1964-11-12

Hon. Waller L. Gordon (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, today I am tabling the reports of the quinquennial actuarial valuations required under sections 33 and 48 of the Public Service Superannuation Act.
The most important of these reports deals with the state of the superannuation account as of December 31, 1962 and shows that new deficiencies of $110,536,000 arose during the five year period ending on that day. The largest contributory factor was the deficiency arising from salary adjustments authorized in 1960 and again in 1962 for various classes of contributors. Subsequently the salary increases authorized in July, 1963 with effect from October 1, 1962 added another $22 million to this deficiency.
In accordance with the policy outlined in this house on March 6 of this year authority will be sought from parliament later in this fiscal year to write off to net debt the initial deficiency of $110,536,000 plus interest, and to charge the deficiencies arising from pay increases authorized during the fiscal years 1963-64 and 1964-65 against expenditures over a five year period commencing with this fiscal year. Thus one fifth of the deficit of $22 million plus interest and one fifth of the deficiencies arising from subsequent similar salary increases will be charged to expenditure during the fiscal year 1964-65.
The other two reports which I have tabled related to the death benefit accounts established under part II of the act. These reports show that a satisfactory contingency reserve is being built up.



BROADCASTING ACT


Mr. C. W. Carter (Burin-Burgeo) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-138, to amend the Broadcasting Act (broadcast tending to corrupt morals).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Chesley William Carter: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is described in considerable detail in the explanatory notes; but briefly put, this bill assembles the authority and powers already possessed by the board of broadcast governors together with existing regulations already laid down by the B.B.G. in such a way as to provide a means whereby the ordinary citizen or group of citizens is enabled to take action in respect to obscene broadcasts in much the same way as is now possible with respect to obscene literature.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Prime Minister whether, having regard to the representations made yesterday by the dominion command of the Royal Canadian Legion and the criticism they advanced as to the smallness of the 10 per cent increase in disability pensions, it is the intention of the government to give reconsideration to this matter to the end that a fair and reasonable increase in disability pensions will be provided.


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the government feels that in the circumstances the action taken in regard to veterans pensions was fair and reasonable and does not intend to review that action, particularly as it is not able to draw the same conclusions from the facts that are available as the Legion delegation has drawn.
Mr. Speaker, the Legion people also recommended that the government take the same action in respect of Canadian veterans as it does for the civil service, by placing pensions and war veterans allowances under cyclical review every two years. I told the Legion delegation yesterday that I thought that was a reasonable request and that that kind of cyclical review will be taken every two years. That was misunderstood in some quarters as
9992	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry an indication that we would review the action just taken. That is not our intention.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Prime Minister for his answer. Would he say whether or not the government is now giving consideration to making provision for assistance to those who served such long imprisonment at Hong Kong?


Hon. Roger Teillei (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I may reply to that question. As I have indicated to the house, at the moment there is an inquiry under way. It is our thought that we should wait for that report before reaching any conclusion as to what should be done for the Hong Kong veterans. We hope that the report will not be too long in coming.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, can the minister give any indication as to when that report will be forthcoming? I know it is difficult to fix an exact date.


Roger-Joseph Teillet: Mr. Speaker, I will make an inquiry in this regard and report my findings to the Leader of the Opposition.


Mr. Jack McIntosh (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. I wonder whether he would inform the house if he anticipates presenting legislation to the house before Christmas in regard to the elimination of the 365 day clause in the War Veterans Allowance Act, so these Canadian veterans can participate in the increase he has announced.


Roger-Joseph Teillet: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid that at the present time I am not in a position to give that undertaking. I would like to be able to do so, but I cannot guarantee it.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the minister. I wonder whether he can inform the house if legislation will be introduced after Christmas 1964, so these veterans can participate in this announced increase?


Roger-Joseph Teillet: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I can usefully add anything to what I have already said.



PUBLICATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime


Minister a question arising out of a letter I received from Mr. Harold Cook, of Liberty magazine, indicating that attempts to republish Liberty magazine are floundering because of the continuing swing of advertising revenue to Time and Reader's Digest. I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he would consider issuing some kind of an interim statement which would clarify the government's position on this whole question of advertising in periodicals and on the recommendations of the royal commission on publications, in view of the long delay that has followed the appearance on the order paper of the original intention of the government.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to take into consideration this whole matter of the possibility of making a statement pending action by the government on the matter now on the order paper.



WHEAT BOARD ORDER RESPECTING DAMP AND TOUGH GRADES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce concerning the Canadian wheat board. In view of the fact that the Canadian wheat board have now cancelled an order which allowed their agencies to take in damp and tough grain and remove it to the drying facilities at the lakehead and the west coast, and in view of the fact that there is still a large quantity of this damp and tough grain in certain areas of the prairies, I wonder whether he would take up this matter with the wheat board to see whether they can extend this practice at least until most of the tough and damp grain is taken to the drying facilities.


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, 1 will be very happy to discuss this matter with the wheat board.



PRINCE RUPERT, B.C.-INCREASE IN ELEVATOR CAPACITY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture and ask him whether there is, contrary apparently to the state of affairs in the

defence department, any delay in announcing policy with respect to grain elevators?


Hon. Harry W. Hays (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member is talking about the same grain elevator, the matter is still under consideration.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the Minister of Finance?
Since the Bank of Canada granted a loan to England in order to save the pound sterling, could he tell us whether other countries have done likewise? If so, what are those countries?
[Text}


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, as I said some time ago, a statement to this effect would come more appropriately from the British authorities than from myself. At some appropriate time however, I will be glad to give my hon. friend the details he asks for.



INDIAN 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 Citizenship and Immigration, and in view of his absence perhaps his parliamentary secretary will bring it to the minister's attention. Owing to the increasing number of treaty Indians being required to stand trial for alleged hunting infractions, would the minister assure the house that the hunting rights granted our Indian people by treaty will be protected?


Mr. Hubert Badanai (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: I shall take the question as notice, Mr. Speaker.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Jolieile-L'Assomplion-Montcalm):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a ques-
Inquiries of the Ministry tion to the Associate Minister of National Defence?
In view of the fact that the Regiment de Joliette is one of the most famous and well-known regiments in Canada, does the government intend to reconsider its decision, maintain this regiment and prevent its disappearance?


Hon. Lucien Cardin (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member undoubtedly knows that in this matter the department benefited from the thorough study and recommendations of the Suttie commission which, in fact, was composed of militia officers. Before any final decision was taken the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hellyer), the higher officials of the department and myself reviewed three or four times every militia unit in the country in order to ascertain that a right decision had been reached.
Under the circumstances I regret to say that, to my mind, it would serve no useful purpose to reconsider that decision.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, arising out of the
answer given by the associate minister I would direct a question to the Prime Minister, and under the circumstances I hope I will get a favourable answer. Has he received a protest from the Northern Ireland associated clubs regarding the disbandment of the Irish Regiment of Canada and the Irish Fusiliers, thereby leaving no vestige of an Irish regiment in the militia across Canada? Knowing the Prime Minister's background, this is one time I expect I will receive favourable consideration for the request that the Irish have at least one regiment in their own name.


An hon. Member:: What are you doing to the little people?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, just before luncheon I did receive the communication to which my hon. friend refers. It was from the association he mentioned and had an enormous maple leaf on the letterhead, and I have to add it was a green one.


John George Diefenbaker: It also had a crown on it.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, a crown on a green maple leaf. I am sorry that the circumstances are not such as to enable me to take favourable action with regard to representations of this kind.
9994	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. R. A. Webb (Haslings-Fronlenac):: supplementary question to the Associate Minister of National Defence. Does the answer he gave a few minutes ago also apply to the famous Hastings-Prince Edward regiment?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is anything I can add to what I have already said. A good deal of consideration has been given to each of the units. The Minister of National Defence, members of the department and I have looked at each of these cases at least three or four times and I do not think there is anything I can add.


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the Associate Minister of National Defence or the Minister of National Defence explain why the department failed to accept the recommendations of the Suttie commission, which reported favourably with regard to the maintenance on the active list of some of these regiments?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the reason that some of the recommendations were not upheld was very carefully explained in the committee on defence, and I do not think it would be appropriate for me to repeat at length now the arguments and factors which entered into the judgments and which were explained at that time.


John George Diefenbaker: Just give them in summary for a change.



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

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of National Defence and ask him whether the reported delay of several months in the installation of nuclear warheads at Comox and certain other air force stations in Canada means that the government has under consideration plans to abandon bringing these nuclear weapons into Canada.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: There is no delay, Mr. Speaker; the projects are proceeding on schedule, and we expect the special ammunition to be delivered on schedule.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question. When the minister says "on


schedule", when will that be; because almost two years have elapsed since he promised to arm the Voodoos with nuclear missiles?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, there was some delay before the associate minister and myself had responsibility for the department. Since then we have managed to move along at a reasonable speed.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: Crab fashion.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: We expect the special ammunition to be available in the new year.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Toronto and Montreal still unprotected.



