1964-03-12

Hon. Waller L. Gordon (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I am tabling today copies of the budget papers in English and in French. As in previous years, the budget papers are in two parts; part 1 is an economic review of 1963 and part 2 is a review of government accounts for 1963-64.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, is it automatic that the budget papers will be appended to Votes and Proceedings for today?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I apologize, Mr. Speaker; I did not hear the question.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am asking, is it automatic that the budget papers which the Minister of Finance has tabled will be appended to today's Votes and Proceedings?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: That would be agreeable, Mr. Speaker, if it is the wish of the house.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house agree?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Minister of National Defence whether he is now in a position to answer the several questions that were asked last week regarding the searches or raids that took place in connection with arms and ammunition. Second, is it a fact that some of the arms and ammunition picked up in the province of Ontario have been taken to another province for storage?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I have the answers to two or three of the right hon. gentleman's questions. I have had them for several days, but I thought he was no longer interested in them and they are not here at the moment. I will send up to my office and get them, and perhaps they will be here in a few minutes.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I have waited patiently for the minister to answer these questions. If he has the answers, it will be the first time he has had them since this matter was raised.


Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of National Defence whether he has declared Orangeville, in central Ontario, to be a sensitive area, and if such is the case, have the arms that were taken from this particular armoury been deposited anywhere in the province of Quebec?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I am sure it is not a sensitive area, Mr. Speaker, and I am sure that if any arms were picked up there it was because of inadequate security. They will be returned just as soon as adequate security provisions can be made.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister inform the house why Kootenay West is still a sensitive area?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I presume, Mr. Speaker,
because the sensitivity that existed has not yet been removed.

Mr. Speaker, while I have the floor perhaps I could answer the two questions from the right hon. Leader of the Opposition that I took as notice last week, one in which he asked whether the Renfrew collegiate institute had been raided-that is his word, not mine -and the second as to whether certain arms had been removed from the war museum here in Ottawa.
In answer to the first question I can inform him that arms and ammunition were temporarily removed from the Renfrew collegiate institute pending inspection of security arrangements.
In answer to the question on the war museum, this museum was transferred from the jurisdiction of the Department of National Defence to the department of northern affairs during the period when the right hon. gentleman was prime minister. It has recently, I am informed, been transferred to the responsibility of the Secretary of State.
The museum authorities have given information that on the advice of the R.C.M.P., for which they were very grateful, some modern arms were removed from exhibition by members of the museum staff. The right

Inquiries of the Ministry hon. gentleman referred to this action as being unworthy of the Department of National Defence. I can inform him that the Department of National Defence was in no way involved.


John George Diefenbaker: Well, Mr. Speaker, that is one thing in which the department was not involved.
There is now something else I want to ask the minister. Have any arrests been made as yet for the various offences committed in the breaking in of these armouries? Also I want him to answer the question asked a while ago by the hon. member for Grey-Bruce as to whether arms that were seized at Orangeville, Ontario, for security purposes have been removed to the province of Quebec so that security will be assured.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, so far as I am aware there have been no arrests. I would have to check this to be sure that-


John George Diefenbaker: Don't you have better liaison than that?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: -there are none yet. In respect to the other question, I shall have to take it as notice.


Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Jolieife-L'Assompiion-Montcalm):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of National Defence.

I should like to ask the Minister of National Defence whether the arrangements he takes with respect to armouries in the province of Quebec apply also to all provinces in Canada.


Hon. Roger Teillei (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Ask your leader about it.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: I asked a direct question of the Minister of National Defence, and I expect to receive a direct answer.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, appropriate
security measures are being enforced in various parts of the country.


Hon. Leon Balcer (Three Rivers):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Minister of Justice if he can tell us whether any progress can be reported in the investigation of the armed thefts at the three armouries in my province. Is there any progress report.


Hon. Guy Favreau (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I can answer my hon. friend by telling him that I am being kept continually informed about the matter, but I do not think it would be in the public interest to reveal any details as to the progress.


John George Diefenbaker: Does the Minister of Justice maintain the same discretion toward the Minister of National Defence in furnishing information?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: As a supplementary question to the Minister of Justice, has the minister the names of any persons who are known to have participated in these robberies of armouries, names which have not been revealed to this house and the public?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, under my responsibility my answer must be the same, and if it were not the same I would not be discharging my responsibilities.



PREPARATIONS FOR SENDING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Pictou):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. Is it correct that H.M.C.S. Bonaventure is heading for Halifax from exercises in the eastern Atlantic to be available if Canada decides to sent troops to Cyprus, and that other steps have already been taken to assure a quick movement to that island? If this is correct, can he advise the house what these other steps are?
Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National
Defence): Mr. Speaker, it is correct that Bonaventure is on her way to Halifax to be available if required provided a decision is taken to move troops to Cyprus. May I say that in the event a Canadian contingent participates, the troops would be moved by air, but Bonaventure would be required for the movement of certain heavy equipment and supplies, including reconnaissance vehicles.


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of National Defence whether he can tell us if the troops for Cyprus will be issued with different uniforms, badges and flags from the British troops so that a similar incident to that which occurred at the time of the Suez crisis will not happen again in Cyprus.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is any problem at all. Our excellent troops are well identified and wear shoulder badges indicating their country. I do not anticipate any problem at all.



CRANBERRY PORTAGE, MAN.  UNNECESSARY EXTENSION OF SCHOOL FACILITIES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Can the

minister inform the house whether consideration is being given or will be given by his department to financial assistance to the community of Cranberry Portage, Manitoba, in respect of school construction, which would have been unnecessary if sufficient advance notice had been given in relation to the curtailment of the mid-Canada line facilities at that point?
Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National
Defence): Mr. Speaker, this question of the continuation of the facilities in Cranberry Portage is being dealt with by my colleague the Minister of Defence Production. Unfortunately he is not here, so perhaps I could take the question as notice.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquiilam):: Mr. Speaker, last Monday I directed a question to the right hon. Prime Minister regarding the statement or the criticism that was levelled at the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation by the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Dupuis) in which he called upon the C.B.C. to mend its ways and accused it of featuring talks by separatists and extremists. The Prime Minister said at that time he had not had an opportunity of examining the exact remarks made by the minister, and promised to look into the matter and make a statement to the house.


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I have had that opportunity now, and I hope my hon. friend has had the same opportunity to read the text. The Minister without Portfolio, in the course of a strong appeal for national unity, criticized certain programs of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation which in his view gave too much publicity to extremists, "an anarchic minority" as he termed them, thereby becoming, as the minister put it-and I quote from the text of his statement

"inadvertently a propaganda instrument playing into the hands of dangerous terrorists". This, the minister felt, prejudiced an important function of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation which, in the minister's words, is "mainly to promote the voice of reason, unity and mutual understanding".
My colleague also paid a warm tribute in his speech to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in saying that it was, to quote from his speech, "always known for the quality of its programs and its contribution to culture in our country", and as rendering
Inquiries of the Ministry "priceless service to the population". The Minister without Portfolio hoped that this service would continue, and I am sure that we all join in this hope.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question. May I ask the Prime Minister if individuals are to be barred from the C.B.C. because a minister of the crown thinks they are extremists, how this term is to be defined and to whom is it likely to be applied as the years go by?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has its own control over those it invites to speak before the microphone.



MONTREAL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Maurice Lamonlagne (Secretary of Siaie):: Mr. Speaker, in reply to a question which the hon. member for St. Mary (Mr. Valade) asked me, on March 6 last, in connection with the construction of a C.B.C. building in Montreal, I wish to advise him that no change has been made to this project, the details of which have already been given to the hon. member by my predecessor, on June 13, 1963.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Labour. In view of the report in La Presse that the province of Quebec and the province of Newfoundland are opposed to the minimum wage legislation to be introduced by the federal government, is the government still going ahead with this legislation?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen the report in the particular newspaper to which the hon. member referred, but this morning I saw a report in another Montreal newspaper attributing the very opposite sentiments to the premier of Quebec. Until I have had a chance to examine these reports I cannot really comment upon them, but the intention of the government with respect to the minimum wage legislation has not altered.


Hon. Theogene Ricard (St. Hyacinlhe-Bagot):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Labour. Is it a

Inquiries of the Ministry fact that the minister of labour of the province of Quebec did object to a wage of $1.25 an hour being adopted?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, it is not my role to report upon views expressed at any federal-provincial conference, or to represent the views of any particular minister at the conference. The views of the province of Quebec will presumably be reflected by the premier of Quebec in a statement which was reported to have been made by him in the press this morning.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, 1 am simply asking the minister this. Is it or is it not a fact that the minister of labour of the province of Quebec objected to this legislation?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is the same question in another form.



REPORTED COST OF OLDER WORKER EMPLOYMENT PROGRAM

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Labour. His department having spent approximately $200,000 in three months, or an average of $2,132 per man hired, does the minister propose to continue the older workers program?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: There is no intention, Mr. Speaker, to drop the older workers program. If my hon. friend would look at the most recent estimates and statistics with respect to the number of older workers placed in employment, in relation to the total expenditure on advertising, he would find the averages he quoted are widely extravagant.


Alfred Dryden Hales: The figures I quoted are the figures given to the house yesterday, covering the period up to January 31, and my question was based on the figures given in the house.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, may I raise a point of order and advise my hon. friend that the most recent information was given to the public through a press release on Tuesday evening.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Mr. Speaker, why weren't the most recent figures given to the house? I would refer the minister to page 675 of Hansard for March 9, and the answer given to the hon. member for Simcoe East (Mr. Rynard).


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The information given in the house was completely accurate with respect to the time period requested. I am suggesting that more recent information was given on Tuesday night, which throws out of kilter the allegation suggested by the hon. member.


Mr. Graffley:: As a supplementary question-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We are progressing into a long debate on this particular subject. The minister has given an answer, and I think the house should accept it as of now.



VAL D'OR-PAYMENT OF UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE TO STRIKING MINERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Real Caouetie (Villeneuve):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Actually there is a strike going on at the Manitou-Barvue mine in Val d'Or, but the company has decided to close its doors completely. In view of these circumstances, why are the workingmen not receiving their unemployment benefits, when the mine has decided to close its doors?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I shall be glad to investigate this particular case and advise my hon. friend later.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Postmaster General a question of which I gave him notice. At the request of Mr. Marcel Hamel, director of the newspaper Le Portage, and on behalf of Canadian weeklies, could the minister assure the house that the privilege of free mail delivery of 2,500 copies will be maintained for rural weeklies?


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. gentleman for having given me notice of his question. I am pleased to assure him and other members of the house that the free distribution privilege now in effect for rural weekly newspapers will not be affected by the resolution on the order paper proposing certain amendments to the Post Office Act. In this connection I refer the hon. gentleman to section ll(2)(c) of the act and to the resolution itself.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice.

According to a report published today in a newspaper, the Minister of Justice, a few days ago, met a delegation of people from various ethnic groups who asked the department to take steps in order to protect Canadians of Jewish origin against calumny and slander.
Can the minister tell the house in what areas, towns or localities the Canadian Jews have to put up with more calumny, slander and discrimination than any other ethnic group of our country?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for asking that question since it enables me to report to the house on the talks it was my pleasure to have yesterday with a delegation representing a variety of ethnic groups.
Those people feel that the kind of publications about which they complain and want my department to make an investigation direct their attacks particularly against the Jewish people but that any ethnic group in Canada could be affected. No particular group was mentioned during our meeting; we concerned ourselves merely with the principle involved.


David Réal Caouette: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the Minister of Justice assure the house that there is in Canada no more discriminating against the Jewish people than against any other group?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, having made no investigation in that connection I am not in a position to make any definite statement. All I know is that this question is extremely important.



REQUEST FOR REPORT ON INDEPENDENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Auguste Choqueile (Lolbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice.
Following the clash which occurred yesterday in Montreal, the Gazette carried this headline:
RIN Blames Authorities, Warns Of Further Bloodshed.
Does the minister intend to ask the R.C.M.P. to carry out a full investigation and submit a complete report on the revolutionary groups of the independentist movements in Quebec, so that the Canadian people may live in security and peace?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I feel that I cannot divulge to the house the orders I intend to give to the R.C.M.P. since that is a confidential matter.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Tucker (Trinity-Conception):: May
I direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I regret that I was unable to give her sufficient time to consult the authorities to enable her to reply to my question.
In view of the result of last night's hockey game between members of parliament and members of the press gallery, in which the latter went down to defeat by a score of 9 to 1, will the hon. lady consider asking appropriate authority to issue assistance by way of grants to improve the quality of amateur sport amongst the members of the press gallery? May I add, Mr. Speaker, that this question was not prompted by a member of the press gallery.


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Minisier of National Health and Welfare):: I thank my hon. friend for giving me notice of his question. I did not have an opportunity of reading the question, but I shall be happy to refer the request to the advisory council on amateur sport and fitness. I am only pleased that my hon. friend did not ask that I intercede with the appropriate provincial governments in an attempt to obtain disability allowances for the press gallery players.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: In
the absence of the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources I wish to address a question to his handsome parliamentary secretary. This question is begotten by my socialist principles, my Anglican conscience and my parliamentary curiosity. It is based on a statement made by the minister in the House of Commons on March 4 with regard to the administration of Eskimo affairs in Quebec and the memorandum of understanding which he read.
My question is, when the minister speaks of consultations with the Eskimos does he intend to secure consultation with the Eskimos with regard to the transfer of jurisdiction, or simply to consult with the Eskimos as to the method of transfer?


Mr. John N. Turner (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: I might say in answer

Inquiries of the Ministry to my hon. friend that we received notice of his question just before the sitting today. I realize that the question is prompted by certain legitimate biases on his part. I might say that this gives us an opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to repair perhaps some of the confusion which was raised in the house on Tuesday. I would refer the hon. member to Hansard for March 4, pages 505 and 506, where there is recorded a statement my minister made reporting on the negotiations between the federal government and the government of Quebec.
I believe there is a fairly clear statement on page 506, which reads as follows:
Both governments agree that such consultation is a prior condition to the execution of the. agreement. After the commission has reported, the two governments must also agree upon what modifications and recommendations suggested in the report should be accepted and included in the final text of the instrument of transfer.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Consultation concerning what? The minister does not define what he means by consultation.


John Napier Turner: I am taking the position at the moment that the text, which as my minister pointed out is not an agreement nor an agreement to agree, speaks for itself; and if the hon. member still is not satisfied I ask him to put the question to my minister when he returns from legitimate government business in Kamloops.


Mr. Nielsen:: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not wish to prevent any hon. member from asking any question, but it seems to me that this question was very thoroughly aired a day or two ago.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: The minister is not here to answer, and it seems to me that hon. members would be well advised to wait until he returns.


Erik Nielsen: With deference, Mr. Speaker, I would think the matter is of sufficient importance, and in view of the fact that several different versions of the activities of the government have been given by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. What is the question? I think we can skip the comments.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, a proper foundation has to be laid to put the question.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Erik Nielsen: Perhaps hon. members opposite would defer the noise until I put the question. My question is based on the state-


ment of the minister on March 4 in which he said, as found on page 506 of Hansard:
The consultation, that is the communication of the terms of the agreement.. .will be made through a commission-
My question to the parliamentary secretary or the Prime Minister or the Minister of Justice or whoever chooses to answer is this. Is this the extent of the consultations which have been referred to by the various cabinet ministers and the parliamentary secretary?


John Napier Turner: In answer to that I can only agree with my hon. friend that the question is important, and important enough for the minister on his return from Kamloops on government business, to interpret his own statement.


Erik Nielsen: May I ask a further supplementary question. Can the Prime Minister or the Minister of Justice inform the house whether the membership on the commission, which was referred to by the minister in his statement on March 4, is confined to officials of the government of Quebec and the government of Canada?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker. The membership has not been determined yet.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Would the Prime Minister undertake that while the consultations are going on the Eskimo people will be furnished with independent advice?


An hon. Member:: From whom?


Mr. Fairweather:: I refer to advice independent of either the government of Quebec or the government of Canada.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, that is why we are having a consultative commission.


Erik Nielsen: Can the Prime Minister give the house his assurance that there will be a representative or representatives of the 2,500 Eskimo people concerned taking part as a member or members of any commission to be set up to consider the conditions of any agreement to be arrived at?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, all the Eskimos, I hope, will be taking part in the sense that they will be those who will be consulted.



CANADIAN CONSTITUTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Remi Paul (Berthier-Maskinonge-De-lanaudiere):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to

direct a question to the Minister of Justice.
On what grounds could the minister say, at this stage, as he did last night in his address to the Kiwanis-Maisonneuve club, that the Laurendeau-Dunton commission will necessarily bring about some amendments, a complete revision, or a rewriting of the British North America Act?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I never said before the Kiwanis-Maisonneuve club that the report of the Laurendeau-Dunton commission would necessarily bring about some amendments to the B.N.A. Act.
What I said was that, even if it does not fall within the purview of the Laurendeau-Dunton commission to make recommendations in this respect, because the work of that commission will have given all regions of Canada the opportunity to become aware of the interests of the others and to understand them, one of the results of the commission's report will be to enable us to know in what direction we should act: that is amend, perhaps revise, modify, change the B.N.A. Act.


Rémi Paul: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Justice. In the circumstances, does he not feel that it would be advisable to take the necessary legislative action to repatriate the constitution immediately?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I think that in the circumstances, the question is a hypothetical one which, for the moment, is not related to the previous question, and I feel that is just about as far as I should go into the matter at this time.
[Text]	'IEM



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. Nasserden (Rosihern):: Mr. Speaker,
I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Would the minister inform the house whether any of his powers, duties or functions have recently been transferred by order in council to another department?


Hon. Harry W. Hays (Minister of Agriculture):: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Edward Nasserden: As a supplementary question, following the transfer of some of these duties or functions, have any of them been returned to the minister by order in council?


Harry William Hays: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. Was the order in council-


Mr. Jorgenson:: Mr. Speaker-


Harry William Hays: I did not hear the hon. member's question.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -was the order in council, transferring certain duties-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. There seems to be a little confusion. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My question is directed to
the Prime Minister. Were the orders in council transferring certain duties from the Minister of Agriculture to the Minister of Forestry, and then transferring them back, made public?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I believe they were, Mr. Speaker, and that the proper course was followed. I suggest that if my hon. friend will wait for a day or so, we shall have a statement to make on this whole matter outlining what actually took place and which transfer of functions took place.


Stanley Howard Knowles: As a supplementary question, is the Prime Minister aware that chapter 235 of the revised statutes requires that orders in council be published within 30 days, and that more than 30 days have gone by since February 3?


Warner Herbert Jorgenson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Agriculture if he would care to name the branches that have been transferred out of his jurisdiction by order in council.


Harry William Hays: I think the Prime Minister answered this question.


Warner Herbert Jorgenson: No, he did not.


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Agriculture. Is the Minister of Agriculture still responsible for the Farm Credit Corporation?


Harry William Hays: Again, an answer to this question has been given by the Prime Minister.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have just said, if I may mention the matter, that I propose to make a statement on the transfer of duties very shortly, a statement which will cover this point.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the Prime Minister's statement explain the action of the government in not keeping the law which requires publication of orders in council within 30 days?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The hon. gentleman has made an allegation that the law has been broken, and I am going to look into the matter. He surely does not expect me to accept that allegation without question. There is no evidence he has submitted which shows that the law has been broken, and I propose to deal with the matter in the statement I intend to make.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Can the Prime Minister give us the date of the order in council which transferred these duties?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I cannot, but I propose to get that information.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Royal: Can
the right hon. gentleman tell us which minister is responsible today for the operation of the Farm Credit Corporation? We have to know that.


