. members, I have read Hansard and Canadian history.
The way in which distribution has been carried out in the past is a sorry story. Therefore I think it is a high point in Canadian history when we have reached the position that all parties in the house agree this job should be done, not by members of parliament, as though they had a proprietary interest in their constituencies, but by an independent body or bodies of people outside parliament, on the basis of rules laid down by parliament in a public statute.
So far as the principle of this legislation is concerned, I regard it not just as good, not just as something we in this party are prepared to approve, but as a high point in

Canadian parliamentary history, and I hope that the debate as it proceeds will reflect the significance of what we are doing.
There never was any justification for the idea that sitting members of parliament should have the say over the drawing of the boundaries of the constituencies, and I am glad to note that the Conservative party, as long ago as 1903, 61 years ago, took a stand for the drawing of constituency boundaries by independent judicial bodies. But it does make one wonder why it was not done a long time ago. I chide the Liberals over the fact that it has taken them 45 years to carry out some of the things they pronounced in their 1919 platform; but the Tories tell us that for 61 years they have stood for redistribution by an independent commission. At least in two cases, when Sir Robert Borden was prime minister and when Mr. Bennett was prime minister, redistribution was in the hands of the Conservative party. I only wish they had done it then. It would have been better for Canadian history if they had.
However, we have reached the point now where the position taken by all parties is that the drawing of the boundaries of our constituencies is not the function of members of parliament, but that we should lay down the rules and then turn the job over to independent persons in whom we have the utmost confidence. Therefore I think we should look upon this bill not as a government bill-although by the nature of things it has to be-but as a bill that parliament is dealing with, as a bill that belongs to parliament, and we should do our best as members of parliament to make it the best bill that can possibly be drawn.
If we do that, if we come up with a bill that puts redistribution beyond partisan considerations, then we shall have done ourselves proud, but what is more important we shall have done a job of work for the parliament of Canada and for the people of this country.
The issues in this piece of legislation have been narrowed to two, three or four points. They have been referred to by the Minister of Transport and elaborated on by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen). I think it is a good thing that we had some discussion of this matter in the last session of parliament, and for my part I wish to express my thanks to the Minister of Transport for the all-party consultation, without any commitments, that we had, so that we could narrow the field and get down to the things that we think should be discussed in connection with this bill. Therefore it is not my intention to take time even to comment on many of the things in the bill concerning which we are in agreement, but I do want
Electoral Boundaries Commissions to comment on some of the things about which there is disagreement, and I have one or two suggestions to make.
As a matter of fact, I want to tell the Minister of Transport that I accept his challenge on one point. He says he has racked his brains and could not find the answer. I accept his challenge when he suggests we should try to find a formula which would go right into this bill, and on the basis of which we could provide for the appointment of the commissioners in the bill itself rather than having two of them to be appointed, one by the Prime Minister and one by the Leader of the Opposition. Perhaps I had better deal with that point first, now that I have mentioned it. It had been my intention to deal, first of all, with the matter of there being 10 commissions proposed instead of one. However, since, when I get to that, I shall be arguing in favour of 10 commissions, we might deal first with the matter of how these commissioners are to be appointed.
The Minister of Transport says the reason we cannot, in this federal bill, follow the pattern of Manitoba by naming all the commissioners in terms of the offices they hold is that there are not comparable offices right across the country. You could, for example, in the four western provinces name the president of the provincial university but, as the Minister of Transport has pointed out, this would not be so easy in the case of provinces such as Ontario or Quebec. It has also been pointed out that there is no officer in each of the provinces holding a position comparable to that of chief electoral officer. It seems to me that the answer to this difficulty is quite simple. First, you could specify in the bill that the chairman of each commission shall be, as the bill now says, the chief justice of the province. I am sure that if there is any question about who is the chief justice in any province we could straighten that out. That is one appointee. The other appointee on which we all agree is the representation commissioner. What about the other two? I suggest we say that the other two should be as set out in the schedule to the act; and in the schedule which we could add to the act we could list the 10 provinces and we could decide here in parliament who are to be, by office, these other two commissioners, for British Columbia, Alberta, and so on. I would hope that in provinces where they have a provincial university one would be the president of that university and the other would be the chief electoral officer.
If there are provinces where there is no recognized provincial university, let parliament decide which university person or other officer we wish to put into that position. And
762	HOUSE OF
Electoral Boundaries Commissions if there is a province which does not have an officer corresponding to chief electoral
officer,	let us decide here what office the holder of shall be appointed.
I am suggesting that the Minister of Transport was absolutely right in the principle he put forward to the house when he was in opposition, namely that parliament should make these decisions. When he was speaking on the former government's measure, he wanted the names. Now he wants the offices that the people hold to be designated. I think that is even better. But I believe we should know before this bill passes which persons will hold these positions, and that they should be persons in terms of their offices, not in terms of individual personalities, whoever they may happen to be.


An hon. Member:: He says he has changed his mind, now.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He has changed his mind, part way. I want him to change it all the way and accept the proposition that parliament should make the decision, and put it into the legislation. Under the present proposal, two of the people will be named, not by the government-we have got away from that-but by officers of parliament. I think this is playing with words. The fact of the matter is that they will be named by the leader of one of the largest parties in the country and by the leader of the other. It will be done, under the present proposal, by Mr. Pearson, the leader of the Liberal party, and Mr. Diefenbaker, the leader of the Conservative party. It is they as individuals who will be naming two of the commissioners for each province. In other words, we shall not have got away completely from the idea of partisanship in connection with redistribution. But we could get away from it completely if, instead of having these two individuals named in this way, these two other members of the various commissions were specified in the act, in the schedule if necessary, so that parliament would be deciding the holders of what
offices,	in each province, would hold these positions.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Gladly.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I agree with what the hon. member is suggesting in principle, as I said earlier this afternoon, provided it can be done. But I would put this difficulty to him and ask him whether he has an answer to it: How does this parliament compel presidents of universities who are not officers of ours and who have jobs to do, to carry out this business for us? It is a