NATIONAL PARKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. Has there been a change in the orders in council governing zoning and building requirements in our national parks? If so, would the minister kindly disclose why these changes have been made?


Mr. Speaker:: Surely this is a question requiring a long answer, and it should be put on the order paper.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: May I put this question to the minister. Has there been any change made in this regard, and if so why?


Mr. Speaker:: The question is considerably shorter, but it is still the same.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I have another question for the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. Is the minister prepared to table the changes in regulations in regard to Banff national park?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minisler of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Well, Mr. Speaker, we have made a decision with respect to the policy dealing with buildings there. It has not been incorporated in an order in council but it has been disclosed to the advisory committee, and they are aware of the regulations that are being used at the present time.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: As a further supplementary question, have there been regulations passed and is the minister prepared to table them?

I am advised by the council that the minister advised them regulations had been passed, and I ask whether he is prepared to table them?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Comox-Alberni.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Surely the minister is
prepared to answer such a reasonable question on such an important matter covering all the national parks in Canada. I ask him if he will table those regulations. Is it not correct that he has made regulations, as pointed up by the fact that Hawrelak is building another hotel?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member knows the rules.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I would like to debate this at ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources supplementary to the one asked by the hon. member for Bow River. Would the minister inform the house whether any recent changes have been made by order in council in national park regulations, specifically affecting the Bow river site in the Banff national park? Also, could he comment on the results of his recent meeting with the Banff advisory council on this important issue?


Mr. Speaker:: Surely this is a question for the order paper, particularly since three questions have been asked on it this afternoon.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: By that time the hotel will be built.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, there is a matter of importance here. The minister is usually good when it comes to answering questions and I ask him, will he not table the regulations? Surely the various national parks and members from those areas have a right to see them. I suggest to him it is not parliamentarily very proper to refuse to table regulations, and I would ask him to do so.


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, I have no objection to tabling the regulations.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Fine.


Arthur Laing: They have already been made known to all those in the parks. The people there are conversant with them, and the basis upon which we made a decision with respect
Inquiries of the Ministry to Bow River is well known to all the people within the park.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, the minister has indicated that he is willing to table these regulations. Would he also table a copy or copies of the Oberlander report for the Jasper park development, which was unveiled recently at Jasper national park?


Arthur Laing: I will be very glad to do that, Mr. Speaker.



PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Has a decision been taken with regard to the second reading of the bill respecting the Canada pension plan? Will it be proceeded with next week?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The government business for next week will be announced, I hope, at the end of tomorrow's sitting.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day: fTranslation]
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question to the Prime Minister.
Since he stated that the creation of a Department of Agriculture for eastern Canada also appeared on the government priority list, could he tell us whether this legislation will be brought before the house before the end of the present session?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, a bill has been drafted in connection with this matter, as my hon. friend knows. I hope we will be able to get to it as quickly as possible. I doubt if we can get to it before Christmas, but that will depend on the progress we make.



REQUEST FOR ANNOUNCEMENT RESPECTING DAIRY POLICY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Marcel Lessard (Lake St. John):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture.

Inquiries of the Ministry
About two weeks ago the Minister of Agriculture advised us that he was getting ready to disclose to the Canadian people, or the farmers, his new policy with regard to the dairy industry.
Can the minister tell us if we can expect information about that new policy in the near future?


Harry William Hays: I would be glad to make the announcement just as soon as we have one.


John George Diefenbaker: Isn't it born yet?



ELIGIBILITY OF SMALL BLOCKS UNDER P.F.A.A. REGULATIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['Mr. Speaker, any reports to the effect that a consulate is being set up by the government of Quebec are quite inaccurate.']
Mr. E. Nasserden (Rosthern):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Have there been any recent changes made in the regulations under the P.F.A. Act in regard to the eligibility of blocks of less than township size?


Harry William Hays: No, Mr. Speaker, there have not been.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Perhaps the Prime Minister, on more mature reflection, has been able to further consider the question I asked him on Tuesday with regard to the setting aside of two days in the immediate future for further discussion of the external affairs estimates in order that we may discuss problems facing Canada. I wonder if he is now in a position to tell us whether it is the government's intention to accede to this request.


Lester Bowles Pearson: If we are on estimates next week, and that is a possibility to say the least, then I should think the Department of External Affairs could be brought forward next week and that would provide an opportunity for discussion.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Auguste Choquette (Lolbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.

Is he in a position to provide the house with supplementary information about the Canadian victims of the distressing situation in Congo?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: No, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Thompson went' to Nairobi the day before yesterday; he had discussions there and he is to go back.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Prince Edward-Lennox):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the right hon. Prime Minister. Are the Prime Minister and his government in accord and agreement with the latest reported separatist policy being put into effect by Premier Lesage of the province of Quebec, whereby he is now consulting with the great President de Gaulle with a view to setting up a consular exchange between that province and the republic of France?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, any reports to the effect that a consulate is being set up by the government of Quebec are quite inaccurate.



WATER RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reid Scott (Danforth):: I wanted to ask the minister of national resources whether his department has reached any conclusion yet on the Credit valley conservation scheme. If so, what is the nature of the decision? If there has not been any decision, when will we have one?


Arthur Laing: I have reported to the house already that regrettably the benefit in respect of this scheme is largely recreational, as a matter of fact to the extent of 71 per cent. We have been studying the possibility of separating part of the works that relate to flood damage. I hope to be able to make an announcement next week.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. E. Pascoe (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for

the Postmaster General. To answer inquiries I have received from constituents will the minister indicate whether postage on Christmas cards in unsealed envelopes has been increased to 3 cents?


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I am very glad the hon. member has asked this question. I would remind him and other members of the house of an announcement that was made by the Postmaster General in September, 1963 that as of April 1, 1964 the postal rate on cards would be raised from 2 cents to 3 cents. This does not apply to Christmas cards only but to Easter cards, Mother's day cards and Father's day cards, etc. It has been in effect since April 1; there has been no change in this state since then, nor is any change contemplated.


James Ernest Pascoe: To avoid misunderstanding and postage due claims, will the minister take action to see that the increased rate is publicized before the Christmas mailing season begins, because at present there is a great deal of misunderstanding?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I can assure the hon. member that steps have already been taken toward that end. A special publicity campaign has already been launched.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS MEETING OF LABOUR MINISTER AND NOVA SCOTIA PREMIER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Is it his intention to have the Minister of Labour confer with the premier of Nova Scotia during his visit to Halifax this week end, in the hope that whatever difficulties have arisen with regard to federal-provincial relations may be eliminated and a more harmonious relationship result?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the minister is in Nova Scotia at the moment, and I hope he will be able to set the premier straight on this matter.


Robert Carman Coates: As a supplementary question I would like to ask the Prime Minister if it is the intention of the Minister of Labour to meet with the premier. I think the people of Nova Scotia would like to see such a meeting take place.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am sure they would, and I am sure the minister will do everything he can to get the matter straightened up, if that
Inquiries of the Ministry requires a meeting with the premier. I shall get in touch with the minister right away.



REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION OF REPORT ON FEDERAL EXPENDITURES IN PROVINCES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day: tTranslation]
Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Finance.
Further to the report he tabled last Friday, on the break-up of federal government expenditures and revenue concerning the various provinces, and with a view to assisting the Canadians who are interested in analysing this very complicated report, can the minister tell us what figure, per capita, represents the 45 per cent portion of the national budget? Is it $150, or $175 per Canadian?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I have not the figure, Mr. Speaker. It would require some elementary division, which I am sure my hon. friend could do just as well as I.



STUDY OF ECONOMIC INTERDEPENDENCE OF PROVINCES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reid  Scoll@Danforth: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Several weeks ago he told us that the report of the commission on the interdependence of the provinces would be ready in a couple of weeks. I wonder if it is ready, and when it will be available to the house.


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, it is not ready. As soon as there is something to report, I will be very glad to do so.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration I wonder whether I could direct a question to the parliamentary secretary, and ask whether his attention has been drawn to the statement of George Lincoln Rockwell to the effect that he entered Canada quite openly, disclosed his passport and other identifying documents to the immigration officials, and in no way tried
9998	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry to gain entry by subterfuge. If this information has been drawn to his attention, will that be incorporated in the subject matter of the investigation being made into how this person got here?


Hubert Badanai: Mr. Speaker, I will bring the hon. member's question to the attention of the minister.



TORONTO-STATUS OF PERSONS CONCERNED WITH NEWSPAPER STRIKE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Reid Scott: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a question of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration of which I gave him notice this morning. Several weeks ago he told us that certain persons concerned in the I.T.U. strike in Toronto would be asked to leave the country. I should like to know whether they have left the country and, if not, why not?