Some hon. Members:: Answer.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Same old bunch.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Let us have an answer.


An hon. Member:: Don't you know?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Of course I know.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi-


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: We would appreciate an answer.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Well, I will be glad to give an answer.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I told the house that I would be making a statement shortly with regard to the transfer of duties which has taken place, and that I would deal with the point raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, who asked me some question of detail which I could not answer since I cannot be expected, surely, to keep these details in my mind. The transfer of duties does not include change of responsibility for the Farm Credit Corporation. The hon. gentleman should know where it is now.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask the Prime Minister if, when he makes this report, he will explain why it was necessary to transfer certain jurisdiction away from the Minister of Agriculture and then transfer them back to him again?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will be very glad to give an explanation of that, which I am sure will be to the satisfaction of the hon. gentleman.


John George Diefenbaker: Was it satisfactory to the Minister of Agriculture to see these things taken away?



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Heward Grafftey: wish to address a question to the Minister of Justice. Does the penitentiary commission refuse applications for work from individuals over the age of 45 with respect to jobs other than the guarding of prisoners?


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


William Heward Grafftey: No, Mr. Speaker. On a point of order, this is an urgent question because it affects-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Same old bunch.


Mr. Speaker:: I noticed when the sitting opened this afternoon that there seemed to be a spirit of hilarity in the chamber, but perhaps I might suggest to hon. members that it has gone far enough. I am having a great deal of difficulty in hearing the questions which hon. members wish to pose.
The hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi on a point of order.


William Heward Grafftey: Yes, Mr. Speaker. On a point of order, this is a most urgent question which affects the civil service commission, the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Veterans Affairs. It is a question which raises the problem of older workers. I am simply asking the Minister of Justice whether people over the age of 45 are being refused contracts for work by the federal penitentiary authorities in respect of positions other than those of guards. This is a very urgent question-the Prime Minister laughs.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I feel reasonably sure that the minister is ready to answer the question if the hon. member would just allow him to do so.


Guy Favreau: can answer that question by saying that except in the case of custodial officers there is, I am informed, no age limit imposed. However, if the hon. gentleman cares to discuss any individual case with me I shall be pleased to assist him.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Would the Minister of Justice not agree that this represents a different view from the one which the Minister of Labour is taking in trying to secure the hiring of people of 45 years and upward?



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Léon Balcer: I should like to ask the Minister of Transport if he has received a request from the air line pilots association of Canada that a public inquiry be held into the T.C.A. crash at Ste. Therese, as is the practice in the United States and the United Kingdom. I believe there have been many requests to this effect, but in my opinion this request from the pilots association is important.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: I think I informed the house the other day in answer to a question of which the Leader of the Opposition had given me notice that the inquiry which is now being carried on is still very far from complete. I am sure the former minister of transport will recall the tragic crash of a Maritime Central Airways plane in eastern Quebec which also took up a great deal of time for the consideration of the necessary evidence without which there could not have been a public inquiry. In that case when the evidence had been collected on the basis of which an inquiry could be conducted, there was a public inquiry, and I feel that in this situation the same course should be followed.
I think the hon. gentleman knows as well as I do the very difficult task this represents. As soon as the work of gathering together all the fragments of this aircraft has been completed, and the fragments have been assembled so there may be something on the basis of which an inquiry can be held, a decision will be made as to whether there should be a public inquiry. However, I think it would be unwise to prejudge that question in the meantime. That is the position which has been taken with respect to all inquiries in this regard.


Léon Balcer: Am I right in suggesting that the minister is refusing the request of the pilots association at this time, and that he is not in accord with its suggestion that there should be a public inquiry? All the minister says is that the matter will be considered. Why does the hon. gentleman not tell us right now that there will be a public inquiry?
Inquiries of the Ministry


John Whitney Pickersgill: I thought I had explained. The hon. gentleman is altogether wrong in saying I have refused or acceded to any request. I have said that at the time which my predecessors have considered appropriate in similar circumstances, a decision will be made. However, it would be a great mistake to prejudge that decision until evidence is available upon which an intelligent decision could be made. I can assure the hon. gentleman and everyone who is interested in this matter that if there is the slightest evidence that a good purpose would be served by holding a public inquiry, the government will not hesitate for one minute to hold one.



DELAY IN RECEIPT OF COMMITTEE PROCEEDINGS OF LAST SESSION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, I should like to reply to two or three questions that I had taken as notice.
First, on March 5 last the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon) asked a question concerning the French reports and proceedings of house committees. This is the report I have received:
Number of publications 118.
Number of publications translated 118.
Of this number, 18 are being edited at present and seven are already at the printer's.


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question to the Secretary of State concerning delays in the printing of reports and proceedings. Could the minister tell us if those papers are written in French, whether the English version has already been published and, finally, whether they are papers of the last session?


Maurice Lamontagne: I shall inquire, Mr. Speaker.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question? Does the government propose to correct this situation in order that the French and the English printed copies be placed on an equal footing since the two languages are official here?


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, I said last week that the government had made decisions and taken steps to greatly improve the situation as regards translation.

Inquiries of the Ministry



ARTS. LETTERS AND SCIENCES REQUEST FOR INTERIM REPORT BY ROYAL COMMISSION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['Mr. Speaker, I had a good deal to say about this yesterday in the house, to the effect that we had already taken a stand and were in touch with the Scandinavian governments, and have been for a good many weeks, in the hope that we could associate our efforts with theirs and those of other countries to get a stand-by international force ready for the kind of emergency which we are facing in Cyprus today.']
Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Balcer) directed a question to me concerning an interim report by the royal commission on bicul-turalism and bilingualism. I am advised that the commission does not plan, for the moment at least, to submit an interim report to the government.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Prime Minister is in a position to tell the house whether any progress has been made in connection with the Cyprus situation and the mobilization of forces for a peace keeping operation in that country.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the conversations with the secretary general in New York are still going on. So far as the Canadian government is concerned, I can say those conversations have been completed, because we have informed the secretary general-and the Secretary of State for External Affairs is seeing him this evening in New York-that we will be participating in a peace keeping force for Cyprus if and when such a force is constituted by the United Nations.
We did, as the house knows, lay down certain conditions some time ago, and I think that those conditions have been substantially fulfilled. One condition was that the force must have a United Nations association, and it is certainly going to have that. But we have been preoccupied since those conditions were laid down in trying to establish the kind of association with the United Nations that would ensure that the United Nations force would be able to do the job of peace keeping entrusted to it and would have enough authority to do that job. I emphasize that because in this particular situation it would be a peace keeping force, not between armed forces of two countries but between armed forces inside a country, and this is a very difficult and delicate situation to meet.
This is related to the second condition which we laid down, that the force should be

operating in Cyprus with the knowledge and approval, and under the authority, of the government of that country. The government of Cyprus includes the president, who is a Greek Cypriot, and the vice president, who is a Turkish Cypriot, and it has not been easy to establish the kind of co-operation with the government of Cyprus that would ensure that all elements of the population of Cyprus would co-operate with the force.
The third condition was that satisfactory arrangements should be made for the financing of the force. So far as Canada is concerned that has not been a difficulty. Though we do not consider the proposed arrangements to be the right way to finance a United Nations force, and it is not a United Nations one in that sense, nevertheless we are willing to meet our own expenses. If there is any difficulty in that regard it is not a difficulty concerning Canada, though it has remained a difficulty in respect of other possible participants. I learned today however, that this particular difficulty may be removed by contributions from the United States, the United Kingdom and one or two other countries. I hope the force will now be constituted at once as a United Nations force, and we have indicated to the secretary general that if it is, we are willing to participate. Preparations have been made for that participation, so that a Canadian contingent of the United Nations force could get to Cyprus by air with a minimum of delay.


John George Diefenbaker: The Prime Minister has given a very full outline. I now ask him whether these two discordant executives, the president and the vice president of Cyprus, have been able to come to an agreement on welcoming the setting up of a United Nations force. Has there been any agreement or meeting of minds in that regard, as apparently no action is going to be taken until there is, if I understand the Prime Minister correctly?


Lester Bowles Pearson: While there may be discordancy or differences of opinion, I think it is correct to say that the government of Cyprus as such has expressed its willingness and its desire, through the president of Cyprus, to have such a force. The secretary general of the United Nations has considered this satisfactory and we are therefore willing to accept the secretary general's statement that the force is going there with the approval of the government of Cyprus.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. There was another condition which the Prime Minister mentioned in his statement of February 19. That was with respect to a mediator being appointed at the same time. Has any progress been made in this regard?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, we had hoped, and expressed our hope, that the mediator would be appointed at the time the force was set up, because, as experience of peace keeping operations has shown, sometimes the very crisis of an emergency can facilitate a political settlement. But in this particular situation I understand it is not likely that the mediator will be chosen and able to proceed to Cyprus until after a peace keeping force has reached that country. We are not ourselves insisting upon the appointment of a mediator at the same time as the establishment of the force, though we would hope that the mediator would be appointed very, very soon. I understand there has been one nomination of a mediator, who was not acceptable to all parties concerned, and the secretary general is looking for someone else. Meanwhile I do not think this will, or should, hold up the constitution of the force and the sending of that force to Cyprus.


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, can the Prime Minister inform the house the size of the contingent which Canada has offered to the United Nations force, and what unit or units will compose the Canadian contingent?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I cannot give all the details in this connection because the final details will be determined to some extent by the number of personnel for the peace keeping force that can be supplied by other members of the United Nations. But we have indicated our willingness to supply a battalion, with ancillary troops.


John George Diefenbaker: How many countries
have now agreed to supply forces?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am not absolutely certain of the details, but I think the secretary general is in touch with five or six members of the United Nations who have been invited to supply forces. I do not know how many of those have agreed at the present time to send forces at once. I think they are still discussing with the secretary general one or two outstanding difficulties in the way of their contributions. But so far as we are concerned, those difficulties have been removed.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the secretary general of the United Nations been able to ensure the cooperation of the governments of Greece and Turkey with the United Nations peace keeping force, in the event that it is sent?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I think the secretary general has received assurances of co-operation from the three governments concerned, the Greek government, the Turkish government and,
Inquiries of the Ministry of course, the United Kingdom government which will be participating in the force. I believe the secretary general is satisfied with those assurances.


Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of the recent decision of the parliaments of the three Scandinavian countries to establish a joint military force to form the nucleus of a permanent United Nations peace force, can the Prime Minister tell us whether the Canadian government has considered having Canada follow a similar course and making a contribution to such a permanent force?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I had a good deal to say about this yesterday in the house, to the effect that we had already taken a stand and were in touch with the Scandinavian governments, and have been for a good many weeks, in the hope that we could associate our efforts with theirs and those of other countries to get a stand-by international force ready for the kind of emergency which we are facing in Cyprus today.



CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he has received a request from any of the prairie provincial governments asking the federal government to rescind the agreement which exempts the C.P.R. main line routes from taxation by the provinces or municipalities. If so, what has been the federal government's response to such a request?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have received communications from the premier of Alberta, I think from the premier of Manitoba, and from the premier of Saskatchewan, and the matter is under consideration at the moment.
[Later:f
Mr. Speaker, may I add to my answer to the question put by my hon. friend from Medicine Hat. Not only have we received these communications, but we have arranged for a meeting with the premiers of the three prairie provinces within the next week or two.


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


Mr. Gerard Chapdelaine (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, the question I wanted to ask was put by the hon. member for Berthier-Maski-nonge-Delanaudiere (Mr. Paul).

Inquiries of the Ministry



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Can the minister clarify a statement attributed to him by the Winnipeg Free Press to the effect that the government is considering building a war memorial and museum on Nepean point in Ottawa? I ask this question particularly since the project had apparently been dropped but is now to be proceeded with.


Roger-Joseph Teillet: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I would care to comment on this matter. That story, if I am not mistaken, was the result of a conversation which was held exploring what might be done under the circumstances, but I do not think I would have anything to add at this time.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe East):: Mr. Speaker, I am prompted to ask the minister of health and welfare this question. From a number of phone calls and conversations that I have had with reputable physicians who are very anxiously awaiting the outcome of the minister's committee findings, it appears that these physicians have been using the drug parnate very successfully in the treatment of mental depression. My question is, is the minister in a position to give the names of the members of the committee investigating this drug? Are they at work, and what is the target date for their report?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. friend for having sent me notice prior to the opening of the house. I should like to say that I telephoned my departmental officials, who informed me that five members of the medical profession have been asked to sit on this committee and discussions are going on with them at this moment. As soon as we have a decision from them as to whether they are prepared to serve I shall be pleased to communicate their names to the house. I expect that this will be by the first of next week. Once they have agreed to serve, or other persons in their place have agreed, investigations will begin at once. Two meetings of the committee have been scheduled, but because of the Easter recess one [Mr. Chapdelaine.)

will be in early April and the other in late April. We expect to have a report on their findings not later than May 1.


Philip Bernard Rynard: A supplementary question. I wonder whether the minister would try to hurry up the meeting because this is a question of great urgency. Some people who are using this drug, when taken off it, may find themselves in mental hospitals or other hospitals, and we just have not got the beds for them. This is really urgent; it is of real concern to these physicians and it is of great concern to the patients themselves, their relatives and friends.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, my hon.
friend knows why it has been necessary to set up the committee, and I would ask him to balance that with the interests of public welfare. Furthermore, as to when the committee may meet, these are members of the profession who are particularly busy and they serve on the committee in a voluntary capacity for the good of the country as a whole. I am sure my hon. friend will appreciate that they will move as quickly as they possibly can and as soon as arrangements can be made for them to meet.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gene Rheaume (Northwest Territories):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration whether he is in a position to advise the house that the legislation setting up the Indian claims commission will be introduced very shortly.


Hon. Rene Tremblay (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Macleod asked a similar question last Monday. As I mentioned in the house on February 27, we are at present seeking the views of the Indians and other interested organizations on the provisions of the proposed Indian claims legislation which was introduced last December. When the comments and suggestions are received they will be considered, and it is hoped that the bill with any changes that may be required will be introduced at a later stage this session. The timing will depend in large measure on how long it will take to complete this process.


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the minister; when the replies are received from the various Indian bands will they be made available to the house?


René Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, those requests will be presented to the minister and the minister will present them to the government, and the amended bill will be presented to the house.


Mr. Lawrence E. Kindt (Macleod):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is it the intention of the minister to wait until the 825 Indian reserves make their reports to him, or is he going to take some action?


Mr. Speaker:: I think that question is completely out of order.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Danforlh (Kent, Oni.):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister indicate his reply to the protest of the Chatham, Ontario, chamber of commerce concerning the declared intention of the government of Canada to impose tonnage tolls on shipping on the Welland canal, and which draws to the attention of the government the great additional economic penalty this action would impose on the tradesmen of southwestern Ontario who are already burdened with grievous discriminatory rail transportation rates.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, this matter is under consideration, and my hon. friend knows how anxious I always am to do something for Chatham.



MANITOBA AND SASKATCHEWAN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. R. Southam (Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, but in his absence perhaps the acting minister or his parliamentary secretary will take it as notice. In view of the existing low grain quotas in the western area of Manitoba and the eastern area of Saskatchewan, would the minister ask the Canadian wheat board to pay special attention to those areas immediately upon the opening of spring navigation on the great lakes?


Harry William Hays: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to take this question as notice and pass it on to the minister.
Electoral Boundaries Commissions FINANCE



INQUIRY AS TO REVISION OF BANKRUPTCY ACT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reid Scott (Danforth):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. In view of the various representations made to the government, will the minister inform the house if we may expect at this session legislation to update, revise and amend the Bankruptcy Act to give more adequate protection to creditors and workers?


Guy Favreau: This matter is now under very active consideration by myself and my officers, but at the moment I am not in a position to report on it.



REDISTRIBUTION


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Wednesday, March 11, 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.
Lawrence Elliott Kindt: Mr. Speaker, I only have a few points to which I should like to refer at this time concerning redistribution Bill No. C-72. There are at least three points that I should like to mention. Of course the most important aspect of the bill relates to the amount of the tolerance which is to be allowed between urban and rural constituencies. There seems to be among representatives from the rural constituencies, in contrast to those from urban constituencies, a certain lack of unanimity, shall I say, on this question. In other words the representatives of urban constituencies are talking in terms of a low tolerance, whereas those who come from rural constituencies, knowing what the situation is in those constituencies, feel we should have a tolerance of at least 33J per cent.
I was quite interested in listening to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre when he spoke on March 10. Having done some research, he brought to the attention of the house the fact that the Conservative party introduced a motion to have constituency boundaries fixed by an independent judicial body some 61 years ago. As has been pointed out, the subject has been referred to many times since then. I am grateful, however, to the hon. member for Winnipeg


Reid Scott: Mr. Speaker, in rising to participate in this debate I suppose it is really unnecessary to repeat some of the things that have been said, namely that this is a genuine attempt to take redistribution out of the hands of political parties and put it in the hands of an independent commission and, second, that it is also an attempt to redress the imbalance between rural and urban constituencies. The only thought one might have on this aspect is that perhaps we should not load ourselves with too much self-congratulatory language because we are finally accepting a reform that is really decades overdue.
I want to deal briefly with five aspects of the problem and the matters that have been raised in the course of the debate. I wish to support as strongly as possible the idea of ten commissions so that redistribution can be completed before the next election, thus enabling the next parliament to represent more truly the population of Canada. Second, I want to urge the lowest possible variation in population between constituencies in order to finally abolish the rural tyranny that has dominated this parliament for decades.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Reid Scott: I thought you might like that. Third, I want to suggest a method of appointment of commissioners in the statute itself which we feel will meet the objections raised by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillin-gate. Fourth, I want to point out the vast discrepancies which already exist in our urban areas, some of which have been dealt with by the hon. member for Northumberland. Finally, I want to urge that redistribution be completed without any increase in the membership of the house, because per capita Canada already has the largest parliament in the world.
On the first aspect of ten commissions, I am in favour of this not just because they will have better knowledge of local and provincial conditions but rather because it is imperative that redistribution be finished before another general election comes upon us. In theory this house is supposed to represent the Canada of 1951, but in actual fact it represents the Canada of 1941 or 1931, when the country was far less industrialized and urbanized than it is today.
If we permit another parliament to be returned under the present system we will approach 1970 with a parliament that will be 40 years out of date, and 1 for one would not want to see that happen. Because of the minority position of the present government, and partly because of the apparent desire of the official opposition to bring about an election somehow or other it is imperative that 20220-53
Electoral Boundaries Commissions this work be done as quickly as possible. The real problem and the real need is speed so that the redistribution can be effective before the next election.
In looking through the debate to date I cannot find that any speaker who has suggested one commission has given a reason of substance. The only member who came even close to it was the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka, who suggested that in his view it would be desirable for the same set of rules to apply right across the country. I really think the obvious argument is that the representation commissioner serving on all bodies will be well able to act as a channel of communication, but certainly nothing can be permitted to stand in the way of the speed which is necessary to complete the job.
Second, Mr. Speaker, I want to deal with what I call the rural tyranny in Canada. If this redistribution is going to be a genuine reform of the House of Commons we must redress the imbalance between rural and urban ridings. I have listened to speakers of both of the major parties, and they have said that naturally, inevitably, by common acceptance, by custom, by tradition, in the name of justice, etc., etc., rural constituencies must be smaller than urban constituencies.
My question is why, in essence, just because of tradition or practice, should a rural seat be smaller than an urban seat? Surely the essence of the whole democratic principle is one man, one vote, and if you are going to permit the rural areas to throw the urban districts out of balance then you are getting away from this essential principle.
This had recently been a matter of adjudication in the United States supreme court, and in one of the judgments issued by Mr. Justice Black, he makes some interesting comments which I think are very applicable to Canada today. He says;
To say that a vote is worth more in one district than in another would not only run counter to our fundamental ideas of democratic government, it would cast aside the principle of a house of representatives elected 'by the people,' a principle tenaciously fought for and established at the constitutional convention-
It would defeat the principle solemnly embodied in the great compromise-equal representation in the house of equal numbers of people-for us to hold that, within the states, legislatures may draw the lines of congressional districts in such a way as to give some voters a greater voice in choosing a congressmen than others-
While it may not be possible to draw congressional districts with mathematical precision, that is no excuse for ignoring our constitution's plain objective of making equal representation for equal numbers of people the fundamental goal for the house of representatives.
That is the high standard of justice and common sense which the founders set for us.