very different thing for a provincial government which provides the main alimentation of a provincial university to ask them to do it-and it is a much smaller job, in any case, at least in some of the provinces. Then, of course, the difficulty seems to be compounded in the case of provincial officers such as the chief electoral officer, because all one of the provincial governments needs to do is say it will not allow him to serve, in which case I do not see how this parliament could compel him to serve.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask the minister whether that same difficulty would not present itself to the Prime Minister or to the Leader of the Opposition, if they sought to name individuals connected with universities or provincial governments?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Presumably they would ascertain their ability to act. It would not be done permanently in legislation. That is precisely the problem.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I will agree that the Minister of Transport may have raised a difficulty, but I suggest it is not beyond the wit of members of parliament to find an answer if we are agreed on the basic principle that we should be making the decision here in parliament, not leaving it to two individuals, particularly when each of those individuals has a party connection, to do a job which we are trying to put on a completely independent basis.
So I urge very strongly that consideration be given, when we get into committee on the bill, to making this kind of change with respect to the manner in which the members of the commissions are to be appointed.
This takes me to the second of the issues about which there has been debate, namely whether there should be 10 commissions or one. I say quite frankly to the hon. member who preceded me that I think he is involved in a good deal of hairsplitting when he quotes from speeches which have been made in the past and tries to find evidence of deception, dishonesty and all the rest of it in a change of position from one commission to 10. Surely, the principle is the same; the job is to be done by independent people outside of parliament, and surely there is not a great deal of difference between having one commission, but having it large enough that it can be divided into sections to do the job in the various provinces, and having ten commissions from the start, so that they can carry out the work which would have to be done in any case.
I submit that in addition to the time element to which the Minister of Transport

referred this afternoon there is also the inescapable fact that the people in any particular province know the situation in that province better than people removed from it. To take my own province, for example, it would be people like the president of the University of Manitoba, the chief justice of Manitoba and the chief electoral officer of Manitoba who would be most familiar with the general topography, the geography, the courses of the rivers and the lakes and all the rest of it, and who would be better qualified to judge the effect of changes and the drawing of boundaries than would one royal commission situated, shall we say, here in Ottawa and served, perhaps, by people who would not know very much about the situation in Manitoba.
I think these considerations apply right across the country. We want this job to be done in a manner which will appeal to the people as having been done fairly and honestly, and as having been done in the light of conditions in each part of the country I think we shall get a much better job if we have it done by people who belong to the province concerned and know the conditions in that particular province. I urge very strongly, therefore, that this house stay with the proposal in the bill that there should be 10 commissions to carry out this task of redistribution on an independent basis.
Now I move on to what I suppose will be the main controversial element in this whole piece of legislation-


Erik Nielsen: Before the hon. member leaves that point of the 10 commissions, I wonder if he would consider this point for a moment and answer it: The bill as it now stands makes provision for the calling of witnesses and the hearing of evidence. Does he propose that if the 10 commissions are separate they could only consider evidence and testimony from people within the province in which the commission itself sits, or could it consider evidence from outside.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I think they should be free, if they feel the need of it, to get evidence from outside the province; but I think the most important evidence in each case would be that obtained from within the province. The kind of information needed from outside the province is the co-ordinating kind of influence that will be effected by the presence on each commission of the representation commissionner.
I want to turn now to the question of the degree of tolerance to be allowed which I suppose will be one of the major issues in this debate. We have the proposal in the bill that the degree of tolerance be not more than 20 per cent up or 20 per cent
Electoral Boundaries Commissions down from the quotient, and in contrast to that the Conservatives are proposing that the tolerance be 33J per cent, or one third, as was proposed in the bill presented by the former government. For reasons that I want to develop, I wish to state that in my view the 20 per cent tolerance is as far as we should go.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In fact, I submit that it is too much.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Before hon. members to my right think I am just arguing by assertion- and a good deal of that goes on in this place-let me indicate that I have in my hand some figures on the basis of which I want to show the house the wide discrepancies that we may get, even on the basis of this 20 per cent tolerance. Twenty per cent does not sound very much; but remember that 20 per cent up or 20 per cent down means that, other things being equal, the larger seats can be one and a half times the size of the smaller seats. That is on the basis of "other things being equal"-a neat little phrase that one has to look into. By the way, if we had a one third up and a one third down tolerance, that would mean the larger seats could be twice as large as the smaller seats.


An hon. Member:: Numerically?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, numerically; in terms of population. Let us face the fact that in this legislation we are dealing mainly with the question of getting redistribution out of politics; of getting it done on an independent basis. But it is also a fact that we are, by virtue of some of the provisions of this bill, approaching in the direction of representation by population. Therefore if we are approaching in that direction, if that is one of the purposes of this bill, let us examine the question as to how well we are doing in that regard.
Hon. members know that section 51 of the British North America Act provides a number of interesting and complicated rules for the dividing up of the seats in the House of Commons among the various provinces. It is not done just on a proportional basis. The fact of the matter is, as we all know, that one seat is set aside for the Yukon Territory and that one seat is set aside for the Northwest Territories. We also know that we have the so-called senatorial floor and that in practice this will apply to any redistribution that now takes place in the provinces of Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick. There are four instances right
764	HOUSE OF
Electoral Boundaries Commissions there, Yukon, Northwest Territories, Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick, where a fixed number of seats will be determined by the rules in section 51 of the constitution. As a result those areas will all get greater representation than they would if redistribution were done on a strict population basis.
There is another interesting rule in the constitution. I call it affectionately the "Jimmy Gardiner rule". It was put in during the 1950's when the late Hon. James G. Gardiner was minister of agriculture. His aim was to find a way in which to save Saskatchewan from losing too many seats in the last redistribution. It did the trick for Saskatchewan in that redistribution. The rule is still there. It will not help Saskatchewan this time, but it does help Nova Scotia. This time Nova Scotia will, under the "Jimmy Gardiner rule", be saved one seat. Instead of dropping from 12 to 10, it will drop only from 12 to 11. That means you have Yukon, Northwest Territories, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia all with more seats than they would be entitled to on the strict basis of population.
I am not complaining about this; I am just setting out the facts. Therefore it is only the rest of the provinces, Newfoundland and the provinces from Quebec west, that are on a proportional basis; but it is only in relation to each other that they are on a proportional basis. The result is that you get a wide disparity in the quotient per province or per unit in this country. I have worked out a table that shows this, and I would like, Mr. Speaker, to have the consent of the house to place it on the record rather than boring hon. members with the figures. Let me tell the house what it is. I have entitled it "Anticipated redistribution of House of Commons electoral districts on basis of 1961 census and according to rules provided in section 51 of the British North America Act". In the first column I list the provinces, including the Yukon and Northwest Territories; in the second column I list the total population in 1961. This was according to the 1961 census. Then in the third column I list the number of constituencies that each province will get in the light of all these rules I have named. In the last column I list the average population per constituency.
The first column, of course, is simply a list of the provinces and the territories of Canada. The second column contains the actual population of these units according to the census of 1961. The third column contains the number of members assigned to each province or territory by the rules of the act. The total under the rules comes this time to 264. Therefore this is all taken from official sources,