Hubert Badanai: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take this question as notice and draw it to the attention of the minister on his return.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Is he now in a position to indicate to the house the terms of the reply he sent on Tuesday to those who were concerned about increases in pensions of retired civil servants, and were those terms favourable?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, replies have gone to the representatives of the federal superannuates national association, to the civil service federation of Canada and to the civil service association of Canada. These replies have now been received by them, so I think it is appropriate for me to announce in the house that the government has come to the conclusion- and this was embodied in the replies-after reviewing the principles involved and the facts cited, that any steps it should propose to parliament to alleviate difficulties faced by retired persons should be general in character and not confined to former employees of the government of Canada.


The government believe, in the light of general action already taken and proposed to benefit all retired people in Canada-I am referring here, of course, among other things, to the old age security pension-that it would be unfair to the great majority of retired Canadians who have not worked for the government to make special provisions to benefit only former employees of the government of Canada. To do so would constitute, in a sense, a form of discrimination against the majority of other retired Canadians who cannot expect such treatment from the government as such, or generally from their former employers.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, because of the unsatisfactory nature of this reply I give notice of my intention to raise this question at ten o'clock.



REPRESENTATIONS RESPECTING PRESS GALLERY ACCOMMODATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Prime Minister a question that arises from a current magazine story and later information I have received regarding a plea to the Prime Minister from delegates of the parliamentary press gallery for assistance in their determination to stay in their present quarters. I would like to ask the Prime Minister what response, if any, he has made to these importunities.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I do not think any importunities were made. A delegation representing the press gallery did call on me, I think it was the day before yesterday. They told me about their difficulties, of which I already had some knowledge, and asked if I would discuss the situation with the Speaker who has, I think he will agree, the primary responsibility in this matter.


Douglas Mason Fisher: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that subsidies for non-governmental work seem to be involved in this question, I wonder whether the Prime Minister would consider having this matter reviewed by the public accounts committee.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I think at the moment I will confine my intervention to a talk with the Speaker on the matter.



AIRPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. On October 22 I asked a question of the acting minister with regard to the airport facilities at Moncton. I wonder whether the Minister of Transport is now in a position to answer that question.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I did notice the question at the time, and I think when I first came back into the house I had a few notes on which to base a reply. The hon. member of course knows that a very considerable addition is being made to the terminal at Moncton, and so far as I know it is in every way adequate. But if there have been any recent representations I would like to inform myself fully before giving a definitive answer. I could perhaps do that on my estimates.


Robert Carman Coates: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The problem is with regard to the space available to passengers. Apparently a large addition is being made but it is not one that will be of benefit to passengers because a restaurant is going to be constructed as well. Representations have been made to the minister to have the space available to passengers enlarged. I wonder whether he has given consideration to this matter.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I will certainly look at those representations, Mr. Speaker.



REDISTRIBUTION


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, November 10, consideration in committee of Bill No. C-72, to provide for the establishment of electoral boundaries commissions to report upon the readjustment of the representation of the provinces in the House of Commons and to provide for the readjustment of such representation in accordance therewith-Mr. Pickersgill (for Mr. Pearson)-Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.
On clause 6-Appointment of chairman.
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Chairman, on Tuesday the minister discussed clause 6, this clause having been set aside while the other clauses of the bill were discussed. On that occasion
Electoral Boundaries Commissions the minister put two propositions to the committee regarding a change to clause 6. Without going into detail my suggestion at that time, which was accepted by the minister- and I thank him for that-was that the debate be adjourned and the bill discussed again today so that in the interim we could discuss these two proposed changes to clause 6.
We have now had a discussion Mr. Chairman, and have come to a conclusion. It was the feeling of the group in this party who met that as far as we were concerned, although we preferred the terms and conditions of the bill as originally drawn and presented by the minister, in order to compromise and come to some sort of settlement so we could get this legislation through the house we should give serious thought and consideration to accepting one of the changes suggested by the minister.
One of the proposals was that two members of the commission be appointed by the Speaker of the House of Commons. We believe this proposal has some merit, although as I say we would prefer to accept the original bill as drawn by the government and presented to parliament. Nevertheless sometimes consideration must be given to other people's viewpoints, and we have given such consideration to that suggestion.
In arriving at that conclusion I should like to summarize what has been our position in the past with reference to this redistribution bill. We received some criticism to the effect that there was delay on our part with reference to the passage of this particular piece of legislation. We felt that as a matter of principle the commission should be made up of personnel appointed by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition who would sit with the commissioner. It was then that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre moved his amendment, which was known-I think I can say this without slighting the hon. member-as the Knowles amendment. It was at that stage that we reached a deadlock on the bill.
Therefore, what was our position? First of all, our party's position was that we should have one commission for all Canada; that if there were to be ten commissions the bill should have been left as it was so the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition each in turn would appoint one member of the commissions. At that time the minister had this to say, and it might be well to review it because he did leave the gate open. As reported at page 741 of Hansard for March 10, 1964 he said:
10000	HOUSE OF
Electoral Boundaries Commissions
After various other possibilities were considered the government finally agreed to put in the bill the suggestion that the chief justice of the province should nominate the chairman from a member of his court; that the leader of the government, the Prime Minister, should nominate one of the members of the commission; and that the Leader of the Opposition, who is an officer of parliament, should nominate the other. I say unreservedly that I have every confidence that no matter who occupies those offices, any person who becomes leader of the opposition in the parliament of our country or prime minister in the parliament of our country would take this responsibility seriously and make the kind of nominations that all of us would feel were appropriate under the circumstances. I do not hesitate to say that with respect to this provision or with respect to any other method which commends itself to the house or to a majority of the house and which seems likely to produce as fair and effective a result, the government will be quite prepared in committee to consider on its merits any amendments to this procedure.
To be fair to the minister, he did leave the door open at that time, and it was left open both for the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and any other member of this committee. At that time the amendment was moved.
Now, Mr. Chairman, we objected to the amendment on similar grounds to those outlined by the minister on Tuesday, namely that one person would be appointing three people. We also objected to it on the ground that those people were to be appointed from a certain group of people in a certain category. We contended that in some respects that could lead to discrimination. In fact it might mean that people with practical experience and knowledge of politics and who would then be referred to as politicians might be discriminated against.
Therefore we as a group feel that the solution to this problem is to accept one of the propositions which have been put forward by the minister, so we can get the bill approved by this house and the commissioners can get on with the job. The proposition is that the Speaker appoint two of the members of the commission. Let us take a look at this for a moment. The Speaker, as the minister said on Tuesday, is elected by the members of the House of Commons. He sits in a judicial capacity in the House of Commons. Certainly my experience has been-and there are many here who are my seniors-that the Speaker has always exercised his position judiciously, as I am sure would any Speaker given that responsibility by the house. Certainly I know we would have every confidence that the present Speaker would exercise his powers judiciously in this regard.