Electoral Boundaries Commissions


Miss Jewett:: But they have the senate, with only two from each state.


Reid Scott: Well, I am not getting into the specifics of how they are going to try and carry out the judgment. All I am suggesting is that the words of the judgment, which make a strong plea that democracy is one man, one vote to the greatest extent possible, are highly relevant in Canada today.
Except for the speech made by the hon. member for Northumberland (Miss Jewett)- about which I wish to say a few words-I do not think any member who has participated in the debate made a genuine case for the contention that rural constituencies must be smaller. We have heard the argument of larger areas, but in essence this only applies to ten or 12 constituencies, and they, of course, will probably need the greatest measure of tolerance. We have heard about the difficulties of communicating with rural voters, and about the great demands made on the time and energy of rural members of parliament.
These discrepancies can all be corrected in other ways, and they can be corrected quite adequately without paying lip service to the democratic principle of equality of representation. I have examined the square mile areas of the ridings and, as I have said, there appear to be only 10 or 12 that will require the full tolerance.
I suppose that many years ago it was difficult for a rural member of parliament to keep in touch with his scattered flocks, but today, with the advent of radio, television, telegrams and automobiles, this condition is eliminated to a large extent and, if it does exist, the remedy surely lies in some more adequate system of allowances and travelling expenses, rather in departing from the essence of democracy, that ridings should have equality of representation.
Communication in an urban riding is far more difficult than in a rural riding, because in a constituency with 80,000 or 90,000 people, all living in an urban area, there is a high degree of mobility. People are constantly moving to new locations and it is extremely difficult to make contact with them. The cost of contacting them by television is prohibitive for a private member, the same as it is in rural areas.


Pauline Jewett: They don't have any.


Reid Scott: As I have said, Mr. Speaker, the problem of communication is just as difficult in every way in urban constituencies as it is in rural constituencies. Again, if this is really a problem, the solution was pointed out yesterday by the hon. member for Northumberland, in the provision of more adequate staff and facilities for members to do this

very essential work. The solution does not lie in tearing up the whole idea of equality for the ridings, but in giving assistance and more staff to the rural private members.
I reject in toto the argument that the demands on rural members are so enormous. In the city ridings we have to handle all kinds of unemployment insurance appeals, pension appeals and immigration matters. There is a host of problems that constantly occupy our time, and in fact to service a riding properly there are not really enough hours in the day.
The only two reasons which I thought were seriously advanced in favour of rural ridings were those advanced by the hon. member for Northumberland. As one reason she stated that organized pressure groups in Canada are largely an urban phenomenon, and they complement and help the urban member of parliament. She argued that to counterbalance that the rural areas should have a lot more members in parliament; but it has always been my impression that one of the most successful lobbies in Canadian history has been the farm lobby and, so far as the western farmers are concerned, over the years it has managed to extract all kinds of concessions.
I realize this may not be the case in eastern Canada, where farmers may have special problems of representation. Some of these have been pointed out to me in conversation with the hon. member for Northumberland, but again surely the answer does not lie in having more members of parliament. The argument will carry no greater weight by repetition, and it is my contention that the solution lies in better organization of the eastern farm organizations so that they can more adequately and effectively present their case to the government.
We also have to consider whether the main duty of a member of parliament is to represent the special interests of his constituency. Surely he has a higher duty to perform in looking at the broad spectrum of Canadian development and the country as a whole.
Further, the urban member of parliament is not supplemented by pressure groups because frequently we find ourselves fighting against them. All I have to mention in this respect is the Canada pension plan, where urban members will be resisting the campaign of the insurance companies. This private group will not supplement my position on the bill at all, but will make my presentation all the more difficult because of the biased and misleading information they are spreading among the public.
If the urban lobbies are so adequate, why then do we have a lack of urban redevelopment, public housing, homes for the aged-


Mr. Fisher:: Hospital beds.


Reid Scott: -and a hospital bed shortage in metropolitan Toronto, as the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) has said?
As I say, the mutual problems of the rural and urban member balance out. Both have problems and none will be solved by increasing the number of rural members.


Pauline Jewett: What about the daily press?


Reid Scott: I am coming to that. The second argument was to the effect that the daily press is also largely an urban phenomenon, and therefore we need more rural members to counteract it. This is in some ways an insult to our intelligence, to suggest that we are creatures of these press groups who mould public opinion. Radio and television on a national scale are just as important in the moulding of public views and public opinions. This, again, raises the question of urban pressure groups which has been touched on before in this debate. Many members And themselves resisting, fighting against, the daily press and the special areas of interest and privilege which many of the papers represent.
The other disturbing feature of the speech made by the hon. member for Northumberland was her seeming acceptance of the idea that we should go along entirely with the suggestion now before us, since it represents a considerable improvement over a position which had produced an atrocious disproportion between urban and rural ridings. It seems to me that this is too quick an acceptance. What we are trying to do here is to right a wrong, and the time to do it is now, in this legislation. I do not think we should accept what some of us might well consider as being a half way measure. After all, are the rural areas so much less intelligent that they need more help to prevent their being hornswoggled by city slickers?
I would doubt it. Then again, it is almost insulting to suggest that members representing urban ridings are not prepared to be solicitous about, and interested in, the problems of rural Canada.
Let us consider the position as it affects the urban area of Metro Toronto, which consists of about 1,700,000 people, to whom are alloted 18 seats. I went through the figures relating to various ridings in Canada, admittedly choosing the smaller ones in order to dramatize the point, and I find it would take 44 ridings to make up the same populaton as is represented by our 18. This seems to be a very wide discrepancy. Where is the equity in this? Where is the justice, or the equality? If this reform is to have any meaning at all, we must finally deal with the imbalance between rural and urban representation. I think the only situation in which a tolerance of 20 per cent
20220-53J
Electoral Boundaries Commissions should be applied is in respect to those ridings which cover huge areas. For the rest, I believe we must throw off this notion that there must be rural ridings with small numbers of voters and urban ridings with large numbers of voters.
The official opposition has recommended a variation of one third. Personally, I think that is absurd. Consider what it would mean. The mean population of Ontario ridings is supposed to be 70,000, according to the figures of my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). Accepting a tolerance of one third, this would mean the figure could be up to 93,000 or down to 43,000. What kind of equity is this? What kind of allegiance to the democratic ideal does this represent? The 20 per cent figure, if widely applied, would be only slightly less absurd, because the population of ridings would vary between a high of 84,000 and a low of 56,000. Under the proposal for one third tolerance carried to its limit, three million rural votes would equal six million urban votes. If the proposal that there should be a 20 per cent tolerance were accepted and widely applied, four million rural votes would equal six million urban votes. Again, where is the equity in this?
The rural areas will always be at an advantage because their population is either remaining stable or slightly declining, whereas the urban population is growing at an extremely rapid rate. If we take into consideration the numbers of young people coming into our cities from the rural areas, we come to realize that the rural areas will always have a built-in advantage in their favour, even though we were to start out on a basis of virtually no tolerance at all. This is why I feel that a tolerance figure of between 5 and 10 per cent is a better answer to this problem than the suggestions which are being put forward, and that the suggestion that there should be a tolerance of one third is absolutely impracticable. What I am really trying to say is that the arguments of hon. members, pro and con, in terms of distances they must travel, the numbers of people they must represent, and so on, cancel themselves out. All we are really doing is this: We are representing people, and if we are to carry out the demo-crotic principles to which we subscribe, all of us should represent approximately the same number of people.
I should like now to say a word about urban imbalance, referring again to the area of metropolitan Toronto. It is significant that in this area the population of the city of Toronto proper has grown from 703,000 in 1951 to slightly over 716,000 in 1961. So there has been virtually no expansion in

Electoral Boundaries Commissions
population. Yet this area is represented by 11 members. On the other hand, the metropolitan suburbs have grown in population from 473,000 to one million, and they are represented by seven members. What can justify such a great disparity in representation within an area such as this? I have no doubt a similar situation exists with regard to other metropolitan centres. In the new redistribution, Toronto ought to receive about 22 seats, and of these seats 13 should go to the suburbs and nine to the city itself. Some of the city seats ought to disappear, through amalgamation with others. I see the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Macdonald) smiles. The larger number of seats must go to the metropolitan district in order to redress the present imbalance.
My fourth point has to do with the method of appointing the commissions. I wish to subscribe to the view expressed by my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), when he made the plea that the government should accept the principle that the commissioners to be appointed should be specified in the legislation itself. I do not say this out of any discourtesy to the leaders of the major parties represented in this house, but it seems to me that however fair and impartial they might seek to be in their selection of personnel to serve on these commissions, there would always be a suspicion attached to this method of procedure, and I think the only way to dispel this suspicion would be to remove the selection of commissioners completely from the control of either of these right hon. gentlemen. The hon. member for Northumberland suggested that the two individuals whose appointment we had been discussing should be named by the chief justice of the supreme court and the chief justice of the exchequer court. I think we could easily arrange that the chief justice in each province should have the right to appoint from a group set out in a schedule to the bill or that, in default, the proposal of the hon. member for Northumberland be accepted. I really do not think this matter presents any difficulty at all. I think its solution along the lines I, along with others, have suggested, would give this bill real meaning. It would completely sever any connection between the making of these appointments and the leaders of any of the political parties.
Finally, I wish to suggest that no increase in the number of seats in this house would be warranted. Already, per capita, we have the largest or nearly the largest parliament on earth. The average number of electors to be represented in the Canadian parliament will be about 68,000. Perhaps hon. members would be interested in a few comparable figures:
[Mr. Scott.l
Britain	85,000
United States	437,000
Australia	90.000
West Germany	108,000
France	74,000
Italy	80,000
India	880,000
Japan	208,000
Netherlands	80,000
Soviet Union	198,000
Mexico	215,000
In conclusion, I wish to emphasize two main points. If we really intend to carry out the democratic principle of equality between ridings; if we really believe that democracy means one man, one vote, then we have to work for the least possible tolerance in carrying out redistribution. Second, we must make absolutely sure that the means of redistribution, the commissions and those who compose them, and the method of appointing commissioners, is divorced as far as possible from association with any of the political parties. If both these things can be accomplished we shall have put on the statute books an act which will lift the whole business of redistribution to a higher level, and which will be well worthy of our support.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to speak at length in the debate on second reading of the bill now before us, but there are a few points I should like to bring to the attention of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill), who is sponsoring the bill.
In clause 17, we see that notice of the day, time and place fixed by the commission for its public hearings shall be given by advertisement published in the Canada Gazette at least 15 days before the commencement of such sittings. However, in subsection 4 of the same clause, it is said that persons wishing to be heard by the commission, at its public sittings, should give notice at least ten days before the sittings begin. That means that between the time the public hearings are advertized in the Canada Gazette and the last day on which people may notify the secretary that they wish to appear before the commission, there is an interval of only five days. I do not think that is enough, especially in view of the fact that the Canada Gazette might be late in reaching certain parts of the country. Therefore, I suggest that subsections 2 and 4 be compared with one another in order that more time may be allowed.
On the other hand, reference is made here to a 20 per cent variation one way or the other in the population of a constituency. I should like the Minister of Transport to ask his staff to try and find out what effect that would have in the province of Quebec, so

that he can tell us, within a day or two, how many urban constituencies there would be in Quebec, how many constituencies in the city of Montreal, how many in the city of Quebec and how many in the rest of the province. The experts in his department could do this work in a matter of hours and, with that information, the members of this house would know what to think of the whole question.
We would like to have those figures for the province of Quebec; if the members from other provinces, such as Ontario, knew those figures, they might be able to judge the matter more impartially.
It is obvious that there must be less voters in a rural riding than in an urban one. There are several reasons for that. For instance, at election time, in a rural riding with 35 to 40 parishes, you have to hold necessarily 35 or 40 conventions if you want to see all the voters in the riding; in a city, two or three are sufficient to meet all the voters, at least all those who are anxious to hear their member.
On the other hand, it might be interesting to learn from the Minister of Transport or his department, before consideration of the bill in committee, the percentage of ballots cast in rural and urban ridings. We could see then what is the proportion of the people who are interested in having a representative in cities and towns, as compared with the country, and what is the proportion of those who are not interested.
Mr. Speaker, with regard to the commissions, must there be one for the whole of Canada, one for each province or must we adopt some other formula? Personally, I am inclined to support the suggestion made by the member for Shefford (Mr. Rondeau) a few days ago-four commissions, one for the western provinces, one for Ontario, one for Quebec, and one for the maritime provinces.
If we were to create a commission for each of the ten provinces, the one which would have to look after Prince Edward Island would have, of course, much less work than that responsible for the province of Ontario.
In my opinion, four commissions, such as I have just mentioned, could meet all the requirements.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly support another suggestion of the hon. member for Shefford, who proposed that the clause providing that two members of the commission shall be appointed, one by the leader of the government party and the other by the leader of the official opposition, be replaced by a clause providing that two members of each province would be appointed by the leader of the party which has the most elected members in the province concerned.
Electoral Boundaries Commissions
That was done with regard to enumeration. For instance, in my riding of Lapointe, before the last general election, the returning officer appointed two enumerators, each one representing one of the parties which had secured the most votes in the riding.
In the riding of Lapointe, the Ralliement Creditistes appointed one and the Liberal party the other, because they were the parties which had polled the most votes.
In my riding, the Social Credit party had polled 16,000 votes, the Liberals, 11,000 and the Conservatives only 2,200. That is to say, in that riding, when it came to appointing enumerators, the act had recognized that the two parties which had polled the most votes were those which the electors of the riding were interested in. Even if the Conservative party is the official opposition in the house- it is practically non-existent in the riding of Lapointe, since it polled only 2,200 votes, whereas the Social Credit party polled 16,000-it was not deemed advisable, with regard to the enumerators, to appoint every time representatives of the party in office and the official opposition, but rather representatives of the two parties which polled the most votes.
I think the same thing should be done at the provincial level. In the province of Quebec those which polled the most votes were the Liberal party and the Ralliement Creditistes. The Conservative party comes third. If the Conservative party loses some popularity and gets less support from the people, why should it have more rights than another party which gets the support of the majority of the people in that province?
I believe this principle should be applied in some provinces.
No member would be appointed to that commission-anyway, other parties would appoint some: the N.D.P. would appoint some in one or two provinces, Social Credit in one or two provinces.
In these conditions, Mr. Speaker, we would secure a greater degree of objectivity and fairness in the selection of the commissioners. I believe that this point could be taken into serious consideration. If it is the purpose of the present government to create a really independent commission, while respecting democracy, this proposal should be put into practice or taken into serious consideration.
I would like to draw a last point to the attention of the house, Mr. Speaker.
Section 12 provides:
Upon receipt by the representation commissioner from the dominion statistician of the return referred to in section 11, the representation commissioner shall calculate the number of members of the House of Commons to be assigned to each of the provinces subject and according to the provisions of section 51 of the British North America Act, 1867 and the rules provided therein.

Electoral Boundaries Commissions
Referring to section 161 of the British North America Act, we can see two rules which are liable to affect the number of ridings in each province, following each census.
No province should ever have less ridings, less members in the House of Commons than it has senators. This means that in a province, such as Prince Edward Island, which has four senators, even if the population did not justify four ridings or four members, it would always have four members even if proportionately the total population only allowed for two members, or even one. The same thing could be said of New Brunswick and probably, after the new census, of Nova Scotia.
Mr. Speaker, I am not against that. I think a province should definitely have certain rights and also a minimum of representatives. The basis is the number of senators. It is as good a basis as any. We are not entirely against that. But as it is the basis on which representation for some provinces was established, we should also consider a second basis mentioned in section 51 of the British North America Act, namely that a province could never have less members than another province whose population had not increased according to the last census. Thus, provinces cannot have a lesser number of members compared to another province in the course of a ten year period, or fewer than two representatives, when this can be done, under the same law, after two census.
Mr. Speaker, if such bases are established to protect the representation in each province, I should like to suggest a third criterion which I have already mentioned to the house. I do it in all fairness in the hope it will be seconded by the hon. members of the house in that connection.
I have already dealt with that point here, but I wish to bring up the subject again. In view of the fact that some provinces are assured that the number of their ridings will never be less than that of their senators, even if their population decreases proportionately to the number of senators they are allowed, I feel that the province of Quebec should be given the assurance that the number of its ridings will always be proportional to the number of ridings in the whole country. Since Quebec now has 75 seats out of a total number of 285, it should be ensured of the same proportion, that is 75 to 265, after the next census as well as after the ones to come in 10 or 20 years from now. The proportion should always be the same: 75 to 265. Let there be such a guarantee, Mr. Speaker, so that French Canada may always have sufficient representation here to be heard and respected.
[Mr. Gregoire.l
The day may come when Quebec's population will not account for as high a proportion of the whole as it does at present but the majority of its inhabitants will still be French Canadians. So, I feel Quebec should continue to have the same number of members in the house, that is a proportion of 75 to 265. That would remove the fear that the people of Quebec have of becoming a smaller and smaller minority which would be overwhelmed here by an increasingly greater majority. If such a guarantee were given to Quebec and if our province were ensured of always having the same proportion of members regardless of its population, the fear that grips our people at present have would be dispelled just as the people of Prince Edward Island are sure of always holding at least four seats because it has four senators. If the same guarantee were given to the province of Quebec, I feel that several sources of conflict would be eliminated.
That, Mr. Speaker is the point on which we would like to have some explanations. I think that the Minister of Transport is in a position to give us the information that we requested from him at the beginning. He will have the opportunity to supply that information at the committee stage.
Mr. Speaker, it is necessary to have an independent commission in which politics would no more interfere with redistribution. We must congratulate the government for that. However, we should endeavour to respect as much as possible certain criteria, and that is why we wanted to express those ideas today and ask for information before considering the bill clause by clause.