and it is only the last column for which I am personally responsible. All that column amounts to is a dividing of the number of seats into the population, so that we arrive at the average in each case. I could read these figures, Mr. Speaker, but it would be rather boring if I were to do so. Therefore I would ask the consent of the house to placing this table on Hansard at this point.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Does the house give consent to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) having this table included in Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: The table referred to above is as follows:]
Anticipated redistribution of House of Commons electoral districts on basis of 1961 census and according to rules provided in section 51 of the
British North America Act			
	Total	Num-	Average
	popu-	ber population	
lation	of	perin	constit-	constit-Province	1961	uencies	uencyNewfoundland	457,853	7	65,408Prince Edward Island	104,629	4	26,157Nova Scotia	737,007	H	67,000New Brunswick	597,936	10	59,793Quebec	5,259,211	74	71,070Ontario	6,236,092	88	70,864Manitoba	921,686	13	70,898Saskatchewan	925,181	13	71,168Alberta	1,331,944	19	70,102British Columbia	1,629,082	23	70,829Yukon	14,628	1	14,628Northwest Territories	22,998	i	22,998Totals	18,238,247	264


Gordon Minto Churchill: Would the hon. member read the last column?


Stanley Howard Knowles: As a matter of fact I intend to do that. The last column of the table which is now in Hansard is, of course, the interesting one. These are the figures of the average population per constituency: Newfoundland, 65,408; Prince Edward Island, 26,257; Nova Scotia, 67,000; New Brunswick, 59,793. May I pause there and say that those are the four Atlantic provinces and the figures vary and are low, but as we go from Quebec to British Columbia hon. members will notice that the figures vary hardly at all. They are: Quebec, 71,070; Ontario, 70,864; Manitoba, 70,898; Saskatchewan, 71,168; Alberta, 70,102; British Columbia, 70,829. As hon. members will notice, from Quebec through to British Columbia there is almost no variation; the arithmetic provided in the constitution works out nicely.


Mr. Graffiey:: Is that voting population, or total population?


Stanley Howard Knowles: This is total population. I have divided the number of constituencies

into the total population as provided by the census. After all, according to the British North America Act that is the way it is done. There are two more: Yukon, 14,628; Northwest Territories, 22,998.


Erik Nielsen: The Yukon is close to 18,000.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Do we not have to take these figures from some fixed point? If the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) is going to tell us the new figures for Yukon, hon. members from British Columbia will do the same. These are the figures taken from the census of 1961 and it is on that basis that redistribution has to be effected.
Hon. members will notice the discrepancies that now exist. Supposing the 20 per cent tolerance holds-and I hope it does; in fact, I think it is too much already-and supposing the commissioners in one or more of the provinces take full advantage of that tolerance and make some seats 20 per cent more and other seats 20 per cent less than the actual quotient, what would be the result? In Manitoba, to stay within one province, for example, this could result in a seat with a population as high as 85,077 and another seat with a population as low as 56,719, a discrepancy of over 28,000 with the largest seat in the province being one and a half times the smallest seat. But this is compounded when one considers the disproportion which exists, for example, between all the western provinces and a province like New Brunswick. New Brunswick's quotient being 59,793 it would be possible, even under this 20 per cent tolerance, for there to be a seat in Manitoba with a high of 85,077 and at the same time for there to be a seat in New Brunswick with a population as low as 47,835. That shows a disparity all the way from 85,000 to 47,000, and that is possible under the 20 per cent tolerance which now exists.
If the one third tolerance which the last hon. member who spoke argued for, were provided, it would be possible for one of Manitoba's seats to have 94,530 and another seat to have exactly half that, or 47,265. Here again, if I may compare a possible high in Manitoba with a possible low in New Brunswick you would go all the way from 94,530 for a seat in Manitoba to 39,862 for a seat in New Brunswick. These are not fanciful or hypothetical figures. The first set of figures I gave are possible even under the 20 per cent tolerance; the second set of figures would arise under a tolerance of one third. So when hon. members like the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) suggest that some of us from urban areas should consider the difficulties of servicing a rural constituency, and all that sort of thing, I suggest that we have 20220-19
Electoral Boundaries Commissions considered them but that we should not depart as far as we are being asked to from the principle that we represent people in this House of Commons and should therefore move in the direction of representation by population. We should not depart from that principle any more than we depart from it in the proposal that there be a 20 per cent tolerance.


An hon. Member:: It should be down to 10 per cent.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Someone over there says that it should be down to 10 per cent. I agree, and if we bring it down 10 per cent we are still ending up with a ratio within a province 110 to 90. But we must remember that we have to consider these tolerances as superimposed upon disparities already existing. That is the reason that I asked permission to put my table on Hansard so that hon. members can look at the figures squarely and see the figures that already exist, and that the tolerances which are built on top of them compound the disparities.
Another matter which people are conscious of is this. Let me take, for example, the constituency of the Minister of Forestry (Mr. Sauve) at the present time. He represents 10,000 or 12,000 good Canadians, whereas the hon. member for York-Scarborough (Mr. Moreau) represents several hundred thousand of them. That is the sort of disparity we want to avoid. We represent people, and every individual's vote should have some kind of equal weight in this House of Commons. We will not have that even with this bill; we will still have wide discrepancies. And in all this I have left out any reference to the extreme case of only 26,000 in each of the constituencies of Prince Edward Island-and if a tolerance of 20 per cent is applied that figure could be even lower.
I have not complained about the small population in the north. It is provided in the British North America Act that we agree that those areas should have special representation. But having gone that far let us not compound the problem or make it worse or keep our representation completely out of line with population, as would be the case if we made the tolerance any greater.


Erik Nielsen: Would the hon. member permit a question. Apart from the two northern ridings, the hon. member's colleague from Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) made a speech concerning the large ridings in the country. Does the hon. member feel that the 20 per cent tolerance gives equality of vote to an elector in some of these larger ridings of the country?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I think the 20 per cent tolerance is enough even for my hon. friend for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher), and my hon.