Therefore, after some consideration and serious thought, we would entertain a change to clause 6 of the bill so the two other members of the commission would be appointed by the Speaker. No doubt the Speaker would consult with the leader of the government and the Leader of the Opposition and the leaders of the other parties in making his choice. But I repeat that we feel his choice will a judicious one having regard to the fact that we want to set up a commission which is as close to purity as we can get it so the question of redistribution is taken out of the field of politics.
This position we have taken is, of course, predicated on the fact that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre will withdraw his amendment. In order to get this bill through now and let the commissioners get on with the job of redistribution, which is a very big job, I trust the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre will recognize that we have compromised our previous stand. We repeat that we would rather have had the bill in its original form. We dislike the bill as it would be amended by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, and we are suggesting some compromise. It is not exactly what we would like, but it is the best we can do today in order to reach a compromise.
When I say a compromise, it is really a settlement. I looked up the meaning of the word "compromise", and the best definition I could find in the Oxford dictionary was that it means to meet half way or to reach a settlement. I think this is the best settlement of the dilemma in which we have been.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre seems to have been making other statements outside this house since this was discussed on Tuesday, and one can never be too sure of the position he might take. However, I sincerely trust that because of the compromise we are making he will also compromise his position. I should like to congratulate the minister for the compromise he has adopted. Since we have reached consideration of the clause of this bill having to do with these appointments, I hope the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre will realize that the only solution to be found to the problem lies in a withdrawal of his amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I should like very much to hear from the minister and from the member for Winnipeg North Centre as to what they think about the position we are adopting.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Bow River has pointed out that the members of this house have had 48 hours to consider the proposals which were placed before the house on Tuesday afternoon. The hon. member has said that the members of his group have considered those proposals. The same is true of us in this party. We have looked at both proposals offered by the Minister of Transport in the light of what we believe to be the desire of parliament regarding redistribution.
I shall spell out the reasons for our position, but I might as well not keep the member for Bow River or anyone else in suspense. We do not feel disposed to withdraw our amendment for the purpose of agreeing to either of the amendments proposed by the Minister of Transport. Perhaps it is not necessary to discuss, in more than a sentence or two, the second proposal made by the minister, because apparently the Progressive Conservatives are not interested in it either. May I say that the second proposal strikes us as being worse than the first one.
Mr. Chairman, the second proposal was that each individual provincial commission consist of four people with votes and three people with eyes and voices but without votes. These other three were to be appointed, one each by the leaders of the three other parties in the House of Commons. We feel that an arrangement of that kind would really turn this so-called impartial redistribution into a political dogfight, and if that proposal were put forward we would oppose it very strongly. However, it is not even being considered by the Progressive Conservatives, so we do not have to deal with it further.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: We thought it would be unfair to you.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We do not think it would be unfair to us, we think it would be unfair to the people of Canada, and we think it would be adverse to the principle we have already agreed to in this house.
We now come to the other proposal the Minister of Transport has made, which the hon. member for Bow River says his party is prepared to accept, namely that in the legislation the Speaker of the House of Commons be asked to name the other two members of each of the ten provincial commissions. The first comment I want to make is to the effect that I find the bit of logic which we have been handed rather difficult to understand.
Electoral Boundaries Commissions
The Minister of Transport used an expression the other day which the hon. member for Bow River has just repeated. Maybe they have consulted during the last 48 hours. At any rate, this is what the Minister of Transport said on Tuesday, as recorded at page 9954 of Hansard. I note the way Hansard is building up. It probably has reached 10,000 pages by now for the first time in Canadian history. At any rate this is what the minister said:
It is true that there were limitations on the kind of persons who could he appointed, but notwithstanding that fact, that is perhaps rather a concentration of power in the hands of one man-
That was in reference to the chief justice, under the terms of my amendment, appointing three persons. That statement was made by the Minister of Transport and has now been made by the hon. member for Bow River. They have said it would be rather a concentration of power in the hands of one man to ask one man to make three appointments, but now the proposal is that we ask one man to make 20 appointments. The suggestion is that we ask the Speaker to appoint two members to each of the ten provincial commissions. Please tell me how the power to appoint three members is a concentration of power in the hands of one man and that you get away from that by giving to one man the power to appoint 20 persons.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the hon. member would permit a question. Would he not consider in fairness that each of these commissions has jurisdiction over matters in its own province? There are ten separate commissions to be set up, one for each province, which will have jurisdiction in reference to that province. In other words the commission set up for the province of Ontario will not be governing in the jurisdiction of the province of Alberta. Is that not fair?


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is a typical attempt on the part of the hon. member for Bow River to answer a point, and is a complete non sequitur if ever there was one. Of course there are ten separate provincial commissions. What we are talking about is the basis of the argument made against our proposal, which was that the power of appointment, with which we are dealing in our consideration of clause 6, as suggested by our amendment, was being concentrated because one man was being given the power to appoint three people. Now the proposal is that one man be given the power to appoint 20 people. I suggest that that is logic in reverse.
10002	HOUSE OF
Electoral Boundaries Commissions


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: It sounds pretty illogical to me.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It certainly is, and I am glad I have convinced my hon. friend.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I was referring to your argument.


Stanley Howard Knowles: An argument in this chamber during a debate of this kind is much like the argument about motherhood. No one criticizes motherhood. We have the name of Mr. Speaker put before us, and all our respect for the Chair and our confidence in the impartiality of the Speaker is brought into play. When I think of the number of times the hon. member for Bow River has not even accepted the judgment of Mr. Speaker, as he did today when his question was ruled out of order, it becomes rather strange that the hon. member feels the Speaker is such an impartial person he could make these appointments across the country.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. I did not challenge the Speaker's ruling during the question period today just before orders of the day were called. The minister did not answer the question and according to the rules laid down by the hon. member, who has been so proud of the changes, I rose and said that I should like to have it debated at ten o'clock. That is not a challenge of a judicial decision of His Honour the Speaker, and certainly represents no disrespect for him. I think the hon. member should withdraw his remark, and if he has a sound argument let us get on with it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is non sequitur No. 2, Mr. Chairman. Let us get back to the issue.
The argument is put forward that somehow or other by asking Mr. Speaker to make these appointments we would take this whole matter out of politics. Does any Speaker of the House of Commons know the personalities and situations of each of the ten provinces of this country? Is there any person who is likely to occupy the chair of this house who is in a position on his own to make these appointments? The answer is obviously in the negative. If this job is entrusted to the Speaker he is going to have to obtain advice and consult someone. I think the cat was let out of the bag by the hon. member for Bow River when he agreed to that suggestion and said his party understood that if this amendment were accepted the Speaker would consult the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and then, 

out of the kindness of his heart, he said the Speaker would probably consult the leaders of the other parties.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I put them all in the same category.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, my hon.
friend and I are in agreement in that regard, but what he does not seem to realize is that by doing so we are keeping redistribution as a partisan and political affair. The whole purpose of the legislation before us-and the Minister of Transport said this was the only aspect of it on which the government would stand or fall-is that we are going to put redistribution beyond parliament, we are going to put it in the hands of an impartial commission, we are going to have these boundaries drawn objectively by people outside the parliamentary arena. But under the terms of the proposed amendment we are going to have two of the appointees to each of these commissions given their positions by Mr. Speaker on the basis of an understanding, stated in the House of Commons, that he will have consulted the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and the leaders of the other parties. In other words we are making it quite clear that what we are going to get is appointments that are political in one sense or the other. Either they are political in that they are proposed by political persons, or they are political in the sense that they do not displease the political leaders of the various parties in the House of Commons.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder whether the hon. gentleman would permit me to ask him a question. Does he know how these appointments are made in the United Kingdom?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I had hoped that in this house we were going to move a step ahead.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Does he know?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes. In the United Kingdom they are made by order in council.


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, they are not.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If my hon. friend knows something about this that I do not know I would be glad if he would so advise me, but my general understanding of the practice in the United Kingdom is that they have not gone as far in the direction of impartiality as it was proposed to go in the bill brought in by the government here, and we welcomed the attempt of the government, supported by all parties in the house, really to go in for a

non-political, impartial redistribution of the seats in the House of Commons.
I suggest that when you have people appointed in this way you are not going to achieve the high ideal that we started out with when the bill was introduced. I also submit that this puts a terrific load on Mr. Speaker himself. He has his hands full administering the staff and the affairs of the House of Commons. He has a full time job just occupying the chair and retaining that impartiality that goes with the occupancy of the chair in the House of Commons. To impose upon him now this very highly political chore of naming these people to these various commissions across the country is, I submit, unfair to him and out of line with the basic principles of this legislation.
The hon. member for Bow River quite properly has drawn attention to the willingness of his party to compromise, and I do not detract from that by one iota. For a long time his party seemed unwilling to agree to anything except clause 6 in its original form. He now says they are prepared to agree to clause 6 in the terms proposed by the Minister of Transport in one of the amendments. That is a change of position. If the Liberals had changed like that the Tories would call it a retreat but I will not do that.


John Whitney Pickersgill: On a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman, I know the hon. gentleman always wants to be fair. The Liberals have never taken a position on this bill except on one point, as the hon. gentleman fairly said before. We consider that every member should be guided by his own conscience in this matter, which is the equal responsibility of every member of this parliament. I hope the hon. gentleman will take my words sincerely and not ascribe positions that I have taken to anybody but myself.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I have no quarrel with what the Minister of Transport has just said. In fact I want to endorse what he has said, to the effect that the only point in this whole matter that the government has regarded as sacred, if you will, or that the government has regarded as a point on which it would stand or fall, is on the basic proposition of redistribution being taken out of parliament and given to an independent body. My contention is that we are denying that basic principle if we set up that body on terms under which its independence is not as clear as it really could be.
Electoral Boundaries Commissions
I started to say that I recognize the element of compromise that has been indicated on the part of the official opposition, and I do not want members to think our position is an immovable one and that we insist on the terms of my amendment to clause 6 and nothing else. We too are prepared to negotiate, to find some middle ground if it is at all possible to do so. I was wondering whether over the 48 hour interval there might be some attempt at negotiation of the point, but there was none, at least so far as my experience is concerned in the last two days.
But I want to say to the government and the official opposition as well that if the objection to my amendment-and after all it is my amendment we are still officially discussing-is that it places this power of appointment in the hands of the chief justice of the province, which some people do not like, we would have no objection to changing the situs of that power of appointment. We would have no objection to substituting the Speaker for the chief justice in so far as making these appointments is concerned, but we do feel that the kind of advice, the guide lines, the directions that are contained in my amendment should be given to the Speaker as well.
We would suggest that either one of two things be tried as a means of arriving at a consensus among all five parties in the house. After all, the government is really in no better position to win the support of one party and lose the support of two or three others than it would have been if it had stayed where it was. I suggest that as a basis for arriving at a consensus among all five parties either one of two things might be done.