Mr. Lloyd Francis (Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, this measure has been introduced to the house and leading spokesmen on the government side have indicated that while it has, of necessity, to be a government measure, at the same time a broad tolerance has been given in terms of an attempt to arrive at an agreement, or to accept suggestions from whatever quarter they come, which would improve the legislation. Looking over the record I find that when the debate on a similar measure took place in this house on November 26 and 27, namely that of the representation commissioner legislation, there was a much broader degree of agreement than appears to be the case this time. Perhaps it was the desire at the beginning to work at a higher level and reach agreement in terms of a general principle as much as possible. I hope that it is not an omen that as we come closer to the day when we will have to reach a deci-

sion on the reports made by the boundaries commission, even less agreement in this house will exist.
I for one am concerned with one particular aspect which I think is a matter of basic equity and justice, and it relates to the degree of tolerance to be accorded. Spokesmen on this side of the house have indicated that they might be prepared to look at some modification of this rule. I am concerned, as one member representing a riding which historically was agricultural and rural and which has had a very large suburban population superimposed on it, about the effect of any deviation from this rule.
I was very pleased to hear the remarks of the hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Scott) because he anticipated some of the remarks I propose to make. Looking over the record of Hansard to this date a disinterested observer would have no great difficulty in deciding what kind of riding each speaker represented, because the speaker concerned has so faithfully mirrored the problems of his or her particular riding. But we have to think in larger terms, and I find it rather distasteful to hear allegations of a superior burden being thrown on certain types of members who represent rural areas, that members representing urban areas do not represent people concerned about public affairs, and that there is some superior implication of virtue among those who represent rural ridings. I do not think that this sort of thing does any of us any good, Mr. Speaker, because a member's job is what he makes it, whether he represents a rural riding, an urban riding, a suburban riding, or whatever it is. The members of this house do their jobs as they see fit.
I have heard one member on the other side of the house who represents a large, sparsely populated rural riding in the north talk of the difficulties of communication. I sat in this house a little while ago and heard the same member read some material into Hansard so that it could be disseminated freely over the C.B.C., when strictly according to the rules he could not otherwise have done this. He had to read it into Hansard word for word before he could get the distribution provided through the publicly-owned facility in his riding. In many of the sparsely populated areas of the country the problems of communication are much less difficult than those in many of the urban, disjointed and new areas which are growing rapidly, such as many of the suburban areas.
I represent a substantial rural area and I am very proud of that fact. But in rural areas there is a much more stable and organized form of government in the form of rural township councils. There is an established
Electoral Boundaries Commissions press, and I call to the attention of the hon. member for Northumberland (Miss Jewett) that it may not be a daily press, but it is a very effective rural weekly press. There is also in my area just as effective community organization in the form of institutes, such as the women's institutes, agricultural institutes, the farmers' union and a number of other groups, all of which send delegations to see me-and I am very happy to see them. But the suggestion that the incidence of lobbying is somehow peculiarly an urban phenomenon is one with which I cannot agree.
It seems to me that if we were to presume which members are hard working and which are not, which is a very dangerous thing to do, the kind of areas in which I think the greatest problems occur are those which are growing the most rapidly, such as the suburban areas. One particular area in my riding had 64 people at the 1956 census but had grown to 6,500 at the 1961 census. That area has about every kind of problem you care to mention. There is the problem of negotiation with its municipal government for assistance under the municipal development and loan fund. It has all the problems of the kind described, and very effectively described, by the hon. member for Danforth with regard to unemployment insurance, and other problems.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that the basic case is not limited to the job of a member; that is only one side of the problem. The other side of the problem is the responsibility to the people we represent. What kind of a house are we going to have? Is there such a thing as basic justice in the representation of urban, suburban and quickly growing areas in this country? If we have a fairer representation of these areas, there will be more interest in urban renewal legislation, more interest in getting ahead with legislation which deals with the decaying cores of cities, such as we find in many quarters of this country. I am not talking about my own party at this time.
I know there is very effective representation of western agriculture in this house. We are very happy to see it. No one can suggest, however, that representation which is so keenly geared to the fact that the average member in a riding of this type represents fewer voters than the member representing an urban riding does not have something to do with the kind of house we have, and the kind of policies that this house will adopt.
There is such a thing as the right of the people of Canada to be represented here. One of the problems is the problem of the member, and the other problem is the problem of the citizens we are representing and the kind of

Electoral Boundaries Commissions service they get from a more equitable form of distribution. I, for one, will not support a general policy of modification of this tolerance rule. I am prepared to make one concession. The hon. member for York-Scar-borough (Mr. Moreau), a good friend of mine, spoke once before on this subject and made a suggestion which I thought was a reasonable one. He referred to those electoral districts listed in schedule III of the Canada Elections Act. There are 21 of them. There are special problems in connection with ridings of this type, and we will accept that. There is no question that in dealing with this kind of area some consideration will have to be shown. I am not questioning that. However, I do question the wisdom of taking the argument for this kind of riding and applying it to the older, established smaller rural ridings, and the urban central ridings with similar problems, where the populations are declining. I am not prepared to say that the tolerance which is devised to protect the problems of a riding such as Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador, for example, should also be the rule which is introduced to protect the more central urban or suburban area or a rural riding in one of the more established parts of the country.
When we move to the committee stage, Mr. Speaker, I, as one member of this house, am not prepared to support a modification of this tolerance to any percentage greater than 20. In my personal view, it is feasible and possible to work within a tolerance very much smaller than this. One of the great difficulties is that the population base with which we are working is already out of date. In the case of my own riding the 130,000 people, to whom reference was made in this house, now number over 150,000. This riding is continuing to grow as many of the suburban ridings in Canada are. If we take the 20 per cent figure, which is already almost three years out of date in terms of the census base, and if we project that forward in terms of the growth which will inevitably take place, we will have ridings by 1971 with even greater disparities than now occur when we compare the riding of York-Scarborough with many other ridings.


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, the bill under study is one of the utmost importance, which concerns all members of the house and holds the attention of the general public as well as of all those who, in one way or another, are keenly interested in the elections in this country.
First, I must say that I wholeheartedly approve the arguments submitted to the house by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), the first speaker for the Conservative party.

I think that he raised some very important points. He did so brilliantly and I admit that they represent the position of the majority of the Conservative party.
I am as concerned as he is about the fact that we will have ten commissions instead of one.
I feel that the work of those ten commissions will not bring about a unified system throughout the country. This proposal of ten different commissions, independent from one another, can give rise to rather marked differences which would actually change the electoral picture of a province with regard to another. I am in favour of only one commission.
It was claimed that ten commissions would save time. In my opinion, one commission, assisted by ten sub-committees, would also speed up the work and preserve the uniformity essential in any democratic country.
The hon. member for Yukon raised another point. Fie suggested that instead of a 20 per cent tolerance, we should have at least 33J per cent. One readily realizes, since this debate began, that all members for urban ridings have urged that the 20 per cent be reduced, while members for rural constituencies have fought to preserve the 33 per cent tolerance or even to have it increased.
I feel, in all fairness, that every vote should be equal in Canada. I read with great interest the judgment delivered by the U.S. supreme court, a few days ago, setting forth the principle that all votes are equal in every part of the United States for the election of a congressman.
After listening to the various arguments put forward in this connection and having studied more closely the political history of Canada-hence the need for making certain remarks based on history and geography-I feel that the 33 per cent tolerance should be maintained, because as a Canadian member of parliament I can only approve exceptions such as those based on historical considerations, like in the case of Prince Edward Island, where the number of voters in some ridings is much less than in big cities and where, for all that, there cannot be fewer members of parliament than senators. Such provisions based on the history of this country, are excellent and this leads me to think about the results of the next redistribution in the province of Quebec.
It would be a tragedy if old constituencies such as Kamouraska, Bellechasse, Mont-magny-L'Islet, Dorchester, located on the south shore of the St. Lawrence, which have some historic associations and have been represented in this house since the beginning of confederation, would disappear on account

of the next redistribution. If certain exceptions based on the history of Canada are accepted, I wonder if certain exceptions should not be made for these historic constituencies of the province of Quebec, because in the first place, they are specially interested in the federal administration, and I will explain why. These are rather underdeveloped constituencies which have to face problems different from those of Montreal, Quebec city or even Three Rivers, Sherbrooke or still this new riding, the Saguenay constituency where important natural resources have just been discovered.
The ridings on the south shore of the St. Lawrence, which depend mostly on agriculture and primary industry, need the services of the federal Department of Public Works, of the Department of Agriculture, as far as the application of ARDA is concerned for example, more than any other constituency of the province of Quebec. They need ferry and transportation services. These constituencies should be represented and benefit from certain exceptions.
That is the reason why I am asking the house to keep a tolerance of at least 33 J per cent, so that we would not have too many drastic changes, especially in that part of the province where we find counties such as Kamouraska, which has been represented by Sir Thomas Chapais, by Hon. Ernest Lapointe and other outstanding figures of the political history of Canada and more especially of Quebec. In fact, I know that it is with a heavy heart the old political organizers of these counties, whether they be Conservative or Liberal, will see their county disappear. 1 believe that we must make allowance for this viewpoint, which may be termed as sentimental, but which is based upon the history of the province.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I wish to deal with an aspect that has not yet been raised in the course of this debate but which is, I think, of great importance. I wish to refer to consultation with the provinces. My opinion on this matter is well known and is based on the opinion of great historians and statesmen, not only from my province but from all Canada.
My opinion is quite clear and it is that confederation is a pact between two nationalities, between provinces and, in 1864, at the time the Quebec resolutions were passed, the provinces agreed upon a method of distribution of the seats. And when the British North America Act was passed, it is precisely that method of distribution agreed upon by the provinces which was recognized.
The history of our country reveals that each time redistribution was discussed, that matter was brought up, and as far as I am 20220-54
Electoral Boundaries Commissions concerned, I think it is essential that the provinces be consulted in such circumstances.
Furthermore, all I have to do to reinforce my argument is to refer to the bill itself which bears the following title:
An act 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.
Why did the government use the words "readjustment of the representation of the provinces in the House of Commons" and not "representation of the population of Canada in the House of Commons"?
To my mind, it is precisely for the reason that where the British North America Act mentions members of the House of Commons, it infers that they represent the provinces in the House of Commons. Moreover, one can rely on several texts to support this argument. And on this matter, I should like to quote the opinion of Mr. Skelton, who was recognized as an authority on constitutional law around the 1880's. Mr. Skelton protested, or at least expressed the opinion that if the B.N.A. Act was a treaty, the provinces' consent was required in the case of an amendment to the representation in parliament, since the balance of regional influences would be changed.
And it is precisely on the words "change in the balance of regional influences" that I want to base my argument that the provinces should be consulted, because if there were no exception in our system, there would not be no danger in not consulting the provinces. If we were to simply decide that all votes are equal and that each riding should have exactly the same number of voters, there would be no problem. But what we face today is a system with many exceptions.
During this debate, it was said that a province cannot have less hon. members than senators. Well, I think the federal government could, some day, increase the number of senators and thus, indirectly increase the minimum number of representatives a province can have.
I am convinced it is in the interest of the province of Quebec to be consulted every time the matter of redistribution comes up and more particularly this year, when a new system is being adopted whereby redistribution is put in the hands of quasi-judicial commissions instead of parliamentarians.
In the past, that job was left to parliamentarians, who represented their provinces in the Canadian parliament, but this time the system is being changed. That is why I say that if we really believe that confederation

Electoral Boundaries Commissions is a pact, and if we have a redistribution system, it must be based on an agreement between the provinces. Besides, if we recognize that principle, we must also recognize the principle of the preliminary consent of the provinces.


John Whitney Pickersgill: As it is nearly five o'clock I wonder whether the hon. gentleman would permit me to ask him one question. I have been listening with great interest to his argument and it seems to me that the argument he has been making is based on the assumption that this bill in some way changes the rule respecting the number of members each province can have. It does nothing of the kind, of course. All it does is to change the method of dividing the number of members fixed by the British North America Act inside each province. It does not in any way change the balance between the provinces. Does the hon. gentleman not think that under the British North America Act, whether you call it a pact or whatever you call it, the duty was imposed upon parliament, not upon a conference of the provinces, to look after all of the mechanics of redistribution? What he is suggesting is a complete change in the constitution, if one were to go and consult the provinces about how this parliament should do this job. That is my question.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Is it a speech or a question?


Léon Balcer: I think it is a very pertinent question, Mr. Speaker, and this is something that should be considered. But my argument is that anything that has to do with redistribution, if it could have some effects on "l'equi-libre de 1'influence nationale, doit etre 6tudi6-"


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder whether the hon. gentleman could finish his sentence.


Léon Balcer: I just want to bring that to the attention of the minister. I think it is just as important for the provinces that the provinces should be consulted even if for the present the change is only inside the provinces because a province might be interested in seeing that "1'equilibre regional ne soit pas derange". This argument has been used. Let us not forget that in 1943, for instance, the government decided that there would be no redistribution on account of the war. At that time the province of Quebec lodged a protest and you cannot say that anything was being changed as between one province and another. It was just saying it will be established, and even the province of Quebec protested and thought it should have been consulted.


John Whitney Pickersgill: But that was because the constitution was not being followed.


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, notices of motions and public bills.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Gilles Grégoire: That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all correspondence, telegrams or documents exchanged between the Minister of Transport or any of the officers of his department and the president or any of the officers or employees of Trans-Canada Air Lines concerning the purchase of a new medium range aircraft by Trans-Canada Air Lines.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Before the hon. gentleman begins, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the understanding we had the other day still holds, that after the debate on the first motion the votes on both motions would be taken, one right after the other?


Gilles Grégoire: Yes.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, last week, when the discussion stopped at six o'clock, I had pointed out to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) the fact that this motion for papers did not concern the correspondence exchanged between the crown company T.C.A. and other private companies, that is the one which produces the DC-9 or the French company which produces the Caravelle, but the correspondence between T.C.A. and the Department of Transport, as has just been read out:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of ail correspondence, telegrams or documents exchanged between the Minister of Transport or any of the officers of his department and the president or any of the officers or employees of Trans-Canada Air Lines-
There is no question of the other companies.
-concerning the total or partial construction of a new medium range aircraft for Trans-Canada Air Lines.
Mr. Speaker, the refusal of the Minister of Transport to accept the request of the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) is paradoxical, because since becoming a federal minister his position differs entirely from the attitude he had when sitting in the opposition. Indeed, not so long ago, the present Minister of Transport still sat in the ranks of the opposition where he was one of the fiercest in the house to ask and fight to obtain information from the government; at

that time, he was shocked, because of his democratic principles and the people's rights when the government failed to produce the documents or correspondence exchanged between some department and some company. Now that he is sitting on the treasury benches, he takes the very attitude which the members of the former government had with regard to him, a year and a half ago. When he will return to the opposition ranks-very soon, I hope-he will again be anxious to obtain information from the government and fight hard to get it.
Mr. Speaker, I submit that we are living in a country that should have a responsible government. If the government is responsible it should be to this parliament and to hon. members wherever they are sitting in this house, who, in their turn, are responsible to the Canadian people. We were sent here by our Canadian voters to protect them and serve their interests. Now, parliament-and I would even go further and say the Canadian people-is entitled to know how the federal government spends public money.
Mr. Speaker, we will not extend this debate any longer, but I submit to the attention of the Minister of Transport that the hon. member for Lapointe is right when he asks for this correspondence. I cannot understand why the Minister of Transport, a man fundamentally honest who always wanted to know everything, in this house as well as outside, objects to making known what transpires between his department and a crown corporation, in the present case Trans-Canada Air Lines.


Mr. D. S. Macdonald (Rosedale):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say only a few words at this point on the general question, because 1 think the principles relevant to this particular situation were very aptly put before the house by the heavier hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Regan). Rather, I would like to address myself specifically to some remarks put before the house in a very learned fashion by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) which may be found recorded at page 598 of Hansard, for March 5, 1964.
As noted in the right hand column on that page, the hon. member observed a disposition to reserve his position and that of his colleagues with respect to any possible vote that took place on this motion. In particular he put before the house a proposition that it was not all of the documents of a crown corporation, like the Canadian National or like T.C.A., which should not be brought before the house, but rather that it was only documents the minister claimed were confidential should not be produced.
Motions for Papers
I would like to say this afternoon that I would negative that suggestion by the hon. member, and I would supplement the authorities put before the house last week by the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Regan), by making a specific reference to the point at which, in the proceedings of this house, the particular relationship of a crown corporation to the house proceedings was established, in relation to the C.N.R.
I would refer to Hansard for March 22, 1921 which, as hon. members will observe, was shortly after the inception of the C.N.R. as a separate corporation, the shares of which were controlled by the government, but which operated the railway system as a separate corporation. At that time the then leader of the opposition, Mr. Mackenzie King, moved the following amendments in connection with the supply motion, and I would detain the house to read the terms of the amendment because they are most germane to the point made by the hon. member for Peace River last week. They are:
Subject to the reservation that in exceptional cases there may be documents of a confidential character which, in the public interest, may properly be withheld from publication, the house declares that it is the undoubted right of parliament to demand and receive copies of all reports, accounts, correspondence and papers in relation to the management of every department of the public service including the affairs of the Canadian National Railways, whether operating directly under the control of the department, or under corporate form.
As I mentioned, that was an opposition motion at that time and it was specifically dealt with by the then prime minister, Right Hon. Arthur Meighen.
The prime minister of the day indicated that he would refuse to accept the restriction adherent in the resolution. In particular, it was the view of the government that none of the documents of the C.N.R. should be made available for examination in parliament. Dealing with this point he said, specifically, as reported on page 1182 of Hansard for that day:
I think it will be obvious that if the Canadian National directorate are to be compelled to answer to resolutions, which by the dozen may be put upon the order paper of this house every day, calling for copies of correspondence, for the disclosure of every fact and every deed connected with the operation of the road, they will be put under a disability that their great competitor is not under at all. Should we do that they might well say: You shackle us in the management of the road; you refuse to give us that latitude and freedom of management that every successful business must have: you therefore will have to take the responsibility of failure-we do not. That would be the position they would logically assume. I venture to say that no board of directors, no president and general manager who would be big enough for the tremendous task of operating that

Motions for Papers
system today, would undertake to assume such responsibility under conditions that would be brought about were this amendment to be adopted.
Toward the end of his remarks, referring to a particular question as to whether the price of the coal to be used by the railway was confidential and therefore ought not to be disclosed, the right hon. gentleman said:
There is nothing confidential about it that does not appertain to virtually every matter connected with the operation of the road. Therefore, the reservation that is embodied in the resolution is no reservation at all; that reservation would not protect the resolution, because it would not protect the system; it would not allow to the system-
That is, the railway system.
-anything at all of the latitude it must have, unless it is to be so shackled and bound down that a success cannot be made of it. Consequently, it seems to me impossible that the resolution, as drawn, can be accepted.
The question was subsequently put to the house and the position of the prime minister of the day was sustained.


Mr. Baldwin:: Would the hon. member permit a question? I am not clear as to the precise wording of the resolution of 1921, but if I caught it correctly, I should like to ask the parliamentary secretary this question: Would he not agree that there is a plain distinction between the resolution of 1921 and the resolution in this case, which calls for a copy of correspondence exchanged between the Minister of Transport and the officers of T.C.A.? I am not trying to be technical about it, but I suggest that there is this distinction and that the distinction appears on the face of the resolution itself, when we compare it with the resolution of which the hon. member was speaking.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: No, I would not accept such a distinction. I would say that whether the correspondence is internal, within a department, or whether it passes between the C.N.R. and the department as a result of the relations between the Minister of Transport and the railway company, there is no distinction. It is in the interest of the railway that these matters should be kept private-that they be kept from the public gaze and, in particular, from the knowledge of competitors. Therefore the privilege should be reserved to the government of the day and to the particular railway system concerned not to have such documents made public.
The hon. member referred last week, at the suggestion of his neighbour, the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) to the possibility that correspondence might take place between the minister and the president of the railway relating to the possibility of the president's standing as a candidate at an election. I point out that it is patent that in

such circumstances the correspondence would not relate to the duties of the gentleman concerned as the head of the railway company or to the functions of the minister in his capacity as Minister of Transport. It would be in the nature of private correspondence and, by long established custom of the house, such correspondence would be equally privileged.
I would, therefore, on the authority of long standing custom established at an earlier date when crown corporations were first set up by this parliament, suggest that the statements made by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) cannot be accepted and that the claim of privilege can be sustained not only in respect to documents which in the eyes of the minister are regarded as confidential, but on behalf of any documents passing between the corporation itself and the minister or the appointed officers of the department and the corporation.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion, the nays have it. I declare the motion lost on division.
Motion negatived, on division.