Electoral Boundaries Commissions friend from Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) too. In fact, my hon. friend from Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) will probably think it is too much for him.


Mr. Fisher:: What about Cariboo?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, Cariboo too. But the point I want to make, and I was given a bit of a cue by the 10 per cent interjection from across the way, is that I think the commissioners, when they are set up and are ready to study this matter, will be aware of what has been done in countries like Australia and New Zealand, where when they have a maximum tolerance up or down the commissioners do not start out with that maximum tolerance, but only use about half of it. They reserve the maximum tolerance up for unusual situations or the maximum tolerance down for the very sparsely settled ridings, areas such as the ridings in this country of Port Arthur, Cariboo, Churchill, Bonavista-Twillingate, Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador, and so on. I hope that that will be the case here, that the commissioners will not start by saying they can go 20 per cent up for all the urban ridings and 20 per cent down for all the rural ridings, but that they will lay down some principles about population per square mile which will cover the situation of these far northern ridings and try to keep the tolerance down to 10 per cent, so that we get closer to representation by population than has yet been the case.
Therefore, I say that there should be a really serious study of these figures I have put on the record, particularly those in the fourth column of the table. I also ask hon. members before they make proposals for larger tolerances to do the arithmetic on these figures and see how wide the discrepancy can be between constituencies with low populations in New Brunswick, Newfoundland or Nova Scotia and constituencies with high populations in Ontario, Manitoba or the western provinces. After all, it is still a basic fact that what we represent in the House of Commons is people, not square miles or stones and trees but Canadian people, and we should move as far as we can in the direction of that kind of representation.


George Clyde Nowlan: Would the hon. member permit a question. If you are representing people, do you not have to contact them? Is the hon. member arguing that a constituency which you could walk around before breakfast to get your appetite with 100,000 population, should have the same representation as one where it takes a day and a half to drive from one end to the other?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I quite agree that there should be some recognition of this and that is why we accept the tolerance. But I do not

accept the proposition of my good friend from Digby-Annapolis-Kings (Mr. Nowlan) that in a riding like mine, having walked around it before breakfast-and probably the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) could do the same-I have made contact with the people in my riding. I can take the bus ride around my constituency in a few hours, but I have not made contact with the 75,000 to 100,000 people in my riding just because I have been around it. It takes just as much time to represent people in terms of actually being in contact with them when they are packed in our city blocks as if they are scattered all over the place.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I notice my good friend from Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) is not joining this applause which some of his party colleagues are putting up; he knows that in order to make contact with the people in his riding it takes time, and I am sure that he will agree with me-


Norman Platt Lambert: Oh no.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -that there should be some tolerance, but that all this talk about space, square miles and so on does not get away from the basic fact that what we have to have is representation of people. Let us not kid ourselves. We do not contact every person in our ridings, whether we are in a rural area or in an urban area. What we have to do is somehow, by various means such as correspondence, Gallup polls and all the rest of it, get the feel of our people and represent them here. Having got that feel and having tried to do the job I submit that the situation should not be as it is now, where 75,000 people in Winnipeg North Centre have one member to represent them and 10,000 people in Iles-de-la-Madeleine have also one member to represent them. Or perhaps I should give the comparison between the hon. member for Iles-de-la-Madeleine (Mr. Sauve) and the hon. member for York-Scarborough.
In this piece of legislation, under the terms of the bill itself, we are dealing with two main matters. One is that of taking redistribution out of politics, which the bill does and does very well. The other point that we are dealing with under the terms of the bill, because of this idea of a quotient and not departing by more than a certain tolerance, is an attempt to move in the direction of representation by population.
But if we put the tolerance too high we will completely destroy any effort we are making to move in that direction. So I hope, Mr. Speaker, that when we get into committee on this bill and go through it clause by clause there will not be any acceptance by

the house of any proposal to widen that tolerance. I would hope that instead the house might go the other way and reduce it to 15 per cent or even less.
I also hope, Mr. Speaker, that we will stand by the 10 commissions, but on the matter of the appointment of these commissions I strongly urge that we use our wits-despite the fact that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) sees some difficulty I think it can be got over-to find a way whereby we can name these people in the bill that goes through parliament by their offices, and not leave it so that two of the people are going to be appointed by two of the party leaders of this country.
There is just one other thing I want to say about the bill, and there has not been very much comment about this section yet. I am glad the bill embodies the principle that if an outside, independent body is going to do the job it should not then be our right here in parliament to alter, to amend, to have the say whether it goes through or not. I think the proposal that when the commissioners make their report it can be discussed in parliament in terms of detail only if one third of the members in any province file a motion to that effect is a happy thought. I was not happy about previous proposals for redistribution that implied that after an independent body had done the job parliament could do it all over again. I suppose this is partly because I have been through two of these redistribution experiences. They are not parliament at its best and I do not want to see that situation brought back in any way whatsoever. Therefore I am glad that those who drafted the bill have given parliament the chance-it is not the government's bill; it is parliament's bill-really to go all the way, so that this business of drawing the boundaries of constituencies for the people of Canada will not be done by those who have a vested interest such as we have here, but by an independent body.
As I say, Mr. Speaker, we welcome this bill. We think there are one or two improvements that could be made. We think that the business of having 10 commissions is a more expeditious way to deal with the matter and we think that the tolerance should not be large. If anything, it should be less than 20 per cent now proposed so that as far as possible we will do two jobs, first, take redistribution out of politics and, second, move in the direction of representation by population. I urge this on the basis of the fact that our job here is to represent the people of Canada as people.


Alexander Bell Patterson: Mr. Speaker, I rise at this time to take part
Electoral Boundaries Commissions in this debate which is of great interest to every member of this house and also to Canadians from coast to coast. I had intended to embark immediately upon a discussion of the principle of the measure before us but I think that first of all I should like to refer to one statement made by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen). I take exception to a number of his statements, but I should like to pick this one out and challenge him on it. He said that this was a government measure and that the government would have a majority in view of the arrangement existing between the government and the Social Credit party. I should like to state categorically that there is no arrangement between the Liberal party or government and the Social Credit party.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Alexander Bell Patterson: May I say that the members of the Social Credit party have been evidencing a degree of responsibility that has been sadly lacking in the party to which the hon. member belongs.