Mr. Leboe:: Making a mountain out of a molehill.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We had such fine support from the hon. member for Cariboo when this matter was up before, but apparently he has got tired of it. I suggest either one of two things, either that my amendment be amended by substituting the Speaker for the chief justice but leaving in the amendment the categories from which the Speaker would make the choices, or that the government should indicate that it will add words to its amendment so far as the power of appointment by the Speaker is concerned. The government's amendment could read that these appointments be made by Mr. Speaker provided, however, that the appointments or at least one of them be made from a certain class or category of persons.

Electoral Boundaries Commissions
As an offer to compromise, as an offer to find some basis on which we might all agree, I suggest that provision should be made in the proposal, whichever way it comes about, whether by way of amendment to my amendment or amendment to the government's amendment, for our proposal that one of these appointees, whether he is named by the chief justice or by the Speaker, should be the chief electoral officer of the province, the surveyor general, the recorder of vital statistics or a person of that kind.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I want to make it clear that we are prepared to withdraw our amendment if an alternative is put forward that is acceptable to all of us and in keeping with the basic principle of the bill, but if no such acceptable alternative is brought forward we would not, of course, be willing to withdraw our amendment. We feel it is in keeping with the basic principle of the bill itself, and that if the house does not want our amendment it will have to vote it down rather than expecting us to withdraw it.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Chairman, taking into consideration the two alternative proposals by the Minister of Transport with regard to the previously moved amendment to clause 6, it becomes obvious that in trying to find perfection in the selection of the commissions we become involved immediately in different interpretations of perfection.
Now, Mr. Chairman, in looking over the two alternative proposals it seems to me that the one that returns to the appointment of some members of the commission by the leader of the government in the house and the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Commons is not essentially different from clause 6 in the original bill. I should say that we were not particularly happy with the idea of trying to set up what might be called a non-partisan redistribution commission and then turning around and allowing the leaders of the two major political parties in the country to appoint 50 per cent of the membership of these commissions. I think therefore, so far as we are concerned, we can almost disregard that particular proposal.
We come, then, to the second proposal that has been suggested. We think there is some merit in having the Speaker of this chamber appoint at least some of the members of these redistribution commissions. Certainly it is true, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has said, that the Speaker will be appointing 20 commissioners across the country. He will also, it is expected, seek advice

from someone, but we do not disagree with that at all. What is more, we think he may even seek advice from some of the political parties in the country. There seems to have been an attempt to downgrade the advice that can be received from political organizations in the country in so far as redistribution is concerned. I suppose it is fair to say that each political party will certainly have to take into consideration its own interests in redistribution. At the same time, this would be offset by other parties making their representations as well.
I do not subscribe to this theory, if you want to call it such, that the advice that can come to these commissions from political parties would be all bad. I think even the practice we have had in the past, that has been deplored in some cases, has not been that bad. Certainly political organizations are keenly interested, and I might say some of the executive officers of the political organizations within a constituency probably have a better knowledge of some of the problems of organizing or setting up constituencies in the light of such considerations as natural boundaries, community of interest and so on, than any other groups in the country.
Overriding the consideration of finding a perfect formula for nominating the members of this commission, Mr. Chairman, is the fact that redistribution is long overdue. I believe perhaps the second alternative proposal is as close to perfection as we can reach at this time. I want to say this, too, whether we accept the original draft of clause 6 in Bill No. C-72 or the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre or either of the two alternatives that have been presented to us within the last 48 hours. Overriding all that is the fact that we need to have redistribution. If we do not reach some kind of agreement soon we are going to have another election based on the 1951 census. In my opinion this would be a far greater disservice to the electorate in Canada than anything that could come about from any one of the four proposals that are before us. I feel that the limit imposed by clause 13, for example, whether it is 20 per cent, 25 per cent or even 33J per cent, will be such that there will not be a great deal of discretion left to the commissioners in so far as the size of a constituency is concerned. Certainly there will be some discretion in the minor adjustment of borders, but at least the limit imposed by clause 13 does remove a great deal of the dis-

cretionary power redistribution commissions have had in the past.
Speaking directly to the change from the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre to the new proposals, I would say that I do not accept the contention that the president or a similar officer or member of the faculty of a university would be any less partisan politically than the Speaker of this house. As a matter of fact I believe the Speaker would be considerably less partisan, if I may put it that way, than most of the members of these faculties. I feel that the question before us, therefore, at least the paramount question before us, is to accept one or the other of these four proposals and get on with setting up the redistribution commission so that it can be done, rather than squabbling over what might be called the minor details in seeking perfection.
An important idea, by the way, advanced by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre was that the chief electoral officer of a province or perhaps the surveyor general of a province should be a member of the commission. There are a number of reasons for that, I think. First of all, for example, the chief electoral officer of a province of necessity would be very familiar with the topography, community of interests and so on because he has been involved in these things within the provincial jurisdiction. He would be a very useful member on the commission simply because of his knowledge of the province, regardless of what his politics might be. We would hope, of course, that he did not have any partisan political tendency that would guide his thinking.
The other reason that the chief electoral officer of the province would be a useful member of the commission is that he could probably give some guidance to the commission in so far as making the boundaries of a number of provincial constituencies coterminus with the boundaries of federal constituencies. This is a matter that has some merit because I know that, particularly in the first election following redistribution, there is a great deal of confusion along the boundaries of both federal and provincial constituencies. People get used to going to certain polling places. They get used to dealing with the old set-up, if you want to call it that, and it is a little difficult to educate them or to inform the electorate of the constituencies about the many changes that may have been made.
I am not going to speak any longer, Mr. Chairman. I think we would prefer to accept
Electoral Boundaries Commissions the alternative proposal which gives the Speaker of this house the power to name two of the members on the ten commissions. If anything could be done to give some guidance to the Speaker, along the lines that one of the men to be appointed should possibly be the chief electoral officer or the surveyor general of a province, that might be useful. But we are not prepared to hold up the adoption of clause 6, because we think redistribution, based on a more recent census than that of 1951, is a more important consideration than these minor details.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I thank
hon. gentlemen for indicating so clearly what their positions are. The hon. member for Bow River has indicated that those of his friends for whom he speaks-and I gather that is quite a considerable portion of his party- are willing to accept the first of the two alternative suggestions I made the other day. Of course I indicated clearly the other day that I thought this was a far better suggestion than the other.
Although I was rather impressed by some of the things said by the hon. member for Medicine Hat, I frankly think all four methods that are now before us in one form or another would result in perfectly satisfactory commissions. There has been a lot of unnecessary hairsplitting about these things, but I have never indicated any fundamental objection to any of them.
I sympathized with the views of members of parties other than the Conservative and Liberal parties when they felt there was some bias against them in choosing the leaders of the two major parties as appointors.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On a point of order, surely the minister knows he is misstating the case. We never expressed concern that this was bias against us. We expressed the view that it was inconsistent with the idea of doing it on a non-political basis. If we thought there was a bias against us we would be accepting the fourth proposal, but we are not.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am not in a mood to make much distinction in the matter. Whoever they might be, I do not believe the leader of the opposition and the prime minister would exercise this power in any other than the judicial way in which parliament intended it to be exercised. I would not have taken responsibility for putting that in the bill in the first place if I thought they would be activated by partisan considerations.
I did think the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre had found a way of designating

Electoral Boundaries Commissions the kind of people it would be desirable to have on these commissions, in the light of the Manitoba experience which is the only one we have had in Canada. I said I thought I was slightly in favour of that, but I never went beyond that; and I think the hon. gentlemen will agree that I said only that if I had to choose between the two I think his amendment had some slight advantage over the original bill. But I pointed out, and I repeat, that it enables three members of a four member commission to be appointed by one man.
I do not always agree with the hon. member for Bow River, but I believe he had much the better of the argument with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre about the concentration of power. The Speaker will be making two of these nominations.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Two times ten is 20.


John Whitney Pickersgill: But not on the same commission, as the hon. member for Bow River pointed out. There will be only two persons on each commission appointed by one appointor, and two others appointed in a different manner. That is certainly less concentration of power than to have three appointed by one person on each separate commission.
As for the tremendous difficulties and burden this will impose upon the Speaker, I think he can well bear them, considering the other burdens we place on him every day. I am totally unimpressed with that argument. Like the hon. member for Medicine Hat I believe the most important thing is to carry out our constitutional responsibility to make sure there is a redistribution which, as we all know, is long overdue. That is the overriding consideration.
This other rather complicated scheme I put forward also has a precedent in New Zealand, and I think it would not result in an unsatisfactory, unfair or partisan redistribution. I do not think any of them would, but of all four the one I like best is the one giving these appointments to the Speaker. I believe he will seek to appoint, wherever they are available-and this is all the hon. member's amendment would do-officers like the chief electoral officer of a province and the surveyor general of a province, someone who is technically competent; but we cannot force him to do so, and we cannot force these people to act. That is the original difficulty we had in this matter.
Therefore I am not much in favour of trying to put this condition into the amendment

itself; but when the hon. member's amendment is disposed of and if the house does not accept it-I guess it will not-then if he wants to move a subamendment he can test the committee on this point. That is his right, and I think that would be the proper way to do it. Personally I feel that if we are going to give this task to His Honour the Speaker, we should give it to him, period. We should not seek to give it to him and then say, "We are just a little dubious about this and we think we ought to tell you how to do it."