CONSTRUCTION IN CANADA OF NEW T.C.A. AIRCRAFT

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, March 5, consideration of the following motion of Mr. Gregoire:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all correspondence, telegrams or documents exchanged between the Minister of Transport or any of the officers of his department and the president or any of the officers or employees of Trans-Canada Air Lines concerning the total or partial construction of a new mediumrange aircraft for Trans-Canada Air Lines.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the understanding that this motion should be considered as having been decided on the same division?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion negatived, on division.



REMOVAL OF ARMS AND AMMUNITION

Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Albert) moved:: That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all letters, memoranda or directives made by the minister and/or the Department of National Defence regarding the rounding up of arms and/or ammunition.

He said: I shall not spend too long on this motion for the production of papers. First may I say that, notwithstanding criticism from some quarters that standing order number 47 is abused, I still feel it has real mei'it, and that is why I asked yesterday that the motion be transferred for brief discussion.
The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hellyer) told me yesterday that he would agree to produce letters to his department from persons in the country, but that he would not produce certain departmental documents in which I was interested. I stated specifically that I wished to see the orders and directives which were issued by the minister to the chiefs of staff, and the orders and directives which were passed on to the other senior officers of the services in connection with the raids and seizures.
The principle upon which I am relying is the well known rule that if sufficient reason can be shown to support a contention that there is need for public scrutiny of such documents as these, then the minister should be obliged to produce the documents in question. The one reservation, of course, would be in a case where there was objection on security grounds to producing the documents. In such circumstances I would not, of course, be asking for them.
The root of the trouble leading to the whole of this mess in national defence lies, of course, in the directives which were issued by the minister with respect to the raids or seizures. I suggest that the method in which this operation was carried out, and the slipshod mess which resulted, have caused serious concern and dissatisfaction in the country. But first, in order to substantiate my contention that these documents should be produced, I wish to quote from an article which appeared in the Ottawa Journal of March 5. This refers to statements made by the minister on February 26 which I shall not read because they are on record in Hansard. The paragraph from the Journal says:
Mr. Hellyer already has signified that he isn't very happy about the way the forces carried out his order to remove the small arms to prevent them falling into the hands of the Quebec liberation army.
The minister said February 26 that his order wasn't applied uniformly and he said Tuesday military authorities at some places took independent action.
I suggest that the indecision revealed in the statements made by the minister in connection with this matter is good reason for the production of these documents. If any precedent is needed for this, Mr. Speaker,
I would point out that on the very day my motion was last before the house questions were asked of the minister with respect to the release of certain information contained
Motions for Papers
in a letter which the chief of the air staff sent to his senior air force officers. I refer to the Ottawa Citizen of March 6 last, wherein there is the following report:
Air Marshal C. R. Dunlap, chief of the air staff, has circulated a letter among senior air force officers which MPs say appears to dispute statements in the Commons defence committee report.
The document deals with criticisms of the R.C.A.F. and instructs senior officers to use it to dispel any "misconceptions" among R.C.A.F. personnel resulting from criticism in the press of the R.C.A.F.
Informants said Thursday opposition MPs are considering what action might be taken on the letter, either in the Commons or in the defence committee when it opens hearings again.
Mr. Speaker, I say this is outright contempt of the defence committee. Yesterday the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hellyer), in replying to a question that had been asked in this connection-I will not give the actual reply-in effect condoned what Air Marshal Dunlap had done; he certainly did not criticize it. I suggest that this letter written by Air Marshal Dunlap should also be produced and made available, because of the uncertainty that surrounds this whole question. In any event, it is a precedent for my argument that these documents should be produced, because the minister himself has not criticized this action. For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I call upon the minister to produce this document and the directives, if there were directives, from himself to the chiefs of staff, and certainly those directives that we know exist and were sent to the chiefs of staff and other senior officers in the country. The minister should produce these documents, because there is no real security involved and the public should be allowed to scrutinize them. This matter has undermined the confidence of the people in national defence. It has affected the Department of Justice to such a degree that the Attorney General of Canada (Mr. Favreau) cannot carry out his functions without delays and explanations. The people are entitled to know the truth about this matter. The government cannot have it both ways.
I do not intend to call for a vote on this motion, Mr. Speaker. This is merely an effort to place these facts before the house. If the minister does not choose to produce these documents in the way I have suggested, I certainly hope the defence committee will take this matter up when it meets again, because that committee has been seriously insulted as a result of the second document to which I referred.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak very briefly in support of this motion, which reads as follows:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all letters, memoranda or directives made by

Motions for Papers
the minister and/or the Department of National Defence regarding the rounding up of arms and/or ammunition.
I support the motion because this is a matter of serious concern to many people in our country. Also, it is of particular interest to me, because of the fact that the constituency which I have the honour to represent has been declared a sensitive area, although I cannot ascertain the reason. If ever there was an area in Canada that is not sensitive from this point of view, it is Kootenay West. This has caused a great deal of comment in my constituency; I have received telegrams and communications because of this designation. In recent weeks we have been treated to a series of, in some cases quite serious incidents, in others quite ridiculous incidents, and in others ludicrous incidents. It has been a combination of, shall I say, tragedy in some cases and comedy in others. But it has undermined public confidence in the ability of the Department of National Defence to carry out or give effect to instructions which were apparently not clear in the first place.
I do not think any question of security is involved here, because this matter is concerned wholly with small arms and ammunition-in many cases .22 ammunition. As a matter of fact, I expect that I have more arms and ammunition in my own home than they have in some of these small armouries.


Eric Alfred Winkler: You are next. They will raid your place too.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I hope the minister will not take it away from us; we use it for shooting game. I believe the minister would clear the atmosphere a great deal if he would agree to supply the information asked for in this motion for the production of papers. This matter has created a most unusual situation with respect to the Department of National Defence. In some cases people are very annoyed and in some cases they are, shall I say, laughing over the matter. I think in order for the house to have the information and for the people to have knowledge of the reason for this action on the part of the minister and Department of National Defence, and the reason for this bungling-and there is no question about it; there has been bungling-the minister should respond to the motion by supplying the information requested by the hon. member who has moved this motion for the production of papers.
I could go on at greater length, Mr. Speaker, because I am in a rather indignant mood about the local aspects of this question. However, I know other hon. members wish to support the motion, and we all want to hear the minister's reply to our appeal.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Royal: Mr. Speaker, I wish to support my colleague the hon. member from the contiguous counties of Saint John and Albert, and I also wish to agree with the last speaker. I think the country is entitled to know about the manifestations of a new policy, a new formula, which is to disarm those who are paid to keep us secure. The armoury raids muddle has had one interesting side effect about which the hon. member spoke; that is, it has given Canada the first laugh in an otherwise difficult and sombre period of its history. For this we are grateful to the minister. But after all, it is in the public interest to have these documents produced so that the house and the country can try to unscramble the eggs that have been so carefully scrambled by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hellyer). The minister is responsible for this motion being on the order paper, of course, because of his acts of omission and his acts of commission. The omission was in not laying down any rational policy for the disarming of the armed forces; and the commission, it seems to me, was in failing to enunciate a policy that in any way was in proportion to the seriousness of the situation vis-a-vis the whole country.
It is interesting that this motion is being debated in the period when the noted Gilbert and Sullivan operetta, "The Yeomen of the Guard", is playing in Ottawa. It is a pity that these gentlemen were not part of the present scene so that they could set the whole silly thing to music and make it a comic opera. The prospects of the raid on Ashbury college being set to music and copyrighted by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hellyer) have manifestations that excite us all. The only suggestion I have for a title to this new Canadian musical comedy would perhaps be "Hellyersapoppin' " rather than "Hellzapoppin' and I think in view of the circumstances the house is entitled to this material.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Speaker, having listened to the hon. member who moved the motion, and inasmuch as I had the pleasure of seconding the motion, I would much rather the question be put to the house. Nevertheless I will say a few words in relationship to the way I feel about the question. Now that the minister is with us in the house may I say that I think he has a very grave responsibility in this matter. He may recall that earlier in the day I posed a question to him, and although in broad terms he answered the first half of my question, the second half was left in mid-air. As a matter of fact, he gave no reply whatsoever.

As my hon. friend has suggested, I think there is good and sufficient reason for production of these directives, because as I recall, although I stand to be corrected in the matter, the minister himself made it known that these directives had been issued, and I believe he made reference to them. Whether or not all of the directives were in written form or some verbal, we do not know. I think that, under the circumstances, those which were written should certainly be produced.
As the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Fair-weather) was indicating, there is a tremendously humorous aspect to this entire matter. But this is not the important point as far as parliament is concerned. It is at this stage of the matter a very grave government responsibility, due to other controversies which exist which are directly relevant to all that is happening. The question I raised during the question period concerned one very small situation in the town of Orangeville, which is in midwestern Ontario. I hold in my hand the article which was printed in the paper indicating what had transpired there. It refers to all of the aspects of the matter, beginning with the raids which were responsible for the directives being issued in Mount Royal, Shawinigan, Noranda, and so on. Then it follows through with what transpired. It mentions the humorous aspects of the question, the questioning and grilling of the minister in this house, some of the aspects of the questioning from the opposition, from different groups in the opposition, and the courses followed. Also it indicates the inability of the minister to satisfy all the questioners.
The integrity and history of the country being what it is, I think it is a very sad day when the Department of National Defence has to go into a town in such an area as this in the province of Ontario and raid, remove- use whatever term you will-arms from the armouries, thereby indicating that it is a sensitive area. This is a grave matter. There are many other small armouries around Orangeville. Why did not the same truck carry on and go to Durham, Walkerton and Listowel? Why did the department not send a big truck to Owen Sound? All these towns are within a few miles of one another.
The point I am making here concerns the drop in morale not only of the people in the armouries but of the local citizenry themselves. These people have never known such a terrible thing to happen before in their history. I think the minister has a very distinct responsibility, without our having to force any issue in the house, to produce these directives and let us see exactly why these steps are being taken in particular areas.
Motions for Papers
Surely to goodness it is important enough to the house. This lack of morale is creeping into the services. I have received reports from areas far flung from the province of Ontario saying how ridiculous this situation is. This is all because of that which stemmed from the places I have named. I do not want to go into the matter again and make it any more embarrassing for the minister or the government than it already is, but it is certainly reaching a very sorry state when the department goes to that part of the country and commits such a ridiculous act. All I should like to impress upon the minister and upon those members of the government who are present, Mr. Speaker, is that, as my hon. friend has said, there is sufficient and good reason for the minister to produce these directives, and now is the opportunity to act in good faith as far as the House of Commons, parliament and Canada are concerned.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few brief observations on this motion. As the hon. member from New Brunswick pointed out, there are a great many humorous aspects to some of the incidents which have taken place as a result of the directives which are asked for in this motion. As he also pointed out, it has certainly provided a little amusement in Canada. All that is fine, but I think the rather more serious aspect of the matter is that a strange series of circumstances have resulted from these orders. For example, in my own city, the city of Woodstock, Ontario, all of the .22 calibre ammunition was removed from the high school on one day and brought back two days later. But the rifles were left; and anyone knows that you can buy .22 ammunition at practically any corner grocery store.
This and other rather strange incidents have taken place. Another example in my own city was that a newspaper photographer was taking pictures and he was told that the pictures could not be published until some time in the future. This is a matter I have raised here, and the minister has requested details which I sent him today, as soon as I was able to get them all. I do not wish to deal with the names of the persons involved because that is not exactly fair, but this all adds up to one thing. If the minister in fact gave good orders and directions down the line to his chiefs of staff as to how these raids were to be carried out, that is fine.
I hope they were good orders and directions, and if they were I really cannot see why the minister objects to producing them, because the security risk involved would not seem to be too great. The thing that worries me, and I think a great many other people, is this: If the minister issued clear, concise

Motions for Papers
orders and such a mess resulted, there must have been some kind of tangling of the skein, so to speak, down the line from the minister to the junior officers who carried out these instructions.
The thing, I believe, that worries a great many people in this country, even though they may enjoy some of the humorous aspects of the situation, is the fact that if anything really serious happens in Canada this bungling might occur again. Was it the fault of the armed forces, was it the fault of the minister or was it the fault of somebody in between? These are the things the people would like to know. If clear orders were issued by the minister, then they must have been fouled up somewhere down the line. If that is the case, I think we are entitled to know, because in the event of a more serious national emergency developing in Canada, the same sort of bungling might occur. We would like to be assured that if an emergency does arise and orders are issued, they are going to be carried out quickly. I feel, for all these reasons, the minister should produce the instructions, because we want to know how these orders got fouled up by the various branches of the armed services.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I only want to say a few words on this motion. The problem with which we are dealing is unique in Canada. I know that I, for one, and I think this applies to many other members of this house, did not know prior to a few weeks ago that the arms stored in the armouries of Canada were unsecured. At least three incidents have taken place to indicate that some additional measures were necessary to secure these arms so that they would not be subject to raids.
The situation is not amusing to me, at least, and I feel some comment is warranted on the fact that the opposition demanded measures be taken to protect these arms against the raids that had occurred. Now, of course, we complain because there seems to be some inconsistency in the measures that were taken. It seems to me that there is a principle overriding this demand. We want to be very careful we are not setting a precedent in demanding that the minister produce these interdepartmental directives. I think that we have to be especially careful in this case because it relates to the Department of National Defence.
I feel that a far more satisfactory arrangement in this unique situation would be for the minister to take the house into his confidence and give us a detailed explanation of the reason for these inconsistencies in carrying out this directive. We simply do not know. We do not know what the directives

were. We do not know the definition of a sensitive area. We do not know why arms are picked up from some armouries and not from others, even though they may be right in the same general region.
This is all I want to say, Mr. Speaker. I think it would be far more desirable if the minister were to take the house into his confidence and give us an explanation, rather than have a motion passed that could force the minister to table the directives which are, after all, interdepartmental communications.


Mr. Heber E. Smith (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, I would not want anyone to think I was disagreeing with my colleague, the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Fairweather), who treated the matter in a rather light fashion. As a matter of fact, he was almost as good as his fellow maritimer on the C.B.C., Max Ferguson who was dealing with the matter of the raid on Ashbury College and who turned it into a raid on a celebrated girls' school in Toronto in which they picked up the field hockey sticks.
This is a much more serious matter. I believe everyone will agree that the security precautions, whether or not they were needed, were bungled, and they were bungled all the way down the line. How they were bungled remains to be determined. It was the result either of incompetence or disobedience. There can only be two conclusions drawn from what we know. Either the matter was dealt with incompetently or somebody was deliberately disobedient in the chain of command. The only way this can be determined is by finding out what orders were given and where those orders went astray.
There must have been orders from the minister to the chairman of the chiefs of staff, from the chairman of the chiefs of staff to the individual chiefs of the three services, and so on down the line. It is not only the right but it is the duty of this house to assess what went wrong, where it went wrong and who should be blamed. The only way that can be done is for the house to see the orders. I do not believe that the matter of precedent or the matter of confidentiality is very important. Hundreds, if not thousands of people in the services have knowledge of the matter directly or indirectly. Bits and pieces of information have appeared in the newspapers. Opinions from all over the place are quoted. Militia soldiers can find out this or that, and if you wanted to build up a story you could build up a fairly accurate one from these sources concerning the chain of command. However, if we did that, the story might be perverted or we might go astray at some point and this might result in unfairly blaming the

minister for something, whereas the blame for this fiasco might really rest upon someone else.
There is only one way to get to the root of something so that the parliament of Canada will know the situation, and that is for the minister to produce all the relevant written orders from the top to the bottom, and then we can decide who blundered.


Mr. D. V. Pugh (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, the motion under discussion reads as follows:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all letters, memoranda or directives made by the minister and/or the Department of National Defence regarding the rounding up of arms and/or ammunition.
I believe that these papers should be produced simply because Canada as a whole, and the armed services in particular, have been subjected to a tremendous amount of ridicule. It is a fact that orders were issued, and obviously issued from the top. I do not believe that in the beginning anyone in the armed services made the decision to round up the arms and ammunition.


Mr. Byrne:: The F.L.Q. did.


David Vaughan Pugh: Yes, perhaps that is so. If the F.L.Q. can suddenly decide to round up arms and ammunition, what is to stop any other subversive element from doing exactly the same thing? Obviously, the order had to be issued because security of the arms and ammunition in the armouries was, to put it bluntly, lousy. We have had trouble at the armouries before, and why a directive was not issued I cannot understand. Obviously the order that was issued was inconclusive, not easily understood and subject to varying interpretations.
I cannot see that the armed services of this country could have been left in such a state of confusion. The order issued from the top must have been incomplete or inconclusive. How is it that all over Canada we hear of sensitive areas? Why is Kootenay West a sensitive area? Why not include Kootenay East? Is it because one is held by an N.D.P. member and the other by a Liberal member?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: The Doukhobors are in Kootenay West.


David Vaughan Pugh: The hon. member for Kootenay East has put his foot into it twice today during my speech. He says that it was because of the Doukhobors. Was that the reason? Maybe the minister would tell us why an area is designated as sensitive.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: That should be the Sons of Freedom.
Motions for Papers


David Vaughan Pugh: That was a good correction. It is the only sensible thing the hon. member has said this afternoon. I do not know, but I feel that the crux of this whole matter is further bungling, more evidence of not looking before leaping on the part of every department under the Liberal government. We have seen this in the case of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) with the 11 per cent sales tax. We have seen evidence of it in respect of cable television. I do not know who was responsible for that. It could have been the former secretary of state, now Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill), or the former minister of transport. In any event, it was one or both, because they issued a directive under their joint names. Putting transport under the former secretary of state was probably a good idea because now he can bungle them together. I am quite sure he is not very pleased at what has resulted from the cable television trouble which he, though not completely responsible, certainly fomented.
Let us get back to the naming of sensitive areas in Canada. Boys' schools have been raided, rifles without bolts that have been hanging around for the longest time have been seized, raids have taken place in the middle of the night. Honestly, it seems utterly incomprehensible that even in good old southwestern Ontario-


Eric Alfred Winkler: United Empire Loyalists.


David Vaughan Pugh: -the backbone of the country, areas were designated as sensitive. Even Windsor, in the riding of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) was named a sensitive area.


Eric Alfred Winkler: That is more reasonable.


David Vaughan Pugh: It was sensibly sensitive, I suppose. In any event, he took exception to it, but I do not know whether the designation has been lifted. Let me come back to Kootenay West and Kootenay East and the interjection of the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Byrne), that Kootenay West was put on the sensitive list because of the Doukhobors. How far is the minister going to go? I say that because of the bungling of the original order these papers must and should be produced so that the people of Canada can understand how this hocus-pocus arose. I know the minister must feel that he has been put in a bad light, but if it is not his fault let us find out whose fault it is.
As I said, we have been subjected to ridicule and, honestly, I think the people of Canada, even if it is only curiosity-that word was used once already-should have their curiosity satisfied with respect to why

Motions for Papers
the directive was issued and why certain areas were named as sensitive areas, and not others.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, in the two minutes left before the recess perhaps I might say first of all that I appreciate the high level which has characterized this debate.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Just keep it that way.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Perhaps a little background information might be helpful. There has been considerable concern in the armed forces for some time in respect of the security of small arms and ammunition. This is particularly true in the army. Some of the concern resulted from the change from the Lee Enfield .303 rifle to the FN rifle, and there has been a problem with regard to designing and building new racks which will allow securer storage of the new FN rifle. So over a period of about two years there has been a series of studies and some action taken designed to tighten up security in respect of small arms and ammunition.
Last year when there was a problem in Montreal special measures were taken at that time to cope with the situation, but immediately following the apprehension of the group concerned these special measures were stood down. On January 30, after the raid at the Montreal armouries immediate action was taken. The very next day a special commission was established to consider these matters and to make recommendations to the Minister of National Defence as to what should be done. In the meantime interim measures were taken, such as the separate storing of rifles and bolts so that useable rifles would not be available in case there were any other incidents.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Could the minister inform the house where they are stored?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: These were still stored in the armouries, but stored separately, and consequently since that time no useable weapons have been taken.
Immediately the commission reported, action was taken the very next day to implement the recommendations made for immediate action. They were that small arms be withdrawn from reserve units until adequate protection was available to keep them secure. This was ordered at once for sensitive areas. This order was implemented with zeal and there have been no losses since that time.
Simultaneously across the country, in accordance with previous orders resulting from the longer term concern of the army in respect of the security of weapons, measures

were taken to enforce security regulations, and this resulted in a number of incidents. Existing security regulations were not in all cases being observed and local commanders have been made responsible for the security of the weapons in their command, and for the carrying out of orders. It has been on their responsibility that a number of weapons have been removed and precautionary measures taken.