Erik Nielsen: May I ask a question?


Alexander Bell Patterson: I think the hon. member has spoken fully enough today. May I say as well that the Canadian people are very appreciative of the fact that the Social Credit party stood with the government against motions which were designed solely to upset the government and to force the country into another election.


Norman Platt Lambert: Don't be so sanctimonious.


Alexander Bell Patterson: The hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) says that I should not be quite so sanctimonious. May I suggest that there are a number of members of his party who have evidenced quite a bit of the same spirit in days gone by.
The principle of the measure before us at the present time is one that commends itself to the members of the house. It was introduced first on December 20, 1963, which has allowed sufficient time for many people to express their views publicly with regard to the matter. Even if the suggestions made have been widely varied, I believe there is general agreement on the principle that there should be an independent body or bodies established to carry out the important and necessary task of redistribution.
This is the second measure required to facilitate the redrawing of the electoral boundaries on the basis of the 1961 census and, of course, to carry out the subsequent redistributions as they are required. First of all we were called upon to consider a measure to establish the office of representation commissioner. That gave us an opportunity

Electoral Boundaries Commissions to debate not only that particular issue but also many other factors in relation to the whole problem of redistribution.
If it is necessary to state the position of the Social Credit party in this connection once again, I should like to assure the house that we are in full support of the principle of the bill and will co-operate in its passage. As I indicated, I had the opportunity of participating in debate on this subject some weeks ago and my remarks are found on pages 5136 and 5137 of Hansard for November 26, 1963. Many of the statements I made at that time set forth principles and convictions that we still have in regard to the measure now before us.
The project of redrawing the electoral boundaries in Canada is a very important and highly necessary one. It is necessary from the constitutional standpoint, but practical considerations make it essential that this matter be dealt with from time to time in order that the people of Canada may be better served through the electoral machinery that has been established by parliament. On different occasions the various factors involved have been brought to the attention of the house. One thinks of the increase in the population of our country, which is now over 19 million, and along with the increase there has been a shifting in population. Immigration policies have also played a part in the increase in population, and we find that there has been a tendency for the population to diminish in some places and increase in others. This brings the fact to our attention that redistribution is essential in order to maintain a semblance of balance, as far as representation in the house is concerned.
Having recognized that fact, I am sure it is the desire of every member of the house to discover the fairest possible way in which redistribution can be brought about, having regard to all the legitimate factors involved. The measure before us, as has been pointed out, calls for the setting up of 10 commissions. Perhaps this is not the important issue before us. Nevertheless, it does constitute a very important part and one which I am sure will require considerable attention.
I should like to refer to the urgency of this matter. The last census was taken in 1961 and, of course, we are now well into 1964. This means that a good part of the 10 year period has already elapsed since the last census. I believe that the work of redistribution should be facilitated. I believe that it should be commenced as soon as possible and carried through just as expeditiously as possible in order that before another election is called we can proceed on the basis of the redistribution. I think that this adds to the

sense of urgency in connection with the work that is before us at the present time.
I should like to refer, sir, to a number of the considerations involved that have been mentioned by other members participating in the debate. A question has been raised in connection with how many commissions we should have. How many commissions are necessary in order to carry out this project in the shortest possible time and yet in the fairest possible way? We have one suggestion that there should be one commission established whose responsibility it would be to carry out redistribution in every part of Canada from coast to coast. Another suggestion is that we should divide the country into areas, possibly four areas, with a commission responsible for each of them.
In this connection, I should like to point out one of the problems involved. Consider for a moment the wide variations that exist between conditions in the province of Saskatchewan, for instance, and the province of British Columbia and we will see how difficult the job would be. In Saskatchewan, they have the prairies and they do not have any of those great natural barriers that we have in British Columbia. Of course, the problems would not be as pronounced there as they are in British Columbia.
Then, we have the suggestion contained in the bill before us, namely that we should have a commission for each province. I suggest that one commission for each province would or should result in a more satisfactory redrawing of the electoral boundaries having regard to all the relevant factors. So far as we in this group are concerned, therefore, we would prefer to see the suggestion in the bill maintained and have one commission for each province. The question, however, of the appointment of the commissioners is something that should be considered. A statement has been made on numerous occasions that the desire is to eliminate political considerations. I feel this is commendable. I have not had too much to do with redistribution in years gone by, but there have been references to political pressures, political considerations, that have entered into the redrawing of the electoral boundaries. I would not know anything about that. However, I do recognize the fact that those who have been here the longest seem to be the strongest advocates to have redistribution taken out of the political arena and handed over to an independent body.
Having said that, and having pointed this out, we find that the provisions in the bill indicate two politicians are to be called upon to appoint some of the commissioners. I use the term "politicians" in the best sense of the word. I am not casting any aspersions, I am