Stanley Howard Knowles: Has the minister forgotten the arguments he used in favour of my amendment when, if we were to give the job to the chief justices, he argued that we should give them guide lines?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Exactly; but I would remind the hon. gentleman that the chief justice of a province is not an officer of the parliament of Canada. He is not under our jurisdiction, and if there are any flagrant abuses of this power by His Honour the Speaker we have a remedy in our rules. It has been used only once or twice in our history, and I hope it will never be used for a long time again.
I am totally unimpressed with the suggestion that this would impose a terrible burden on the Speaker, or that there would be any difficulty, or that in any advice the Speaker should choose to take there would be any more suggestion of partisanship than in any other method of appointment which might possibly be devised. That is why I asked the hon. gentleman if he knew how appointments are made in the United Kingdom.
It might be useful to refresh hon. members' memories on that point. There are four commissions in the United Kingdom, one each for England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, and the chairman of all four commissions is the Speaker of the House of Commons. I think it is true that his chairmanship is perhaps rather perfunctory but he has a voice and I suppose, being the chairman, he has the largest voice of all if he chooses to exercise it. The deputy chairman is a judge of the high court appointed by the lord chancellor.
There are two other members in the English commission, one appointed by the home secretary and the other by the minister of housing and local government. They are not even appointed by order in council; they are appointed by ministers. I do not think anyone in this house would want to trust ministers to make such appointments and at no time

have I suggested that this be done, but that is what is done in England and there has never been any real suggestion I know of that the English commission was not as nonpartisan as anything one could reasonably get. In Scotland the two ministerial appointments-there is a judge who is the deputy chairman-are made by the Secretary of Scotland. The situation is analogous for the other two commissions, and I think it would be wasting the time of the committee to go beyond that.
What we would be doing here, if we did not accept the hon. gentleman's amendment and instead accepted the one which I am now quite satisfied I would be justified in moving if the hon. gentleman's amendment is defeated, would be saying that the chairman of each commission shall be appointed by the chief justice of the province and, if there is any default, by the Chief Justice of Canada; that two other appointments apart from the representation commissioner would be made by the Speaker. We will be saying that we have enough confidence in whoever may be the Speaker of the House of Commons to feel that he will appoint the kind of people that it is the whole purpose of the legislation to have appointed; that is to say, persons who will be independent and objective in their judgment.
I have always thought, as I confessed on Tuesday, that this would be the best method, if it was acceptable to the house. The only fear I ever had about proposing it was that we might have a serious division in the house about it, which I would regret. But I do not think there was anything said by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that would lead one to hesitate to make this motion and to take the sense of the house about it. The kind of objections he made were not the kind of objections which reflected in any way at all upon the Speaker or upon the office of Speaker, and I am sure he did not intend to make any such reflection.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, may I confirm that. My objections are objections in principle; not against the person or the office.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. gentleman's principles in this particular case are principles, if you like, but they are not principles to which I subscribe. I do think there is no person more likely to be completely independent in these matters than the Speaker of this house, whoever he may be; and I remind hon. members that there is the glare of publicity upon the actions of the Speaker 20220-633
Electoral Boundaries Commissions of this house that there is not even upon the chief justice of a province. I am very glad indeed that hon. gentlemen immediately opposite are willing, in the spirit in which the hon. member for Bow River put it forward today, to say that, while for them this is second best they are willing to accept it. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre obviously feels that his amendment is better than anything else and I think therefore it should be put to the house and we should vote on it. I may say, of course, that when only two possibilities appeared to be before us-that is, the original bill and the hon. gentleman's amendment-I was disposed to vote for it; but having found something that I think is better and on which I believe there is sufficient consensus in the house, I of course would not vote for his alternative.


Bert Raymond Leboe: Mr. Chairman, I will only take about two minutes of the time of the committee in connection with this amendment. I just wish to say that I think we are moving along and are making progress, which is something the people of Canada are looking forward to. I think we have been making a mountain out of a molehill as far as the power vested in these commissioners is concerned. The rules are set down in connection with the working of the commissions, the formula is very rigid and quite confining, and I do not think there should have been nearly as much discussion as we have had in connection with this matter. That has been my opinion right from the beginning. I believe these commissions could have been set up a long time ago.
I am particularly interested in the fact that there was a long delay in again bringing this matter before the house after its initial introduction. I think this was wrong. I believe that when the bill was before the house it should have been kept before the house. We should have been in the position to deal with it and get on with the job so these commissions could be set up and working. There will be other times when any amendments that are needed can be brought forward in the light of experience. This is not, I hope, our last session, although it is going to last a little longer than some of us thought would be the case to begin with.
There is one thing I should like to mention in connection with these long delays. If we are going to continue to be four or five years behind in having adjustments made to electoral boundaries, I think something should be put into the British North America Act and some changes should be made that would

Electoral Boundaries Commissions take into account other vital statistics being used in order to upgrade our position as far as the population is concerned. In closing, Mr. Chairman, I would just say that since we now have a degree of unanimity in the house, we are glad to be able to support any amendment that may be introduced which most members of the house will support.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, I think the intention of the hon. member for Medicine Hat, echoed by the Minister of Transport and the hon. member for Cariboo, that an election based upon the 1951 census would be most unfair and injurious to the electorate carries with it, as they stated, the implication that we should therefore give passage to whatever measure might be presented to us, if it is presented in a reasonable way and if the arguments in favour of it appear on the surface to be reasonable. I think this is a somewhat misleading and somewhat false position to take.
It is correct that we are long overdue in carrying out the responsibilities that devolve upon parliament with regard to the question of redistribution following the decennial census, but I believe we should not let that consideration override the possibility that any bill which is before us is likely to be wrecked, adulterated or watered down from the original principle. I think this is likely to take place here.
Generally, Mr. Chairman, I am sure there is agreement that we want (1) to have a redistribution system as soon as possible in order that redistribution can take place, and (2) we want that system to be non-political. These two principles are correct, but they should not blind us to some of the other features which might be bad in attempting to put them into effect. I believe this might be the case here, with these compromise proposals that are being presented and argued. It is my understanding that there was a large degree of the spirit of co-operation among all the parties in this chamber up until Tuesday of this week, when the Minister of Transport placed the two alternate proposals on Hansard, but that since that time-I have consulted with the people in the New Democratic party who participate in these all-party meetings-there has not been any sort of discussion or consultation as has usually been the case in matters such as this. At least there has been no sort of consultation or discussion to which my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre was invited or in which he participated. I am not objecting to that in any way, and I

am sure he is not objecting either, but it does seem passing strange that all of a sudden there is agreement from those who previously raised the most stringent objections to the manner of proceeding as proposed in the bill introduced by the government.
I assume that what has taken place-I am not objecting to this, of course-is that there has been some behind the scenes consultation between the government and the official opposition in an attempt to reach a meeting of minds on what previously had been an impasse. As I say, I do not object to that, but if it did occur I think the fact should be placed on record so that the house and the general public will know that such arrangement did exist and that the Minister of Transport is not completely taken by surprise at the position of the official opposition. In fact I think he let the cat out of the bag when he virtually anticipated what the vote of this committee might be on the amendment before us if and when it did take place, which indicates that there was this prior consultation in an attempt to reach a meeting of minds. In fact, I would put the suggestion forward that such a meeting did take place, and in the absence of any denial of my suggestion I think we can accept as a fact that there was a behind the scenes meeting on the proposals now put before us.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, since the hon. gentleman is making certain insinuations I think I should make it clear that there has been no greater degree of consultation with anyone in the official opposition than there has been with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Frank Howard: Well, Mr. Chairman, we are not talking about degrees of consultation, whatever that vague term might mean. We are talking about consultation and discussion as such. I am not going to argue the point; if that is the way the government wants to operate then that is its own business. But in the light of the alternate suggestions which the Minister of Transport has put forward and the alacrity with which one of them has been accepted by the official opposition, it does lead one to look a little deeper into what is being proposed here, what is likely to be the effect of such a proposal, and what are to be the mechanics by which Mr. Speaker appoints these two members of the redistribution commissions.
I should like to read, if I may, a few comments made by the Minister of Transport, as

recorded at page 9954 of Hansard for November 10 last. He said:
-it might be better to trust His Honour the Speaker to do the sensible thing, and not to put any strings upon him except the obvious string that these appointments must be made from persons resident in the province.
This point was touched on by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. I hope the inference is not drawn from this that because one may object to this procedure outlined in the proposal he is thereby not trusting Mr. Speaker; the minister's words are:
-it might be much better to trust His Honour the Speaker-
So if we do object to this it should in no way be interpreted as implying any degree of mistrust of the integrity or honour of the individual who may at any given time hold the position of Mr. Speaker.
There are some very revealing things in the statement of the Minister of Transport of November 10 which I think disclose in essence why he proposed the alternatives and why he was favourable to one of them. It equally discloses why the official opposition jumped at the opportunity to endorse one of the proposals.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It was a pretty slow jump.