David Vaughan Pugh: Would the minister permit a question?


Mr. Churchill:: You are blaming it on the
services.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I am not. I am just saying that they are carrying out orders which have existed and which they are responsible to implement. In summation, I think these orders have been successful. When this situation has been righted and some of the weapons restored under adequate protection conditions, the whole security of small arms and ammunition in the country will be much tighter than it has been previously and I am sure this will be a matter of satisfaction to all hon. gentlemen who take this matter just as seriously as we do.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Would the minister say where the arms being taken away from the armouries and cadet corps are being stored until such time as they will be returned?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: In general at the nearest depot for the storage of arms and in some cases at the nearest regular army or navy establishment in the area.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hour for the consideration of private members' business having expired-


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Before we rise, is it not the intention of the hon. member to withdraw the motion?


Thomas Miller Bell: I do not know whether anybody else wishes to speak.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I want to speak on the motion.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: In that case may I call it six o'clock and resume my remarks the next time the motion comes up.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hour appointed for the consideration of private members' business having expired, the house will revert to the consideration of the business interrupted at five o'clock.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.


[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.
Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, before the recess I was saying that the federal government should consult the provinces because such a change in the representation in the House of Commons could upset the balance of regional influence. Indeed, I should like to remind the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) that in 1943, the province of Quebec-which had neither been consulted nor asked to express its views-protested strongly about this lack of consultation before the enactment of the legislation concerning the readjustment of representation which became chapter 30, George VI, 1943.
As far as consultation with the provinces is concerned, on similar redistribution legislation, the Conservative party, through the years, always followed a continuous policy. I should like to quote into the record from some speeches by Conservative leaders who, in the past, did ask for those consultations with the provinces.
In 1907, Sir Robert Borden stated:
But inasmuch as this is a federal compact which we are asked to vary, it is only right that each province should be consulted and its decision given in the right of its separate entity.
That is from page 2199, volume 2 of Hansard of 1907. On February 19, 1925, Mr. Meighen observed:
The speech of the Minister of Justice determines I think, without power of dispute, that there should never be suggestion of amendment affecting other parties to the contract save after conference and consent of those other parties.
Mr. Bennett, in 1932, objected to the amendment of section 51 of the B.N.A. Act until an interprovincial conference be held.
And finally, in 1946, the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker), moved in the house the following amendment:
And whereas it is desirable that the government should consult with the several provinces in respect of the said matter.
Electoral Boundaries Commissions
In 1952, Mr. Drew put forward the same principle when he said:
-no amendment of a nature to affect those interests should take place without the provinces having had an opportunity to express their opinion and to discuss the point.
To the weak argument put forward by the federal government to the effect that it can act without consulting the provinces, as it did in the past, Mr. Drew denounced this offhand manner of the central government and asserted that the principles of our constitution cannot be encroached upon by a series of anticonstitutional precedents.
Therefore, we must come to the conclusion that consultation with the provinces in this important matter remains indispensable and that the Conservative party has always respected the constitution.
Bill C-72, which is now before us, shows no respect for consultation with the provinces, even though its title, as I explained this afternoon, refers to the readjustment of the representation of the provinces in the House of Commons. If we are dealing with the representation of the provinces in the House of Commons, the said provinces should have their say.
Paragraph (1) of section 6 of the bill authorizes the chief justice of a province to appoint the chairman of the commission. We all know that the chief justice of a province is also appointed by the Canadian government.
Therefore, we suggest that the provinces be consulted before the ten provincial commissions are established, so that they may express their views about the membership of the commissions and the revised regulations concerning representation.
The present government will have every opportunity to consult the provinces on this matter, during the federal-provincial conference to be held in a few days.
Yesterday, the Minister of Transport spoke generally as follows: We have decided that ten provincial commissions would be better than a single national commission or four regional commissions. He also said: We have decided to use a tolerance of 20 per cent and have settled the matter of the composition of the commissions.
But what do the provinces think of such unilateral decisions and measures? In conclusion, the Minister of Transport said: This bill, owing to its importance and its substance, will become part of the Canadian constitution.
If such a bill must be incorporated in our constitution, the provinces should be consulted to see whether they have any serious objection to the said bill.
I know that some people will maintain that the Ottawa government can act alone in the

Electoral Boundaries Commissions field we are studying today, under the terms of the 1949 constitutional amendment.
That is precisely where lies the danger of federal intervention in the provincial fields, because Ottawa should not be the only one to decide what fields come under its exclusive jurisdiction, what matters come under the provinces' jurisdiction and what cases under the jurisdiction of both federal and provincial authorities. In addition, if we study the revision of provincial representation in the House of Commons, with regard to electoral boundaries and the number of representatives, the said provinces would certainly like to give their opinions.
Another point which strikes me is that of the criteria which each commission has to observe to establish the standards of representation. In order to attain co-ordination, uniformity and fair play, there should be in each province, and for each commission, identical rules set up by parliament for all those commissions. It is only after the provinces have been consulted and standard criteria have been established that the readjustment of the representation should be sent to the ten commissions.
In concluding my remarks, I call the attention of the house to the anomaly and unfair situation which a provision of clause 20 in this bill might bring about. It has to do with the possible objection signed by at least a third of hon. members in this house representing ridings in the same province. If the freedom of each hon. member and the democratic liberties of the voters in an existing constituency are to be protected, any objection should be recognized, even if it bears the signature of a single member stating that his voters' rights have been slighted.
Mr. Speaker, I do not want to labour the point. I sincerely believe that the provinces should be consulted and that we should uphold the rule suggested by the Leader of the Opposition, to the effect that the tolerance should be at least 33J per cent.
Finally, instead of having ten different commissions, each with its own criteria, I believe we should have a single commission, perhaps assisted by subcommissions, but not before seeing to it that each commission had identical standards in order to protect the equality of the vote of our Canadian citizens.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the hon. gentleman permit a question? Before technically he resumes his seat I should like to ask him this: I understood he was arguing strongly that the provincial governments should be consulted with regard to this legislation. Can the hon. gentleman say whether his leader consulted

provincial governments before he brought down the bill which was introduced into the parliament before this one?


Léon Balcer: The election had intervened before that legislation could be approved. I simply cited to the house the opinion of our leader in the past, and I think it spoke very eloquently for the attitude of the Conservative party and illustrates the great difference between this attitude and the centralization spirit which has always animated the group of which the hon. gentleman is a minister.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Did I understand the hon. gentleman to say that Sir John A. Macdonald, Sir Robert Borden and Mr. Bennett had all consulted the provinces before they introduced their legislation on this subject?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Was the minister asking a question? I was afraid he might close the debate.


Pauline Jewett: No answer.


Mr. J. E. Lloyd (Halifax):: These continued references to statements made by persons who previously occupied places in this house in varying capacities are sometimes wasted on those of us who are new to the scene, though sometimes we realize there are times when it might be well not to refer to the past. Sir John A. Macdonald has often been quoted by hon. members in this house. It was his rule, I believe, never to compromise a principle-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Edward Lloyd: -but to horse trade on the details. Today the official opposition seem to have disregarded their principles and the man for whom they so often express admiration. Opposition speakers are now advocating an amendment to Bill C-72 which would permit the commissioners to vary the quota for each electoral district by 33J per cent. It is my view that such an excessive variation, if fully applied, would emasculate the principle of the bill.
However, I am sure this long overdue reform to correct over and under representation within the provinces will be welcomed by all objective and democratic minded people in Canada. The kind and extent of the services expected from members of this house have changed a great deal over the years, since those responsible for doing so first drew up the rules governing the determination of boundary lines within this great country of ours. We have heard a great deal about the need to differentiate between urban and rural members. I think, perhaps, that in our concern about this distinction we have forgotten to examine more closely the kind of service expected of members of this house today as

compared with the kind of service expected decades ago. The demands made on the time of hon. members are increasing steadily. A great deal more effort has to be spent on study and research into the many complex facets of government. The load on individual members in these respects is certainly far greater than existed in days gone by, when this house first drew up the rules which were to govern representation.
When we consider the services expected of members of parliament today, we should realize, too, that a whole range of welfare schemes is now in existence. At one time, as I think hon. members will readily admit, the welfare of constituents was very often a responsibility of the individual member of parliament. This position has changed with the arrival of old age pensions, family allowances and a variety of other benefits. All these things have brought about a change in the role of members of this house. I am sure, too, we readily recognize that the advent of the civil service commission is another factor which has played its part in changing the role of a member of this house-I am thinking of the manner in which the civil service commission carries out its job of appointing persons on the basis of merit to the civil service of this country. There has also been an extension of the application of the tenders system, and I certainly believe there is no one in this house who would wish to return to the old system.


An hon. Member:: I should like to.


John Edward Lloyd: There are some who say they would like to do so, but I am sure they are not serious about it.
These changes in the policy and services of government have brought about a change in the nature of the demands made on the services of those who sit in this house. I do not think it can be said that the character of the work done by a member representing a rural riding differs from that done by a member representing an urban riding. One finds many examples of constituencies which have large cities situated, perhaps, near the centre, surrounded entirely by farming areas and all the interests which are normally concerned with agriculture. In the constituency of Halifax we have 150 miles of coastline. We have two cities. Our economy is dependant upon ocean transport. There are large defence establishments in the region and, in addition, 100 miles off the coast we have, tacked on, that delightful island, Sable island, which a previous speaker thought should be the subject of palm tree planting and dancing girls to add to the scenery of the gulf stream.


An hon. Member:: Shame.
Electoral Boundaries Commissions


John Edward Lloyd: I do not know what is to happen to Sable island under this proposal. It is an interesting speculation.
It is probably true to say that the small ridings-and there are many of them in Canada-do possess a great advantage in terms of election campaigning, and with respect to providing services for persons, as distinct from services to the constituency. Members representing such ridings do have an advantage over those of us who represent constituencies like Halifax. Halifax contains a population of 225,000 people.


Mr. Regan:: Two hundred and forty thousand.


John Edward Lloyd: I stand corrected. I am informed it is 240,000, today. The census suggests that it is nearer 225,000; I have been admonished to be sure to refer to the 1961 census. It seems to me that nobody can challenge the principle that representation should be by population and that variations from the norm should not be used to conceal, or to accomplish, if you like, gerrymandering such as distinguished all too frequently the setting of boundary lines for the purposes of redistribution in the early history of this country.
I believe that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) made the case for the application of the principle of representation by population as well as it has been made in the house during this debate. I believe his admonitions not to extend the variation of 20 per cent should be heeded by all hon. members. Representation by population, with a reasonable allowance to vary from the quotient, is certainly admissible; but we must be careful that the variation is strictly limited.
It is my personal opinion that 20 per cent is generous. To increase that percentage would only invite a return to gross overrepresentation and under-representation of the population of the country in this House of Commons. I repeat, Mr. Speaker, that the variation should only be required for extreme situations. I like to think of different examples which have been expressed in this house. If you happen to have three ridings within an economic region of a province, I think you should modify the boundary lines of those three ridings within the limits of the variation to bring within the boundaries people who find their livelihood within that region. I believe you can accomplish this with the maximum 20 per cent variation without any difficulty. Certainly everyone agrees that an isolated community must be attached to the constituency nearest to it, and this may cause some variation. But I

Electoral Boundaries Commissions think we dare not go beyond this more reasonable application of the principle of variation; otherwise we shall certainly, as I said before, emasculate the principle.
Mr. Speaker, I come briefly now-as I must-to the dual riding of Halifax. It has been there for almost 100 years, ever since confederation, and has its origin in the establishment of a schools system. In 1962, in Bill No. C-87, the then government proposed a permissive power in the commissioners to recommend a continuation of the dual riding. In so far as I am concerned, this provision is a wise one. When we come to the next stage of this bill I hope that hon. members who represent dual ridings will have something to say on the possibility of an amendment to the bill to enact provisions similar to those contained in Bill No. C-87 of April, 1962. I have had consultations with hon. members, and I hope this will be done. Mr. Speaker, I can only reiterate, let us not emasculate the principle of this bill; let us apply the principle of representation by population and thus strengthen the criteria of democracy in action in Canada.


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to be able to say a few words on this very important piece of legislation. I join those who have expressed their views with regard to Mr. Castonguay, a most outstanding public servant whom I had the opportunity of seeing in action when I had the honour to chair the privileges and elections committee in an earlier parliament. His great knowledge and fine impartiality commend him to everyone in this house. Although we must not discuss the bill in detail, I had the personal satisfaction, when looking through the bill, of seeing the words "dominion statistician". This gave me great satisfaction because the word "dominion" is dying very, very fast and I think this is a rather sad situation. I remember that a few years ago the idea was to delete this word from that well known institution, the dominion bureau of statistics. Then, perhaps because people realized what the impact would be with just the two abbreviations, the move was stopped.
I assure the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Francis) that I am going to try to be agreeable about this. He told us he thought we might be losing our unanimity as we are moving toward grappling with the problem more firmly with this legislation. I am impressed with the attitude that has been revealed, in that there has not been a great deal of partisanship, and perhaps I will try for a while not to indicate the kind of riding I represent, because I happen to be in the situation where I represent a riding that is both rural and urban. Happily both rural and urban portions of that riding

have supported me and my colleague, and I would not join those who make disparaging remarks about one type of elector as against another.
I think we can all be impressed by the fact that we are not so far acquitting ourselves as, alas, did members of the House of Commons in earlier days when dealing with this tremendously sensitive question. Many people have been quoted today and in earlier discussion, but I remember what a certain very distinguished member of the other place, Senator Power, said about this subject. He spoke about the "unseemly, undignified and utterly confusing scramble for personal and political advantage" as the House of Commons grappled with the question of redistribution. I think we must confess that often in the past the House of Commons has been at its worst in dealing with this very meaningful, important and personal subject. While the word "gerrymander" has an American origin, it certainly has many Canadian connotations and we have done very well with their political device.
It is encouraging, too, I think, that this lends support to those wise parliamentarians among us who point to the so-called good old days of high and noble parliamentary activity, in comparison with our own and who rightly say that they were not, in fact, always so good nor so noble. I think both parties have sinned-let us face it. Sir John A. Macdonald has been mentioned and criticized. One might point out that things were not too different when he was followed by the great Sir Wilfrid Laurier. It has been said that under Macdonald all this was done by governmental bill. It was done in the days of Laurier by a House of Commons committee but, as Sir Robert Borden pointed out, the majority of Liberal members on that committee always came to the meetings with schedules and maps all ready to table. So the difference is not too great.
The move toward redistribution by an independent, impartial body has long been advocated. It has long been advocated by my party. It was advocated by other parties too. I think one can say without being accused of partisanship-this is a tribute which has been paid before-that the party which I have the honour of supporting, and the government which for six years I supported, was the first party in office to come forward with a meaningful piece of legislation to bring this about, and I am proud of that fact. I also want to compliment the present government for following the formula laid down in this general field; later we will discuss how it has been deviated from in details, but in general it deserves commendation.
8S1

I have, as I said, no axe to grind and my remarks will be brief. I belong to a party which has no fear of appealing to any community in an election, whether it be urban or rural. I am from a province which is not going to lose seats, although we lost plenty of seats in the past; in fact, we were badly denuded of our representation in former days.
Following on the line of debate here I think it is agreed that we do not want to move to a position of too great rigidity. Having quoted many great people in the past I must quote the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) when he spoke last November on this subject. He described the measure then as an endeavour to grant flexibility in the interests of fairness in order to ensure that the considerations which have always been in the minds of governments since 1867 shall be maintained.
I agree with that great man, and that we must emphasize flexibility. We are a nation which has done many things in defiance of all the laws of geography, economics, and so on. I am impressed with those who have pointed to the value of flexibility, who have pointed to the value of the historic continuity of certain communities. The compilation of population is not the lone factor in working out a formula for representation. It is, of course, important, and we do know some of the anomalies. I realize the hon. member for York-Scarborough (Mr. Moreau), like his predecessor, my friend Mr. McGee, knows very well what I have in mind, as well as the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Lloyd) who has just spoken. Of course there must be readjustments, but at the same time we must not ignore many other factors. We have to make special considerations. We have to make special considerations to the Northwest Territories, to the Yukon, and to those provinces whose representation in this chamber rest on what is called the senatorial cushion.
I am glad that this point has been mentioned and its implications underscored, because I am sure I am speaking for all members of the Atlantic provinces, irrespective of their party, when I say that section 51 of the British North America Act is something which we regard as sacrosanct and deeply entrenched. It is something immovable. We in the maritimes have lost our representation in this house. The province , of Prince Edward Island came to this house with six members.
It was the understanding of the negotiators in 1873 that six was an irreducible minimum, but alas I am afraid they were diddled in this matter and did not have it firmly tied down. We do not accept the suggestion that we are going to go any lower than that.
I cannot help being impressed by those who point out that we may be over organizing
12, 1964
Electoral Boundaries Commissions the thing a little by suggesting ten commissions. We are to set four commissions to work in the Atlantic provinces. The eventual result might be-I say might be-the loss of one seat in one province. Yet we set the elaborate machinery of four commissions to work. I am wondering whether, as the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Balcer) suggested, ten subcommittees, or four subcommittees, as was mentioned earlier, might be more effective. The problems of the Atlantic provinces should not take any one commission, let alone four, the inordinate length of time which was predicted some time ago.
There are, Mr. Speaker, many kinds of representation and many considerations which must be borne in mind. We are conscious of the fact, and must be so, that in the upper house this country has failed to give a clear provincial pattern of representation. In the lower house we have sought to reflect this, and in our representation have always taken into consideration each province as an entity, even though the legislation concerned is, and has been, purely dominion legislation. We never transcend provincial frontiers, and this is as it should be.
The province of Prince Edward Island from which I come is a place where some 108,000 Canadians live. Some smart mathematicians have said that we should have one or perhaps two members. But we are not just 108,000 people out of 19 million; we are one province out of 10. This is why we are most interested in what the Minister of Transport said some time ago about the senatorial floor. We know there is no argument about it now, and we do not want any argument about it in the future.
I was impressed by the observations of some hon. members to the effect that large rural areas geographically are much more easily represented now in the technical sense because of television, radio and what have you. I would not want to comment upon how a member should represent his constituency, but one really cannot represent his constituency just by talking to them. An extremely important part of the exercise is letting them talk to you, and we cannot do that by television or radio. Certainly the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), who may have the advantage of speaking on the radio, would not get the impression of his constituents that all members must have. Rather than communication, the question of transportation is still far more important, in spite of how much we have advanced in the field of telecommunications. Therefore I think we must adopt an attitude of tolerance toward this question of tolerance.
With so much unfinished work before us in this session I would not dare to make a

Electoral Boundaries Commissions long speech on any subject, and I will not do so tonight. But I welcome this move.
I think we are on the right path. There are many details to work out. I agree heartily with my hon. friend from Halifax (Mr. Lloyd) that it would be a mistake to prejudge out of existence the question of dual ridings. There are some parts of this country where the establishment of a dual riding is a rational and reasonable procedure for working out the best pattern of representation. But here I come back to the great man I quoted previously, the Minister of Transport, and underscore flexibility, and to this extent I think the present bill is not an improvement of the one which was put forward by the government which I had the honour of supporting for a number of years. But I think we are moving forward and are going to have some interesting discussions. There are many things which require a careful look, but I compliment the government upon moving in this direction. I do not want to be nastily partisan, but I have observed this last few months that the government gets into far less trouble when they follow the example of, and indeed reproduce the legislation put forward by, their predecessors in office.