just referring to the fact that these two right hon. gentlemen are in the political field. They are the heads of political parties and, therefore, it seems to me that we are not departing far enough from the principle that was enunciated. We ought to find some other way of making these appointments.
In considering this particular matter, we would like to suggest that these commissions could be made up, for instance, of the representation commissioner, the chief justice of the province concerned and the provincial chief electoral officer. I know that in discussing this matter the minister has called attention to the problems involved. I do not believe those problems are insurmountable. If the problems had been insurmountable, perhaps this would have been ascertained in Australia.
I should like to refer to an editorial which appeared in the Gazette of January 3, 1963, and I shall read one paragraph:
In each of the six Australian states, the federal government appoints three electoral commissioners to investigate these population changes. The commissioners are public servants, and usually comprise the chief electoral officer of the state concerned, the head of the land survey section in the state concerned, and a third person with similar qualifications.
Now, to those who will make reference to the objection to appointing the chief electoral officer because of the problems involved,
I should like to point out that in Australia the state electoral officers are members of the commission. It does not seem, therefore, as though Australia found any insurmountable obstacles as these commissions were formed. We would suggest that the provincial chief electoral officers would be the men who would be eminently qualified to deal with this important matter. They are aware of the problems. They are aware of the geographical problems, the population trends, and all of these other factors that must be taken into consideration. If anyone should know about these factors and understand them, I would suggest the chief electoral officer is the one best qualified to give consideration to these matters. We would suggest that this idea be given careful consideration.
In introducing this measure, the Minister of Transport stated that having the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition make the appointments we would be assured of impartiality. I just do not believe this. I think the reasons are obvious. Appointments by these two right hon. gentlemen would not necessarily assure impartiality. If we are going to get away from political considerations, political elements, let us get away from them and do what we want to do. We should place these appointments in the hands of those who are not connected with or in
10,	1964
Electoral Boundaries Commissions position of leadership of political parties. Let us have truly independent individuals, independent commissions.
I should like to mention some of those factors that must be considered in redrawing electoral boundaries. The other day, speaking in the debate, my colleague from the Cariboo mentioned three things that were vitally important; population, topography and geography. I would refer the house to some of the statements my colleague made on that occasion because I think they are very important, not only in relation to the issues under discussion then, but to the discussion which we are having today.
I would like to refer again to the editorial in the Montreal Gazette of June 3, 1963, and read another paragraph which is as follows:
The commissioners are required to divide the 5,000,000 Australian voters into 122 electorates, which average between 40,000 and 50,000 voters each, and base their decisions on community of interest, transport facilities, and natural boundaries, such as rivers and mountain ranges.
This brings in the same thought as my colleague referred to the other day, and I believe these matters should be taken into consideration in the redrawing of the electoral boundaries.
There has been considerable discussion tonight, some of it good-natured, regarding the principle of representation by population. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) stated that we were representing people, not stones and trees. We may possibly agree with that. We are representing people; but we must remember that the people should have access to their elected representatives, and if they are to do that, then widespread areas should be given special attention. Therefore, even though the principle of representation by population may sound pretty good, there are many other factors which have to be taken into consideration in the over-all picture.
There is just one other matter which I would like to mention, and that is the tolerance percentage stipulated in the bill. It is set at 20 per cent, and there are hon. members who believe that this is far too low. I was almost going to use the terms, conservative and liberal, but I do not like those terms. There are others who think it is far too high. Personally I would be inclined to say it is a pretty good compromise between those two positions, and when we consider the effect of this 20 per cent tolerance applied to various constituencies, I do not believe we can get anything closer to the needs of the facts as they are presented and recognized by all of us.
I believe in some places the degree of tolerance is set at 5 per cent. That might be

Electoral Boundaries Commissions a little too rigid and, as I have said, I think the 20 per cent tolerance is a fairly good compromise between the positions of those who think it should be higher and those who think it should be lower. While adjustments may have to be made, and at times are made in the light of experience, I believe this legislation will result in a far more efficient and effective redrawing of electoral boundaries than was the case in the past.
We request that the government give consideration to the composition of the commissioners as we have outlined tonight. We think that if this suggestion were incorporated in the bill it would help to achieve what we desire, the elimination of party consideration so far as that is humanly possible.


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, as did hon. members who preceded me, I take pleasure in participating in this discussion on Bill C-72, concerning the setting up of commissions to be established in the provinces to study the boundaries of the various ridings.
Since the 1961 census, everybody has been able to see that the counties have changed. Therefore, this bill provides for a redistribution by population rather than by acreage. When looking at the results of the 1961 census, we find that the population in certain rural ridings has decreased to the benefit of the cities, and that some districts also lost part of their population to the benefit of other districts.
This bill aims at correcting anomalies resulting from the increase or decrease of population in some districts.
In discussing this bill we have to settle two questions; first of all whether each province should have a commission and second, whether a minimum of 20 per cent or more should be considered.
In respect of the first point, and as the minister asked us for suggestions to help him prepare a bill which would be the best answer to the needs of the various ridings in Canada, I suggest that four commissions would do an adequate job. For instance, one commission might look after the western provinces, comprising 70 ridings. I suppose that it would be possible to find in the four western provinces-Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia-somebody who would be really familiar with the problems of the constituencies concerned, as well as with all the mountains, rivers and topographical characteristics. Ontario could also have its commission, for, with 85 constituencies, it is quite an important province. The same applies to the province of Quebec, which has 75 constituencies. As concerns the maritime provinces, I believe it would be stupid to

establish a commission for a province with less than 10 constituencies. In my opinion, one commission could certainly meet the requirements of the 35 constituencies or so of the maritime provinces, the Northwest Territories and the Yukon.
They have intelligent people in the maritime provinces and it would be easy to find capable persons to settle problems to the satisfaction of these four provinces.
This would first of all prevent centralization, as suggested by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) who wanted a single commission to settle the problems throughout Canada. On the other hand, this could prevent confusion or delays in decisions to be made concerning the boundaries of the constituencies concerned.
We therefore think four commissions, that is one for the western provinces, one for Ontario, one for Quebec and one for the maritime provinces, would very well meet the needs or redistribution.
As mentioned by the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Patterson), this bill, under section 6, leaves to two politicians-let us grant they have good intentions-the appointment of two members on these commissions. So, two men interested in politics are asked to appoint two members, no account being taken of other political ideologies presently existing in Canada. It is proposed to set up independent commissions, but those two men are entrusted with the task of appointing the commissioners for each province.
The formula I would suggest would be much more democratic. In my opinion, consideration should be given to the result of the vote in each province. Let us see what it was for the last election. Would it be proper for the Liberal party to appoint a commissioner in Alberta when they got fewer votes than the Social Credit party?
I would say that, in Alberta, the leader of the official opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) and the Social Credit party should each appoint a commissioner.
On the other hand, in British Columbia, the present Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) could appoint one commissioner since the Liberals got the majority of votes and the New Democratic party could appoint the other commissioner since its candidates were ahead of the Social Credit candidates. As for the Conservatives, I do not see why the present leader of the official opposition, should choose a commissioner in that province.
Different problems face other provinces, and the different results must be taken into consideration.
For instance, in the province of Quebec, people wonder why the leader of the official opposition should appoint a commissioner