Frank Howard: The reasoning behind this, of course, is that if the proposal by the Minister of Transport is finally accepted it will in essence, even though it does not say so in the bill, be identical to that which was contained in the bill itself; namely that there would be political partisanship and activity in the selection of the commissioners, which is the one thing we are trying to avoid. That is the one principle in the bill on which everyone was agreed-that the redistribution of seats in Canada should take place in a completely non-partisan atmosphere. I submit that the proposals put forward by the Minister of Transport run contrary to this principle, and in effect attempt to drag Mr. Speaker into the political arena as well, which is even worse.
The Minister of Transport in his remarks the other day went on to quote the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings as follows:
We have a Prime Minister who is an officer of the house and a Leader of the Opposition who is also an officer of the house, and they are the only ones in this category. I agree that whoever occupied the office of prime minister or leader of the opposition would exercise the authority given to them under this provision in a manner which would be entirely creditable both to themselves and to parliament-
10003
Electoral Boundaries Commissions
I am reading the entire quotation, Mr. Chairman, because I do not want the minister or the committee to think that I am selecting something out of context.
The minister then goes on to quote the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre as follows:
I think the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre should correct his stand on this. What is required in this country is respect for parliament-*
No one will disagree with that.
-and that carries with it respect for the leaders of these two great parties.
Then the minister went on to quote the hon. member Edmonton West and another member of the Conservative party, each of whom in his reasoning and argument was supporting the provision in the bill that the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition should participate in the selection of two of the commissioners.
I think it is obvious from those quotations, and it is obvious from the speed with which the official opposition endorsed one of the proposals of the Minister of Transport-in fact, the hon. member for Bow River let it slip earlier this afternoon, if that is properly what he did, when he said that undoubtedly Mr. Speaker would consult with the leaders of the government party and the opposition party in the selection of these two commissioners-


John Whitney Pickersgill: And also the other leaders.


Frank Howard: I do not know from the movement of the minister's head whether he is agreeing.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I was pointing out to the hon. gentleman that that was not all that the hon. member for Bow River said. As I heard him-I see he is here now so he can speak for himself-he said he assumed that the Speaker would consult the leaders of all groups in the house; and I think there would be nothing improper at all in his doing so, as long as he exercised his own judgment and did these things properly. That is what happens of course in the United Kingdom. There are consultations, which means that there is that assurance. The hon. gentleman has been trying to read into words which I used the other day meanings which were never intended and which are not there. All I ever meant by consultation was that there would not only be the assurance that the appointments would be appointments of independent and objective persons but that they would be the kind of appointments which would com-

Electoral Boundaries Commissions mend themselves to everyone as being such. Some degree of consultation to make sure of that seems to me to be only ordinary common sense.


Frank Howard: I have listened to the speeches of the Minister of Transport in this house on a number of occasions and know him well enough to know that it is possible to read almost anything into what he says; and invariably that is the case. So, regardless of the bland statement that he now makes, I say to that statement: rubbish. What was initially intended when the government introduced the bill was that there would be-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege. The hon. gentleman now is breaking the rules of the house. He is one of the most experienced and skilful parliamentarians in the house, and we all acknowledge that fact, but nobody knows better than he that he has no right to attribute motives to other hon. members. I have stated what I meant, and what I meant is what the words say. I had no thought at any time that there would be any kind of bargaining so that there would be one appointment of a Tory and one appointment of a Grit, or anything of that sort. All I ever thought consultation would be used for was to make sure that the kind of individual appointed would be completely without a partisan character. If I thought anything other than that would happen I would be opposed to this proposal.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, the highly flattering remarks of the minister have com-completely disarmed me. However, it is an undeniable fact, and should be obvious to anyone, that in its original form subclause 2 of clause 6 proposes that the two members of the commissions, other than the chairman and representation commissioner, would be appointed, one by the leader of the government in the House of Commons and one by the leader of the opposition in the House of Commons. When the minister now says that he never at any time intended anything other than that these appointments would be nonpolitical and non-partisan, I again say rubbish. The minister did say that which I have indicated, and that is what is said in the bill now before us. What could be more clear than that one of the two members of the commission, other than the chairman, shall be appointed by the leader of the government and one by the leader of the opposition? That is what the bill says, and if the minister is trying to suggest that that does not imply, or perhaps even more than imply, a desire for


political appointment to this commission, then I do not know what it does imply.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, once again I rise on a question of privilege. I have all the copies of Hansard in front of me and I could easily look up what I did say during second reading of this bill. It was quoted earlier today by one hon. member opposite. What I said was, and I repeated it again today, that if these functions were carried out by the prime minister and the leader of the opposition, whoever they might be, I believe they would carry them out in the spirit in which this parliament asked them to do so, and they would not make political or partisan appointments. That is my belief. If the hon. member thinks that just because a man happens to be the leader of a party, it is impossible for him to act in an independent and objective manner, having been given a trust, he has a lower opinion of human nature than I have.


Gilles Grégoire: You are very naive when you think that.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, it is not necessary for the Minister of Transport to become insulting in his remarks, but if that is what he believes, good luck to him. He can go right ahead believing that.
The fact of the matter is that it says in the bill that two members shall be appointed by the two leaders. We are not here, Mr. Chairman, being called upon to legislate as the result of the faith and belief of the Minister of Transport. God forbid our ever doing that. We are legislating in the Queen's english, and nothing is more clear than that by the provisions of this bill one member shall be appointed by the leader of the government in the House of Commons and one shall be appointed by the leader of the opposition in the House of Commons.
Mr. Chairman, we know from past practice that leaders of governments in the House of Commons engage in politics and partisanships whenever there is an occasion to do so. I do not place the present Prime Minister above that position. One need only look at the recent appointment to the Senate to obtain some indication of that haven for retired-work-horses.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: What about Mr. Coldwell's appointment?


Frank Howard: I did not know that Mr. Coldwell was appointed to the Senate.


John Whitney Pickersgill: He was appointed to the privy council, which is an even more honourable appointment.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That will get you in trouble with the Senate.


Frank Howard: Perhaps if the hon. member for Bow River and his party had considered following their program of reform of the Senate after they were elected in 1957, we might have a different situation today, but even his great leader was unable to get away from the desire to partake in political activity in making political appointments. I am not so naive that I could believe the Minister of Transport when he says that no prime minister is going to make political appointments if the occasion to do so arose. I believe that he might be enticed into doing that sort of thing.
The fact of the matter is that the original presentation of this bill, which was in the name of the Prime Minister, admittedly, and not in the name of the Minister of Transport, provided for appointments to be made by the prime minister and the leader of the opposition. Perhaps if the bill had been under the sponsorship of the Minister of Transport we would now have a completely different proposal without this obvious attempt at partisanship.
Regardless of how often the Minister of Transport says that he did not mean there should be partisanship, or that he does not believe in that sort of thing, the proposal made by the Minister of Transport, in respect of the mechanism by which one of these commissioners would be appointed, would lead us in the direction again of political partisanship in the selection of the members of these commissions, through influence brought to bear on whomever happened to occupy the position of Mr. Speaker. I do not say that in a derogatory way, but so long as the office of Mr. Speaker is a political office, and not a permanent non-partisan one, which I am sure we would all like to see, this possibility would remain.
My second point in argument against the proposal of the Minister of Transport is that it is regrettable that Mr. Speaker should be dragged into the political activities of this nation even more than he has been dragged in at the moment. Every government in recent times has expressed the feeling, shared I think by all members of this house, or at least of this party, that Mr. Speaker should be a non-partisan individual. I think we are
Electoral Boundaries Commissions all in favour of the sort of semi-colonial attitude, that whatever is done in the United Kingdom should be done here, namely that we should have a Speaker who in fact occupies an honoured position for a long period of time, and that his office should be removed from political activity not only on a day to day basis but as well during political campaigning. The fact of the matter is that this is not the case. I do not know how far away the time is, and perhaps the sooner the better, but Mr. Macnaughton, our present Speaker, will be running as a candidate in his own constituency. Presumably there will be, as there has been in the past, candidates of other political parties running against him. As has happened to previous Speakers, he will find himself embroiled in political controversy, perhaps emanating from the bill we are considering at this time. Perhaps his riding will be redistributed; such has happened in the past. In fact I have heard the Leader of the Opposition say that the terrible Liberals have wiped his seat out from under him time after time.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: You are talking about his riding.