Mr. M. J. Moreau (York-Scarborough):: did not intend to take part in this debate, Mr. Speaker, until I saw the course the debate was taking. I was anxious to get this bill through the house, and I thought perhaps if I refrained from voicing my comments, we might get it through. However, it seems to me that the events of the past couple of days have been most disturbing. We have been hearing a great deal in the last couple of days about the permissible tolerance, and it was not until this afternoon that the hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Scott) restored some degree of sanity to the debate.
I spoke last November 26 at the resolution stage of a bill to establish the office of representation commissioner, and at that time outlined in general terms some of the problems a member faces in a large urban riding in representing his constituents. We have heard a great deal lately about the problems of rural ridings. Perhaps I might, therefore, elaborate on the comments I made last November and indicate that a riding with a population of over 300,000, such as I have, is unmanageable. It seems to me when I face my correspondence every day that I am working on an endless and relentless belt. I feel that the solution of this problem has been too long delayed, and certainly we should get on with the job.
A moment ago the hon. member for Queens (Mr. Macquarrie) indicated that we were following the example of the previous administration, and that this was the first time a

government in office had adopted this course of action. I would remind the hon. member that the first independent commission in Canada operated in the province of Manitoba and was initiated by a Liberal government.
The problem of representing so many people was forcibly brought home to me early last month when I attempted to cash a cheque- it was my salary cheque, Mr. Speaker-at one of the branches of a chartered bank in my riding. After considerable consultation between the staff and the manager, they decided that they could not honour this cheque, which was marked as negotiable without charge at any chartered bank in Canada. I had a reasonable amount of identification. I had my railway pass, my driver's licence and a credit card issued by another chartered bank. I thought I possessed identification that would be satisfactory to anyone. Doubtless hon. members will indicate this showed a lack of confidence in the member for York-Scar-borough or perhaps a lack of confidence in the Bank of Canada. I like to think it was perhaps more a reflection upon politicians in general than it was upon me personally.
In any case, my point is that it is impossible to become known to any appreciable degree to the people of a riding like York-Scarborough.


An hon. Member:: You ought to be thankful for that.


Maurice John Moreau: At least, Mr. Speaker, I never had to change constituencies.
Prior to moving to Scarborough I had an opportunity to become familiar with the problems faced by members representing rural ridings. I know that the problems of communication are less, rather than more, compared to an urban riding. The problems of communicating with the people in an urban riding are impossible. The hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken) made much of the fact that rural members were in closer contact with the electorate than urban members, and this resulted in a great deal of work for the members. So far as I am concerned, I would welcome a little closer contact with my constituents. If I could achieve this in some miraculous way I would feel that my problems were being overcome to a considerable degree.
It is my view that being a member of this house is virtually a full-time job and that our constituents must, in any case, communicate with us by mail. It does not matter if we come from a rural or urban riding, it is just as easy to mail a letter in Melfort, Saskatchewan, as it is in Halifax or Toronto. I firmly believe that when we hear a discussion about how difficult it is to represent a rural riding, or this riding or that riding,

what we are really hearing is a discussion of the problems of getting elected in those ridings. I should like to remind hon. members that the ball game is even for all candidates in those ridings, and it does not really matter how the ridings are made up because the problems are going to be essentially the same.
This debate on Bill No. C-72, it seems to me, has really boiled down to a discussion of what the permissive tolerance will be, how the commissioners will be appointed, who they will be and, to a lesser degree, whether we will have one large or ten small commissions. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the last point is not extremely important because the end result will be much the same. I favour ten commissions in order to speed up the whole process. I feel that the position taken by the official opposition is for the opposite reason.
So far as the appointments to the commissions are concerned, I believe there is a genuine desire amongst all members to be impartial.


William Heward Grafftey: Will the hon. member permit a question? Is he suggesting that we wish to delay this legislation?


Maurice John Moreau: As I have said, so far as the appointments to the commissions are concerned, I believe there is a genuine desire on all sides to be impartial in this matter. We will, I am sure, find an acceptable solution.
The remaining point, the matter of the tolerance, is likely to prove much more difficult, Mr. Speaker, because in my opinion there is partisanship connected with this aspect. The official opposition realizes that their numbers would be greatly reduced if we had a more equitable representation.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Nonsense.


William Heward Grafftey: You are not being partisan now.


Maurice John Moreau: I wish to put on the record some figures indicating the total representation in this house by parties and by population in the constituencies represented by the various parties. I quote from an article appearing in the Ottawa Citizen of November 7, by Norman Campbell. These figures indicate that 129 Liberal members represent constituencies with a total population of 9,698,514; 96 Conservatives represent constituencies with populations totalling 5,577,687; 18 New Democrats represent a population of 1,356,016; 11 Socreds represent a population of 809,491 and 13 Creditistes represent a population of 796,539.
On doing a little arithmetic I find that the average Liberal member represents approximately 75,000 Deonle, the average N.D.P.
Electoral Boundaries Commissions member represents approximately 75,000 people, the average Social Credit member represents approximately 74,000, but the average Conservative member in this house represents approximately 58,000 people.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Mr. Maclnnis:: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member has intimated that he would prefer to answer questions when he has completed his remarks.


Donald MacInnis: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member has intimated he will do so at the end of his remarks.


An hon. Member:: That is part of his courtesy.


Maurice John Moreau: I suggest that in these figures we discover the reason for the posturing of the Conservatives, who profess to support this bill in principle. In support of this opinion I should like to quote from an editorial which appeared in the Globe and Mail of December 5, 1963, headed "No Politics, Please".


Eric Alfred Winkler: You had better take your seat.


Howard Russell MacEwan: Read it aloud and see if you can try to understand it.


Maurice John Moreau: The editorial reads in part as follows:
The Conservative party appears to have its wires badly crossed in its approach to the important matter of redistribution of parliamentary ridings. While the party's spokesmen in the Commons, on Tuesday, were putting forward so many reservations about the government's proposals that debate had to be suspended, the party leader, Mr. John Diefenbaker, was making a speech outside the house in which he accused the government of holding up the legislation.
What made the confusion worse was that the Conservatives in the house charged the government with trying to push through redistribution in time for an early election, while Mr. Diefenbaker argued that the government was trying to rush through an election before undertaking redistribution.
Both opinions expressed by Conservatives indicate that they are taking a dangerously partisan approach to a matter which should be regarded, above all, as non-partisan. There have been too many shameful examples in Canadian history of the rigging of riding boundaries to produce unfair advantage for one party or another. All parties now agree-or claim to agree-that this gerrymandering should be eliminated by entrusting redistribution to independent commissions.
I would go on, Mr. Speaker, to quote from the last paragraph of the same editorial:
What is entirely improper is for Conservatives to introduce party arguments into the debate, and to talk of holding up the legislation because they

Electoral Boundaries Commissions fear it would cost them seats in an election. Such an irresponsible approach might well cost the Conservatives more seats at an election than any form of equitable redistribution.
I am very much opposed, Mr. Speaker, to allowing a greater tolerance than the 20 per cent proposed in the bill.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Naturally.


Maurice John Moreau: This already permits a variation of one and a half to one between the largest and the smallest ridings. I would concede there is a special problem in those hinterland ridings which we have heard about in this debate, and which can be measured in tens of thousands of square miles. I am prepared to make allowances for these special cases but I do not think that the problem is as great as many members representing these large constituencies really believe. I do not feel that their argument is correct, because in Newfoundland the quotient which will be used by the commission will be 65,408. The population of Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador is 82,433. This riding will be reduced and if we put it at the bottom of the tolerance it will be cut approximately in half.
The Ontario quotient is 70,865. The population of Port Arthur is 87,977 and the population of Kenora-Rainy River is 72,775. The Quebec quotient is 71,070 and the population of Saguenay is already 81,097. The Alberta quotient is 70,102 and the population of Peace River is 75,811. The British Columbia quotient is 70,830 and the population of Cariboo is 82,173. Most of these ridings in schedule 3 are already considerably over the quotient for their respective provinces and will be reduced in any case.
By the same token, Mr. Speaker, I think some provision should be written into the bill for growth in those suburban ridings which are expanding very rapidly. I think the members from urban ridings are quite prepared to be reasonable about this. What we want is a reasonable and fair shake. We are not attempting to create extreme difficulties for anyone, but we cannot any longer accept the inequities which exist at the present time in this house.
Earlier today the hon. member for Dan-forth (Mr. Scott) referred to the United States supreme court judgment handed down recently which indicated that all congressional districts must be equal in population as nearly as practically possible. The United States supreme court accepted the argument that city voters are not equal before the law as long as man for man they have less political power than rural voters. In the United States the extremes are only 5 to 1 whereas in Canada we have ratios of 22 to 1 and many 10 to 1, and more.

I am not a constitutional expert, Mr. Speaker, and I do not know whether a similar lawsuit in Canada would produce the same results but I would suggest that the spirit at least of the bill of rights of which the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) and his party are so proud should be preserved. I refer particularly to subsection (b) of section 1 which states that the right of the individual to equality before the law and the protection of the law is a basic Canadian right. I suggest that the principle embodied in that legislation should indicate that greater equality of voting strength in this country is overdue.
I say to hon. members of the official opposition: Let us get on with the job and quit playing games. Let us get the bill into committee where we can go through it clause by clause, improve it where it needs improving and amend it where it needs amendment. I have a couple of amendments myself. But let us not hear a lot of ridiculous and slanted history such as we heard from the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen). He makes a very poor historian. I should like to conclude by reading again from an editorial in the Globe and Mail of today's issue.


Eric Alfred Winkler: How many more editorials have you got there?


Maurice John Moreau: I quote from the last paragraph of that editorial:
Unless the opposition parties have better reasons to oppose the government's bill than they have so far advanced, they would be ill advised to make a fight of the matter in the Commons.


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


Maurice John Moreau: I am just about through and I will accept questions then.
It would be unfortunate if they injected partisan controversy into a bill carefully designed to be non-partisan.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the hon. member permit a question? Since he has quoted from that editorial in this morning's Globe and Mail as though it were gospel truth, and since the editorial uses the plural, would he indicate how many opposition parties are opposing this legislation?


Maurice John Moreau: I would agree with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that essentially, I think, the opposition comes entirely from the official opposition.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has just resumed his seat said he would be willing to accept a question when he finished his remarks.


Maurice John Moreau: Go ahead.


Donald MacInnis: Having indicated quite clearly to the house the wonderful job he and his

colleagues have been doing to hold up the Liberal average, would the hon. member indicate which portion of his riding he now wishes no longer to represent?


Maurice John Moreau: Mr. Speaker, I have no fears whatever on that score. I am quite confident I would be returned any way.


Howard Russell MacEwan: It is good to have that on Hansard.


Edward Nasserden: Mr. Speaker, on rising to take part in this debate I would like to congratulate the speaker who has just taken his seat on the very non-political, nonpartisan speech he made. He referred to the inequities that exist in the House of Commons representation, but I would like to remind him that the present representation in the House of Commons was brought about as a result of action taken by the St. Laurent government in 1952.
He also referred to the fact that some statements have been made that were ridiculous and that slanted history. I should like to deal with that matter tonight, and I shall call as my witnesses members of the party opposite in what they have said throughout the years on the matter of representation in the House of Commons. But, before doing so, I should like to comment on some of the remarks made this afternoon by the hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Scott) who said he thought the rural areas had a built-in advantage. He reiterated a statement made yesterday by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) that essentially we represent people in the House of Commons.
Later this afternoon the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Lloyd) said no one can challenge the proposition that representation should be by population. In the course of my remarks I intend to deal with both those assertions.
The measure before us is one of the most important that could come before the parliament of this nation. Distinguished members of both the historic and founding parties of Canada are on record as looking upon measures of this nature, dealing with redistribution, as constitutional measures that involves and affect the rights of the provinces. I do not intend to try to set out in detail the extent of that record, impressive as it is. On this occasion I want to deal more specifically with the need for a thorough re-examination of our constitution, with a view to eliminating some of the discriminations that have resulted from the wear and tear of some 90 odd years of existence as a nation. I hasten to assure you, sir, that I shall devote my remarks to the question at hand.
Electoral Boundaries Commissions
Before embarking on that line of debate I think I should congratulate the Minister of Transport on the introduction of this measure. It may not measure up to all that we would like to see, but it is certainly an acknowledgement, perhaps a little late, but nevertheless eloquent of the foresight and vision of my leader, the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker), who throughout his public life has called for an end to the old spoils system of redistribution.
Those of us who come from Saskatchewan are very much aware of the fact that for many years our population'was declining in comparison with other parts of Canada. The redistribution of 1952 acknowledged that fact. The debates of that day also acknowledged the widely accepted view that there should not be too rapid a reduction in the number of members representing any province.
I would now like to quote from Hansard of April 9, 1952, at page 1421, from the remarks of the prime minister of that time, Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent. But before I do that I want to answer one of the allegations made by the Minister of Transport and other hon. members opposite when, on occasion during the past year, they said that the former government led by my leader, the right hon. Leader of the Opposition, did not bring redistribution legislation before parliament as quickly as they should have. I think it is a noteworthy fact that the former prime minister, Right Hon. John G. Diefenbaker, introduced redistribution legislation exactly ten years after the previous redistribution legislation was introduced, on April 9, 1952- ten years from that date. I believe that refutes the argument which the Liberals were using from one end of the country to the other about delay in bringing a redistribution bill before parliament.
What did Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent have to say on April 9, 1952? I quote:
Now. it was suggested that there had been from confederation and right through to 1946, some qualification to prevent too rapid a reduction in the number of members representing any province. I had thought that on the motion to set up a committee, after the second reading of the bill any member who felt that the rule should not be strictly adhered to, but that something else should be done, might move an amendment to consider some other solution, because since 1949 parliament has jurisdiction to do something else if it is the will of parliament to do so.
As recorded at page 1430 of Hansard for April 21, 1952, right hon. Mr. St. Laurent has this to say:
It is worthy of consideration, I think, to remember that although there has been a diminution in the number of people counted in Saskatchewan in the last census there has been no diminution in the contribution of new wealth to the Canadian economy provided by the people of that province. The diminution results from the fact that a lesser

Electoral Boundaries Commissions number of people have been able to carry on agricultural pursuits, and to provide the same return from the soil that was provided before.
He went on to say that it was his hope that the situation in Saskatchewan would change some time in the future.
During that debate the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) had this to say, and it is very interesting in the light of the remarks which he made yesterday:
The Prime Minister today referred to the loss of population in Saskatchewan, and yet said that that was not any indication that there was a decline in the contribution of the people of Saskatchewan to the life and the economy of this country.
I agree with him. But does that not suggest that maybe we have got to take into consideration other factors besides that of population?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I have listened very carefully to the argument of the hon. member, and I agree he is pointing to a very significant problem with regard to representation in this country, but we are not now considering an amendment to the British North America Act. We are considering a bill to set up the redistribution of seats within the provinces. I would suggest that the remarks of the hon. member, however interesting they may be, are not relevant to this particular debate.


Edward Nasserden: After that interruption, may I continue? If I may, I will start over again to quote the observations of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). These are to be found on page 1443 of Hansard of April 21, 1952:
The Prime Minister today referred to the loss of population in Saskatchewan, and yet said that that was not any indication that there was a decline in the contribution of the people of Saskatchewan to the life and the economy of this country. I agree with him. But does that not suggest that maybe we have got to take into consideration other factors besides that of population? Is that not so, particularly in a far-flung country like this, in a country like Canada where we have some areas that are thickly populated and others that are sparsely populated but are still making a great contribution to the life of this country? The situation in our land is unique and, as I say, it seems to me there are other factors than that of population which should be taken into consideration. But I think that consideration should be given not by way of a snap judgment on a resolution which is at best an expedient but rather that that consideration should be given by a really independent body studying the whole problem.
A few minutes ago I quoted statements by a distinguished lawyer who went on to become an equally distinguished prime minister. I did so with a view to posing this question: What action does this parliament intend to take to honour the position taken by Mr. St. Laurent that the provinces have an interest in redistribution-an interest
[Mr. Nasserden.1
which reaches beyond the confines of population alone, important though that is in allowing for proper representation in the administration of the affairs of Canada. Nor should it be forgotten that the British North America Act provides, in section 17, that there shall be one parliament for Canada consisting of the Queen, the upper house, known as the Senate, and the House of Commons. I propose to deal with that later.
The measure before us-
I hear another intervention from the benches opposite. I cannot understand why hon. gentlemen over there should not like to hear the words of Mr. St. Laurent, one of the greatest leaders they ever had.
The measure before us cannot help but remind the people of my province of much that is now past history. The decline in population which promises to further reduce our representation in the House of Commons began under a Liberal administration which centralized industry in central Canada during the war. That action may have been forgive-able. But the people of Saskatchewan can never forget the action taken after the war, which denied to our province a fair share of opportunity in the reconstruction period, a period marked by advancing industrial development in almost every other province in Canada. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) can well remember the C. D. Howe era and the blackout it constituted to growth in Saskatchewan. This was, perhaps, the dominant reason for Saskatchewan people having to search outside the province for their livelihood.
In reading the debates of this house on the question of redistribution in 1952, it is easy to see this was one of the considerations present in the mind of the Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent when he introduced the redistribution bill of that day. I am, therefore, compelled to seek the views of the present Liberal government with regard to its attitude at the present time. In doing so, may I recall that during the past six years a change has begun to take place in the economic life of Saskatchewan, and I believe a great deal of the credit for the present situation is due to the recognition given by the government led by my hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition to the industrial needs and future of that province. In fact, I believe that recently Saskatchewan has given evidence of a renewed growth, which has already reversed the trend of many years which witnessed a decline in our population. I must say that the present government does not appear to me to have been particularly aware of our needs. Indeed, the Department of Industry, with all the powers which it was given when

it was set up to assist areas of slow growth, forgot that Saskatchewan existed at all.


An hon. Member:: Where is it?