when the Conservative candidates got less votes than the Social Credit candidates. Consequently, it seems to me that, in the province of Quebec, the present Prime Minister should appoint one commissioner and the leader of the group that got the next highest percentage of votes should appoint one also. Such being the case, as far as the province of Quebec is concerned, the Prime Minister would select one commissioner and the leader of the Ralliement Creditistes, the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette), the other one.
When we consider the results of the 1963 election, both from a democratic and a percentage standpoint, we find that what is proposed on page 2 of the bill now before us is contrary to the idea of setting up an independent commission.
If we want to follow democratic principles and respect the opinion of all members, I feel we should proceed in the manner that I have just suggested. That would allow all political party leaders equally to select a commissioner in one or the other of the different Canadian provinces.
The leader of the New Democratic party would then appoint a commissioner in British Columbia; the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson) would appoint one in Alberta; the hon. member for Villeneuve would pick one for the province of Quebec. And the present leader of the government, as well as the present leader of the official opposition, would select the commissioners in the other provinces.
This would be a true reflection of the situation in the house according to the people's choice in the last election. In short, the percentage of votes in each province could be used as a basic principle. Then everybody would be satisfied and nobody could complain of frustration.
When carrying out a bill such as this one which is of such prime importance for the future of the members, we must at once lay solid foundations so as not to regret, later on, injustice towards anyone.
Coming back to the suggestion made in this bill with the phrase "20 per cent more or less", I think that for the time being it is a sensible suggestion because if we have to make changes and redistribute the electoral districts on the basis of their population, we shall have to proceed very intelligently for the reason that should we realize, within a few years, that the rural centres are losing even more of their people to the urban centres, we would have to amend the act once more.
All the more so since one of the most difficult things in rural ridings is to reach
Electoral Boundaries Commissions all the people because it takes much more time and it costs a lot.
I feel that the standard set in this bill, that is "20 per cent more or less" is a sound one. We have nothing else to suggest, except keep the debate free from political partisanship.
In closing, I point out that it would be useless to set up a commission in the provinces which have only four members or fewer than 10.
For instance, I think that one commission might very well be able to carry out the duties mentioned in this bill, and in the case of the maritime provinces, receive the representations that people might make in order to amend or correct the number or limits of electoral districts.


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muslroka):: I must say at once that I am in full agreement with the principle of a non-partisan commission to redistribute electoral boundaries in Canada.
There are a number of principles contained in this particular bill to which reference has been made. The first concerns the question of whether there should be one commission or 10 commissions. My own view is, and has been, that one commission would be preferable. This has been our stand throughout. However, there has already been a great deal of discussion on this particular point. I wish to deal with two other matters. One of them has been touched upon already, and the other has not.
The first concerns the 20 per cent clause. I wish to say immediately that I disagree completely with the views of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) in this regard. Perhaps there is a difference between us because I represent a rural riding whereas the hon. member represents an urban one, and I suppose each of us is inclined to believe he has a tougher job to carry out than have the other members of this house. To this extent I defer to the hon. member's personal opinion. But it is my belief that a 20 per cent tolerance in connection with population is far too low. This is based on my submission that members representing rural ridings have not only a great deal more territory to cover but a great many more duties to perform than have urban members.
Let us consider the huge ridings, geographically speaking, of which we have a number in Canada. It would seem to me that efforts should be made to reduce the area of some of these enormous ridings-I think of Meadow Lake and Mackenzie in Saskatchewan, and various others in northern Ontario, for example, which are much too large for one

Electoral Boundaries Commissions member to cover adequately. But if we apply the 20 per cent tolerance formula to these ridings it becomes obvious that a number of them will have to be made larger still, rather than smaller, and that some of these huge areas, representing something like a quarter of the area of a whole province, would be increased still further to something approaching one third. I believe that in cases such as these the way should be open for a reduction of these huge ridings which it is almost impossible for a single member to represent adequately. Instead, their area is increased rather than diminished.
I should like to mention, too, the average rural riding. I believe the member representing a rural riding is called upon to give more service per capita to his constituents than is the member representing an urban riding. I do not wish to detract in any way from the work done by members who represent a large number of constituents. I am merely saying that in rural areas where there are small pockets of population and large numbers of small communities, largely separate, the rural member has a good deal more work to do. In addition, he is in closer contact, I believe, with the people who live in these communities. I believe the people in these smaller units have more reason to contact their members of parliament than is the case in urban areas. I think, too, that rural members have more duties in connection with such matters as post offices, wharves, docks, agricultural problems, municipal affairs, and so on, probably as a result of a closer association with the people whom he serves.
To illustrate this I would point out that in an urban area an individual who may have a problem which does not relate strictly to the federal duties of a member can go to municipal authorities, to the local branches or offices of provincial departments, and find the person who is prepared to deal with his problem. The situation is the same in the federal field; in a large urban area there is an office of the unemployment insurance commission, the national employment service, the civil service commission, the Department of Public Works, and so forth. In the smaller communities these people are not available. In many of the rural ridings there are no representatives of federal departments. As a result, instead of being able to go to the local offices of the department, residents are required to go to their member of parliament for assistance. In many cases this could be eliminated very easily by a routine inquiry at an office. I say this for the reason that there is required a greater service per capita. In the urban and the central areas the government, at government expense, sets up the district offices for all its departments, and the


people living within that community or city can go to those offices and have their questions answered and their problems given some attention. In the rural areas we have to handle these things ourselves, and I do believe it makes a good deal more work for the member.
I believe, also, that in a rural area there are more contacts with municipal officials. Here again, in a great many cases they are not strictly federal matters, but if there is no one else to go to, I think it is the experience of us all that people go to the person who has been most recently a subject of public attention. The fact that we have had four elections in the last six years has meant that the member of the federal parliament, or candidate for election, has received more publicity, and it is a fact that as elections approach people are inclined to write to the person whose name they see before them. In this way, therefore, we do have these additional problems.
There is another question, Mr. Speaker. While population is important, we cannot overlook the fact of Canadian geography. The national objective of this country is, I believe, that of the expansion and development of underdeveloped areas. If we provide insufficient members of parliament to service these huge areas which are about to be developed, we are not thereby promoting the attention to development that might otherwise be the case. If we give representation of a large area to one member, we are giving an impossible job to a person who might otherwise be looking after expansion and development in a better manner. It is a fact of Canadian geography that we have these tremendously large areas. These members may not represent a great many people now, but they will represent a great many people in the future. These areas do require members to be here in this house to put forward proposals for development, and to keep the attention of the government focused on the fact that this large area has potential, which otherwise might be overlooked.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is right to say that in Canada representation by strict population is fair either to the people or to the country. This may be the case in other areas which are well settled or which are more or less evenly settled, but at this stage of our development in Canada I do not think it is fair and proper to take the larger areas and to them only assign one member because there are not very many people living in the area.
I should like to refer to some actual figures for a moment to illustrate the point I am trying to make. I was very appreciative of the

table put before the house by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). I also obtained some figures which are very close to his on this particular matter. I should like to take the province of Ontario as an example, based on the most likely redistribution, with an average population of about 70,000 persons per riding. Taking the 20 per cent variance that is now provided in the bill, only 31 of the present 85 seats would come within this 20 per cent. That is, only 31 of the 85 would not have their boundaries altered. If we increased the variance to 33J per cent, or one third, an additional 23 ridings would be undisturbed by redistribution. But in addition to this there are another 31 ridings which, whether the variance is 20 per cent or 33J per cent, are bound to have their boundaries changed because they have a very small population or a very large one.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the objective of redistribution is to give improved representation to the people and to make the representation of each individual more equal in this house. I think it should also be an objective that as few as possible traditional voting patterns and voting areas should be disturbed. On this basis I would say that if we could, by accepting a one third tolerance, give fair and equal distribution without disturbing traditional voting patterns, it would be much more fair. For this one province even, with a variance of 33J per cent there would still be 31 Ontario ridings which would have to be changed, and this must automatically affect to some degree the adjacent ridings. For those reasons, Mr. Speaker, I believe that a 20 per cent tolerance in a country such as Canada is not sufficient and we should raise it, to be fair, to at least a one third tolerance.
My second objection concerns the procedure to be followed in giving effect to the report of the commissioners. As is set out in the bill which we have before us, the procedure is something like this. The commissioners for the province give their report and it is transmitted to Mr. Speaker and tabled here in the house. Following that, if there is objection to the report one third of the members from any given province may give formal notice. If that objection is raised by signed petition, the matter can be brought to a vote of the house. We will suppose there is an objection by one third of the members and that the house, by vote, decides that the commission has made a mistake and the boundaries are not right. Therefore a resolution is passed referring back to the commission the report which they made. The commission can then ignore completely the vote which was taken in the House of Commons by the majority of the members and 20220-50
Electoral Boundaries Commissions say: "Well, this may be parliament's opinion but it is not ours, and we confirm what we have already said". I say that this is a complete abrogation of the principle of the supremacy of parliament.
In this bill we are trying to take this matter out of political partisanship. Therefore, if we are going to do that we should not allow an intervention of parliament which can then be abrogated by an inferior body such as the commission. We must not be put in a position where parliament makes a decision and then says to the commission: "You have made a mistake in the boundaries which you have made out, so reconsider your report", and then have the commission saying: "Well, we do not agree with you". This is a situation which is not a correct one, and the bill should be amended before it is brought into effect.
I have a solution to this problem, Mr. Speaker-because there is no use in objecting unless you have one. If we are going to insist on the commission's having the last word, then I submit that it should not have the last word after parliament has made a decision. My proposal is that if there are objections raised in the house by a sufficient number of members from the province concerned the reports will then automatically go back to the commission instead of going back by a motion of the House of Commons. In this case the objections would have been met and satisfied, the attention of the commissioners drawn to the fact that members of the house are not satisfied with their report, and they can then reconsider the matter. But it should not be a formal act of the House of Commons to refer the matter back, because we are just making the House of Commons look ridiculous if the house makes a report one way and another body says they do not agree with it, that they stand by their original report. So to this extent I think the bill ought to be amended. It should be either one thing or the other. If parliament is to have the last say, then it should have it. If parliament is not going to have the last say, then let us not go through the formality of a vote in this house only to see it abrogated.
Frankly, I have always felt that parliament should have the last say in the question of an appeal. I still think this is a proper procedure, and I have always felt that the commission's report ought to be accepted unless the house, having voted on the matter, finds an error. The House of Commons should be the court of appeal in this matter, as it is in any other. I have not changed from this viewpoint because I think we have to accept the responsibility for our
774	HOUSE OF
Electoral Boundaries Commissions acts in this house, and that we cannot pass them off to a commission. If. however, it is the wish of the house-and I do not want to quarrel about it because I should like to see a non-partisan commission set up-that parliament does not have the last say and that we are going to abrogate all our responsibilities to a commission, then we should do so and parliament should not intervene by a vote which is ineffective.
On this same point, Mr. Speaker, I was interested to find that the bill provides that if one third of the members from any one province raise objection, action is then taken. Naturally, being interested in my own position in the house as a member of the Progressive Conservative party from the province of Ontario, I ask myself what it does to me. Well, Mr. Speaker, the Conservative party has 27 members from Ontario in this house out of a total of 85 from the province. We are just about four members short of being able to raise objection to the report which comes in. Here we are in the position that if we do not agree with the report brought in for the province of Ontario the members of the official opposition are unable to do anything about it, because we are just a few members short of one third. That is why I am suspicious of the fact that one third is suggested. I am going to suggest that one quarter is sufficient.
The members on the government side have two dandy alternatives. If they like the report they let it in. If they do not like the report they can appeal it. Unfortunately, we on this side of the house acting alone cannot do this, nor can any of our friends from the other parties, unless we all join together in one grand slam. Perhaps we will not agree. I merely say that as far as the province of Ontario is concerned this a most unfair and suspicious circumstance. I do not agree with the fact-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the hon. gentleman permit a question?


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Yes.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Does he think that the proportion of members from a given province who can put down an objection is too high if it is one third?


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Yes.


John Whitney Pickersgill: And that it should be, say, one quarter; or that any one member should be able to do it?


Gordon Harvey Aiken: No, Mr. Speaker, I do not go that far. I do no think that any one member should do this. I am suggesting that in the particular circumstances and in the light of the situation here, there is a provision in the bill as it now stands which appears to me to be partisan and unfair. It may not have been intended that way and I stand to be corrected by some of my colleagues; but whether it is intended or not, it is partisan and unfair. We represent a large number of members in a province which will have 89 or 90 seats in the house. Therefore I feel, under these particular facts and circumstances, that one third is too high, particularly if my suggestion is accepted that a substantial number of objections would be sufficient to have the report sent back without a formal vote of the house. I should like to suggest that one quarter shoud be the proportion, but that is purely for my own selfish reasons, I admit. Nevertheless, here is a situation which will leave certainly the Conservative members from Ontario in a very difficult position.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Could the hon. gentleman say where it would leave the Liberal members from Saskatchewan?


Gordon Harvey Aiken: They are not even near, Mr. Speaker. I agree that there are other inequalities, but I am just wondering why one third was picked out of the air.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It was not picked out of the air.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, may I call it ten o'clock?


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, March 11, 1964