Edward Nasserden: We on this side of the house are more hopeful than are hon. members opposite. We believe Saskatchewan is on the fringe of her greatest period of economic expansion. I am sure everyone is aware of the contribution which the agricultural production of Saskatchewan has made to the national economy; it begs recognition. If hon. members would take a look at the awakening industrial potential of this province, they would see that it commands recognition. Surely, the legislators of an earlier period in our history recognized the need for common sense when they provided opportunities for the revision of boundaries of electoral districts. It was said of the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) during the election campaign, that he was "the man who cares". I ask the right hon. gentleman to show how much he cares by the way his government handles the matter now before us.
The government has proposed that a 20 per cent limit be followed in the organization of new constituencies. We have heard a raft of government supporters urging that this rule should be followed. The only hon. member opposite who thought differently was the hon. member for Northumberland (Miss Jewett) who believes it should possibly be 25 per cent, and I believe that had she told us what she really thought she would have indicated her agreement with us, that it should be 33J per cent. We on this side have maintained that the margin should be one third, or 33J per cent, if the commission is to have a real opportunity to redistribute the constituencies to the ultimate benefit of this country and to the assurance of a broadly based representation in the House of Commons which will encourage the development of local communities.
The position we take is not an idle one, nor is it designed to discriminate against urban concentrations. Others in this debate have spoken of the ease with which an urban member is available to his constituents. Indeed, most urban members are as close to their people as they are close to a telephone. This is not the case in many of our rural ridings. But however pertinent this argument may be, it is not the prime consideration which we should bear in mind when considering any redistribution which may be arranged. In my opinion it is not the prime consideration to be borne in mind during the course of this debate. Both the Minister of Transport and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) have emphasized that
Electoral Boundaries Commissions we are representing people. I think it is important, too, that any proposals for redistribution should ensure a reasonable opportunity for all segments of our national life to take their place in the future of our country and its orderly development. I believe the limit which is set-whether it is 20 per cent or whether it is 33J per cent-will in a great measure decide the composition of this House of Commons for many years ahead. Bearing this in mind, I ask the Prime Minister to consider the injury to society and to the interests of the average Canadian living in the average town or small city which this 20 per cent limit would constitute. It cannot help but load the House of Commons in such a way as to encourage the further centralization of industry and commerce in areas which even today have become problem areas, by virtue of the trend toward centralization which has become problem number one in Canada.
The official opposition believes the future
of Canada is largely dependant on strong local communities which can support and maintain the growth of our larger centres of commerce and population. The House of Commons is the place where legislation will originate to give substance to that hope. While it is important that people be represented here, the complex problems of our national life are just as important to the orderly development of Canada. I think that anyone making even an elementary examination of this question would be compelled to reach the conclusion that the proposed 20 per cent limitation is far too limited to achieve that result.
The straight statistics of representation by population alone cannot, and I believe will not, ensure a better representation of Canada and her people in the House of Commons. I believe the commissioners will have to look beyond that premise if they are to render a real service to Canada and its future. Our task in this bill is to ensure that there will be that tolerance allowed them to achieve a worth-while and beneficial redistribution which will encourage growth, progress and consideration for every element contributing to the national stature of the nation.
Mr. Speaker, perhaps this is not the time to raise this question, but it is nevertheless related. I refer to the revision of our senatorial representation in Canada. I believe there have been sufficient changes in the social and economic life of this nation to warrant greater representation in the Senate from the prairie provinces than exists at the present time. This situation is one that has not received the consideration it warranted at the time-

Electoral Boundaries Commissions


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I believe-


Edward Nasserden: -Newfoundland was admitted to confederation.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


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


Cyril Lloyd Francis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon. member has deviated from the matter under discussion by this house at the present time.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. I think it might be preferable if the hon. member were to stay with the representation of the House of Commons.


Edward Nasserden: Mr. Speaker, I thought I had made it clear that this would be my only reference to that particular matter. I just wanted to put it before the house for the consideration of hon. members. I do not intend to say anything further about it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Edward Nasserden: In summing up, sir, I ask the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) to consider the example set by Mr. St. Laurent in 1952 in regard to not allowing too great a reduction in the representation from any one province. I ask the Prime Minister of this country to also consider the undesirable effects that would result from the further centralization that would accrue with the application of the 20 per cent limitation contained in this bill.


Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I certainly would not quarrel with the contention which has just been made by the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Nasserden), that the uneven economic growth and centralization in some parts of this country do not contribute to relieving the tensions and solving the problems that arise both inside and outside this house on the question of redistribution, as indeed is the case in many other fields of our Canadian life at this time. I would suggest that the answer to this problem lies far more in the kind of policies and programs which are adopted by the government of the day, and the question of whether the government is prepared to give real leadership in the field of economic planning. However, I do not intend to pursue that particular line of argument.
It does appear to me, Mr. Speaker, that a good deal of the discussion which has developed today has revolved around what to my mind is a rather unreal demarcation as between so-called urban and so-called rural constituencies. I believe the speeches made by the two hon. members who preceded me


bear this out very well. I was not at all surprised to find that the hon. member for York-Scarborough (Mr. Moreau) endorsed the eloquent plea on behalf of urban voters that was made earlier today by my colleague the hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Scott). However, as I say, I believe this distinction, with the possible exception of a relatively few constituencies, is a rather unreal and artificial one. I would suggest that it is a distinction which is apt to become less apparent in the years that lie ahead. Indeed, when I approach the larger metropolitan areas of this country and observe what is often referred to as suburban sprawl, I become more and more convinced that this distinction between urban and rural ridings is one that is increasingly fading out of the picture in this country. I know that even in my own riding I have one area with a fairly concentrated urban population totalling approximately 25,000, and on the other hand there are also many small communities.
As I listened to the hon. member for Danforth this afternoon there was recalled to my mind a cartoon that I saw a few years ago. It depicted a farmer standing in what was obviously the middle of a wheat field in Saskatchewan. He was talking to a visitor, to whom he made this remark, "Living, as we do, on the outskirts of metropolitan Toronto, we have no need to fear the encroachment of metropolitan Vancouver". I believe that cartoon is in many ways rather symptomatic of what has been taking place in Canadian society and in the development of our country.
I represent what I believe can be usefully described as one of the hinterland constituencies. I heard this distinction made in this debate the other day with regard to urban and rural ridings. The hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings (Mr. Nowlan) said that some members had to drive 180 miles in their constituencies in the rural areas. I could not help thinking that I can drive 90 miles in one direction from my home, and 150 miles in another direction, and I am still only on the southern fringes of Comox-Alberni. I am only too well aware of the fact, also, that I can start out from my home and travel steadily for a month and sleep in a different bed in a different community every night and still not have visited all the communities within my constituency.


An hon. Member:: Where are they?


Thomas Speakman Barnett: All the communities, or all the beds? Mr. Speaker, if I were to begin to list them all I would run beyond the length of time that I wish to take on this subject tonight. But if the hon. member is interested

enough, I woud be very glad to take him along with me on a trip and he can enjoy these delightful places as I do.


An hon. Member:: Can he take his car?


Thomas Speakman Barnett: He could not take his car; he would have to travel by aeroplane or by boat.


Mr. More:: What, no Cadillac?


Thomas Speakman Barnett: However, Mr. Speaker, I have mentioned this only to emphasize the fact that I find myself in complete agreement with the argument advanced earlier today by the hon. member for Danforth, namely that the principle on which we should be set as far as redistribution is concerned is representation by population. I believe he was quite right when he said we are here representing the people of Canada first, and the people in our constituencies second. While there are different problems and different mechanics involved in representing different kinds of constituencies, nevertheless I do not believe they are basically the kind of problems which can be solved by any artificial attempt to provide that some constituencies will have a population larger than others, to any appreciable extent. I think that if we are prepared to accept this basic principle of representation by population, starting from that point ways and means can be devised to provide the necessary assistance and the arrangements, be they for transportation or anything else, required to meet the problems of those members who represent particularly large geographic areas. I do not refer to my own constituency of Comox-Alberni when I make that statement, although as an aside I might point out I believe my constituency is approximately the size of the province of Nova Scotia. I am thinking of the kind of problem of members like the hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. Leboe) and the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) whose two constituencies combined constitute a good deal more than half the total land area of the province of British Columbia. That point has been made by one or two other hon. members and I feel that that is the approach we should be thinking of to meet this particular type of problem. I need hardly mention that that situation would apply to the members from the Northwest Territories (Mr. Rheaume) and the Yukon (Mr. Nielsen).
I enjoyed listening, Mr. Speaker, to the hon. member for York-Scarborough (Mr. Moreau), although I did not feel that the approach he took in his remarks was one which was particularly designed to expedite the early passage of this legislation. I hope that those who may have taken some umbrage at his remarks may not be too inclined to wreak their
Electoral Boundaries Commissions vengeance upon him in any great measure before the debate on second reading concludes.


Mr. J. J. Greene (Renfrew South):: Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour for me to speak on the second reading stage of this bill, because it is something more than a bill. It is something which, as the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) indicated, will affect and be part of our constitution hereafter, when passed. It is a special pleasure, again as the proponent of the bill pointed out, because it is in large measure a non-partisan bill, a bill of the house itself rather than a bill of the government. Such being the case I had anticipated that we would see this house at its finest in bringing forward an non-partisan bill which was a measure of the house itself. In that regard I shall try to follow the lofty non-partisan example of the hon. member for York-Scarborough (Mr. Moreau) who spoke a few moments ago.
Might I point out, Mr. Speaker, that representation by population is one of those pat cliches which makes a nice sound. It is something like being against sin or for motherhood. But if we study it carefully I think we will find that that shibboleth by itself does not mean a great deal. As a rule, representation by population has been used as a political slogan if and when needed for a particular political purpose.
In that regard, I think the prime example we have in the history of the country, when representation by population was the cry, is that of the days of the stalemate of union between Canada west and Canada east, which could only be broken by some form of redistribution of the then existing equal distribution between Canada east and Canada west. At that time the cry of the reform party of Canada west was for representation by population inasmuch as they believed, and I think rightly so, that they were paying the large proportion of the taxes of the union, and that while there was equal distribution, it resulted in a stalemate of the parliament of Canada as it then was, the parliament of lower Canada east and upper Canada west. So we see that the cry of representation by population even in those historical days had a very practical political motivation behind it.
I suggest that the symbol by itself does not mean a great deal. Let us take the example of a country or of a political entity consisting of 100,000 people. Let us suppose that 50,000 of those people live in one small town and the other 50,000 are scattered across an expanse of country the size of Canada. I am sure no one would say that in this case there should be equality of representation. That example shows that representation by population, standing alone and without reference to

Electoral Boundaries Commissions the existing conditions of the country and the existing geographical problems of the country, does not mean a thing.
I think recognition of this contradiction is inherent in the bill itself as drawn. We have seen that in clause 13 the framers of the bill realize that there is no such thing as representation by population, although this is the cry of some hon. members at this time. We see that in clause 13 it is envisaged that there can be no perfect representation by population.
Further than that, within our very constitution as presently existing we recognize and appreciate, and have forever enshrined therein, the fact that this country cannot be governed adequately by the easy symbol of representation by population. Section 51 of the British North America Act precludes representation by population on a perfect basis. The 1950 amendment was passed, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) indicated, for a very ulterior purpose, but is nevertheless part of the constitution. However the embodiments which form part of the constitution guaranteeing more seats to Prince Edward Island and the senatorial base for distribution make it impossible to have, and recognizes the impracticability of, perfect representation by population. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that merely to cry representation by population without recognizing the factors extant in our constitution, and without taking a very careful look at geographical, social and economic conditions as they exist in Canada today, is but a hollow, empty and futile cry.
I should like to associate myself with the hon. member who spoke last and the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Nasserden) in particular, who indicated to the house some doubt that the present rush to the urban municipalities and the helter-skelter growth of suburbia is necessarily something which will continue, or is necessarily the best thing in the long run for Canada as a whole. This growth development is the natural result of the economic needs of the country, and a great deal of this growth of suburbia and the urban areas is predicated on what is considered today best for our economic development. It is apparently in the interests of rapid economic growth that this tendency exists today. I suggest very humbly that if this trend were continued to its ultimate, we would find in this country five or six very heavily populated urban areas with the people practically living in caves. I think we have cave dwellers in some of these large municipalities now.
Surely, in the long run it was not ever the intention of those who left this country in the happy state in which we have found

it that there would be five or six large urban growth areas, five or six Japans scattered from ocean to ocean, with areas of desolation surrounding those islands. It is possible that in the long run redistribution and reallocation of this national prosperity will serve the greater social and economic needs rather than this present heedless, helter-skelter rush to urban areas for the sake of economic efficiency today.
If there is to be such a reallocation, such a redistribution in the future, then it certainly is essential that those areas which have not so much of this great growth economically and populationwise will have adequate representation in this house to present the needs, the problems and aspirations of those areas which have not shared in that great growth. I ask hon. members to bear this in mind.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) indicated that he had great confidence in an impartial commission, in a commission that was not composed of or constituted by politicians. At the same time, he apparently indicated a great fear that even such a commission would use the tolerance factor, whatever it might be, in such a fashion as to abort the intent of section 13 itself, which is that to the largest degree possible ridings be numerically equal. In other words, he respects the commission but he presumes the commission will be made up of imbeciles.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I wonder if the hon. member would permit a question at this time? I am not going to ask him about sin. Does he not realize that I was merely trying to point out that the argument for a wider tolerance is an argument for a possible disparity to the extent I indicated?


John James Greene: I quite appreciate that this is what the hon. member was driving at, but I would point out that the tolerance factor is not the one that is going to be used in the majority of cases. Section 13 is quite positive in that regard. The tolerance factor is there, in my humble opinion, to give the widest possible discretion to the commission in those areas where the commission deems it advisable, in the interests of the people to be represented, that section 13(b), be used. Surely, it is inherent within the section itself that to the largest possible measure section 13(a) will govern the commissioners, whoever they may be. It is only in areas where, in the words of section 13(b), special geographic conditions, including sparsity or density of population, and the like, exist, that the tolerance clause, whatever it may be, will come into play.

It seems to me, therefore, that by limiting the tolerance clause, all we are doing is to show the commissioner we do not really believe they should have too much discretion, because they might not know how to use it. This is a trait in our nation. We appoint people to do things, we appoint commissions, boards, and we laud to the skies the appointees at the time they are appointed to these high offices. However, we make very sure we put them in a strait-jacket, nice and tight, so that they cannot exercise these great abilities which we have said they have when we appoint them. This is a very good example of exactly what the hon. member is trying to do here. Surely this commission, to the largest degree possible, will distribute the seats in the respective provinces by population. As the hon. member for Northumberland (Miss Jewett) quite properly pointed out, there is no reason this cannot be done in the urban areas with almost mathematical certainty. Surely, we should give this commission the widest possible latitude to see to it that in those areas in which the task cannot be done with mathematical certainty, the people be given the most adequate representation by virtue of the properly exercised discretion of that commission.
In limiting the commission to a 20 per cent tolerance, all we are saying is that that is all the confidence we really have in the commissioner. We will trust them to a 20 per cent error, but beyond that we have not got that much confidence. We are merely hamstringing their discretion, limiting their ability to bring in a proper and fair redistribution for all areas by limiting the tolerance clause. The editorial in the Globe and Mail this morning apparently fails completely to see this point. This editorial, just as the prior editorial quoted by the hon. member for York-Scarborough (Mr. Moreau) is based on the fact that, if there is a tolerance larger than 20 per cent, then the commissioners will be tied hand and foot to apply that tolerance, and the same would be true if the tolerance were 20, 30 or 40 per cent. Surely, again, this presumes that the commissioners will be idiots or imbeciles-which I do not for a minute believe.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I was wondering whether the hon. member, in his reference to the 20 per cent, was overlooking the fact that the proposal is for 20 per cent up and 20 per cent down?


Mr, Greene:: I quite appreciate that, but I say it does not in any way indicate what the redistribution will be. Redistribution will be, in a very large measure, section 13 (a). All that limiting the discretion does is to make it more difficult for the commissioners 20220-55
Electoral Boundaries Commissions to exercise their good judgment in the interests of the representation of areas that do not fit nicely into section 13 (a).
If there is one quarrel I have with the premise of section 13 (b), which speaks of geographic considerations, sparsity or density of population of various regions, and the like, it is that it does not appear to encompass in any way historical connotations. Surely, in this land at this time this should be one of the very important criteria the commissioners should consider. If there is one thing that is lacking, as our present national problems would indicate, it is an appreciation of our background, of our history, of the great advantages our forebears left as our heritage.
Here in this bill it would surely be infamy if we were to disregard completely all that has gone before. Members from the urban areas who have apparently taken this bill as a challenge to see to it that urban areas get the maximum number of seats have forgotten for the moment, I suggest, that in those areas which have not grown so rapidly history is probably deeper founded and of a greater personal connotation to the inhabitants than it is in those areas that have grown very rapidly, because the very nature of those areas is that people have recently moved into them and are not so steeped in the history of the past.
Not too many days ago, Mr. Speaker, an hon. member made a speech which I think was acclaimed across the country, and certainly by other hon. members of the house. When I had the privilege of commending him for the very fine effort he had made, he said to me, "Well, I think it was a little corny". If pride in this country is to be corny, if it is to be corny for a Canadian to take pride in his antecedents and in the history of the country, and to wear that pride a little more on his national sleeve than we have done in the past, then possibly what we do need in this country is a little more corn. I suggest that many of the national problems that exist today would not be as pressing and poignant as they appear to be if there was just a little more appreciation of our past history. If in applying the 20 per cent tolerance this bill does not permit the commissioners to recognize historical antecedents, then I suggest we are doing a great disfavour not only to the future representation in this house but to the recognition of the historic facts of this nation which so badly need recognizing today.
I would point out that the riding I have the honour to represent is that kind of riding, one with a very old history and which is very proud of that history. I suggest that urban members are apparently petrified by the fact that rural ridings may encompass fewer

Electoral Boundaries Commissions people than do the very great, wealthy and powerful urban areas. Let me point this out, Mr. Speaker. What I seek to prevent in particular in regard to the riding I represent is not that the riding should be contained as one small riding. The county of Renfrew as constituted broke off from Lanark in 1854, and a blessed day it was for one who aspired to sit on this side of the house that we did break off from Lanark. So far as representation is concerned, only once since confederation have the people of Lanark elected a representative to this side of the house. But as early as 1854 the people of Renfrew showed political sagacity in breaking off from Lanark.
Subsequently that riding was divided into two ridings, and in Renfrew county today there are two ridings. I simply suggest that if the tolerance clause is too stringent it may preclude the commissioners from embodying the two ridings again in one riding, in the county of Renfrew. If this is not possible then some area of that riding with traditions going back to 1854, with lines of communication in municipal matters, in social welfare matters, in all aspects of our society and where the county lines are the boundaries which have governed our society, would be broken off. If one area is broken off and stuck in with some foreign county-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John James Greene: -you may then hear, Mr. Speaker, about a new breed of separatism and, believe me, in comparison the separatists that have been in action to date will be but schoolboys, indeed. I merely suggest that the tolerance clause will not necessarily always go one way, as our urban friends are apparently so much afraid. I suggest that the tolerance clause will merely give a wider latitude, a greater discretion to those gentlemen who form the commission to do those
things that are best, in the interests of providing the best possible representation in the various areas of Canada.
I would point out to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), who claims that we do not represent rocks or trees or square miles-I believe that was his phrase-that we do not only represent people, as he indicated. As I think the hon. member will know much better than I, this was settled many years ago by Edmund Burke in his Bristol speech. To the best of our abilities, knowledge and experience we represent as we see fit the needs and aspirations, social and economic, of the people themselves. We not only have to know the individual: We have to know the various aspects of the economy, society and industry within the riding itself, and then do what we can in those interests to the best of our humble endeavours.
I suggest that in an area 150 by 200 miles or more economic, social and other considerations are more varied than they are in a small, compact urban riding. I would point out that in the matter of communications some members have played fast and loose. In most of these rural ridings one television station or one radio station does not cover the whole riding. It is not that easy to get to know the needs of the people. One newspaper does not cover the entire area as it will easily do in an urban area. Surely if we are going to get to know, not merely the people themselves but all of their needs, there will have to be some understanding, some tolerance and the greatest latitude in these impartial commissioners to do what is best in the interests of good representation.
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]
Friday, March 13, 1964