Frank Howard: When I used the word "seat" I knew what I was referring to, but whether or not the hon. member for Bow River did is another question. The Speaker will be involved and embroiled in political activity and controversy in a partisan way, and I assume he will still be a Liberal candidate in the next election. What we say we want to have happen is to have the Speaker set apart from political partisanship. We do not even like the fact that at election time he has to run under a party label, with candidates of the other parties running against the Speaker, because we want to preserve his position on a non-political and non-partisan basis in order to guarantee, if it needs to be guaranteed, that the rules of the house will be enforced in an impartial and non-political way.
But instead of moving in the direction of placing Mr. Speaker in an even more nonpartisan position because of the office he holds it is now proposed that we should move in the direction of bringing him into politics by dragging him into consultation with political leaders in order to select the members of the redistribution commission which we want to be non-political. I think this is regrettable.
It is for these reasons that I say we should not rush madly into endorsing one or other of the proposals which are before us at least

Electoral Boundaries Commissions by way of suggestion, if not in a formal way. We should not do so merely because we happen to have a strong desire to pass a redistribution bill in order that redistribution may be made on the basis of the 1961 census before the next election takes place. Incidentally, while we are on the subject of elections, we could very well have an election on our hands within the next few months. Everyone tells me this is quite possible and that it is probable that such an election would be conducted on the basis of the 1951 rather than the 1961 census. I am sure the minister will know more about that than I do because of his closer consultation with individuals in the office of the chief electoral officer, as well as his knowledge of other matters. Be that as it may, for the reasons I have outlined I submit we do not want to be seduced into endorsing either of the proposals now before us merely because there is a desire to hurry and pass the bill. Hurrying to get the bill through is commendable in itself, but in trying to do so we must not destroy the main principle, the establishment of redistribution commissions on a non-political and non-partisan basis.
In my opinion the proposal of the Minister of Transport that Mr. Speaker should make these appointments makes the bill even worse than it was in its original form. In its original form political partisanship was at least out in the open where everyone could see it and we could expect certain things to take place. Now it will be hidden behind the scenes. In addition, we are attempting to drag Mr. Speaker into the political arena and partisan activities to a far greater extent than he is at the moment, and in the process we are likely to degrade even further the office of Speaker, when what we want to do is to elevate it.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre made some alternative suggestions to the proposal of the Minister of Transport. I submit they should be looked at very carefully. I do not think we should rush helter-skelter into picking one or other of the amendments which have been suggested. In another 20 or 25 minutes we will reach private members' hour starting at five o'clock, which is followed by the supper recess. I suggest it should be possible during this interval for the leaders of the parties or their spokesmen to get together and consult on this matter and see whether or not they cannot work out some generally acceptable compromise amendment. In the light of the variety of things that have been said I submit that is a far better way to approach the matter than to follow the


suggestion of the Minister of Transport that we should have a vote right away on the amendment which has been before the committee for some months, when he will then proceed to move another amendment which just came to our attention a couple of days ago and about which, as the Minister of Transport has said, there has been no consultation with anybody.
I think we should put the consultative process to work, provide an opportunity for the various parties to consult and maybe by eight o'clock they will be able to arrive at a workable, worth-while amendment. If there is unanimity with regard to such an amendment, the possibility of political partisanship will be even further removed. I think this is the principal objective we all want to achieve, the carrying out of redistribution on a strictly non-political basis because we have had too much of political interference in the past.


Mr. Moreau:: Mr. Chairman, we are now on the sixth day of debate on this particular clause. It seems to me we have heard all the arguments, or certainly sufficient argument to make up our minds on these points. I have intended for some time to support the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and that is still my intention. It seemed to me that in the past the official opposition did not want this amend-men to come to a vote, but today we see the New Democratic party, which proposed the amendment, determined that it will not come to a vote. I would hope we could get on with the matter.


Frank Howard: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I am sure the hon. member for York-Scarborough does not want to be unfair and misinterpret what has been said. I for one never said that we did not want the amendment to come to a vote. All I said was that we should not rush, because the matter can be discussed during the supper hour.


Maurice John Moreau: Speaking to the point of order, Mr. Chairman, I should like to say that those people who are suggesting that we should get on with the nation's business might very well agree to do so.


Reid Scott: On the point of order, Mr. Chairman, as a constituent of the hon. member for York-Scarborough I want to voice my objection to his imputing motives of that kind to our group. He is in danger of losing my vote in the next election as a result of the motives he is imputing to us. We are trying to air our

views on the question. We are not trying to prevent a vote at all.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I am convinced that the member for York-Searborough (Mr. Moreau) cannot claim that we did not devote to this matter before us all the time required, because during those six days of debate we did not yet say one word relevant to it. However, when stupidity such as this amendment occurs, then we should not be told that we talked long enough, because we wish to say a few things on this subject.
It is proposed that the Speaker appoint the members of the electoral boundaries commission. Was he asked if he would accept those duties? That is something different. On the other hand, if closure is to be imposed-


Maurice John Moreau: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. I suggested that we vote on the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and when the time comes to discuss other motions, the necessary time should be granted.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, concerning the point of order, I must say that it is not the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre who submitted that text.
Why are we presented with this text before voting on another amendment? Instead of voting on the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, we were asked to vote on a rather stupid suggestion by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickers-gill). I have it in my hands. Where does it come from? We are asked to vote on this matter without discussing it. This is a round about way of proceeding. Endeavouring to have the Conservative party defeat the Liberal party is a stupid thing, because both think alike and work together to the prejudice of the Canadian people.
How can the Speaker of the house know the residents of Prince Edward Island or British Columbia whom he will appoint as commissioners? What will happen then? It is simple; the Speaker will seek advice, and from whom? From the old Liberal party. It is easy to see that there is collusion between the two old parties at the present time. Their agreement is quite obvious. They said to themselves: each of us will suggest one man to the Speaker. So, there is an agreement between the old parties. In what do they differ? Both, when in power say the same thing, and again, when in opposition, say the same thing.
Electoral Boundaries Commissions
But in this particular business, I am supposed to believe that there is no agreement between the two old parties. Let me tell you this: accept that, and you will see everything else adopted, because there is an agreement, a tacit agreement. And we should accept that without a word? The hon. member for York-Scarborough (Mr. Moreau) did not consider the matter very long before asking us to end our discussion.


Maurice John Moreau: I simply asked for a vote on the amendment moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. I am in favour of the amendment moved by that hon. member and I should like to express my opinion by my vote.


Gilles Grégoire: If you are asking for a vote on the amendment moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, did you conclude an agreement with the Conservatives on that matter? That is another way of suggesting: let us vote on the amendment of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and afterwards, we will manage to have it passed by the Conservatives. Of course, it was necessary for the Conservatives and us, also, to have a copy. Now, we all have a copy. That is an understanding. You want to vote on this amendment, very well, but give us at least an opportunity to discuss it.
Let us suppose that Mr. Speaker does accept that job, and appoints redistribution commissioners and then, if we are not satisfied with the work done, who should we blame? Mr. Speaker? Then, would the hon. member for Lapointe be entitled to rise while the Speaker is in the chair to tell him: "Mr. Speaker. I am blaming you for having appointed the commissioners who played petty politics in our ridings." Would I have the right to do so? At that time the standing orders will be amended.
If the Speaker appoints political partisans, people who were not recommended by the leaders of the old line parties and who do not do their job properly, or carry it out in a partisan way, will I have the right to blame the Speaker and tell him: "You are all wet." If a member of parliament said such a thing in the house, he would soon be evicted.
Why impose upon the Speaker such a part? Let us assume that the present Speaker had appointed some commissioners who had not done their work properly, and that when the time came to appoint a new Speaker the Prime Minister would say: "I move that Mr. So-and-so be appointed as Speaker," at that time I am quite sure he would not receive

Electoral Boundaries Commissions unanimous consent from the members. On the other hand, if the Speaker begins a session without unanimous consent, what kind of session shall we have? Have you ever thought of that?
Would the Speaker be the only party responsible for such appointments? Will he be responsible to the house? Would we have the right to direct any question to him after he has appointed any commissioners? These are the questions to which we have not received, as yet, any answer. Moreover, does the Speaker accept such a duty?
I have the utmost confidence in our present Speaker. I feel he is fair, unbiased and sincere. If I were told that the present incumbent would always be Speaker, I would be sure that he would be impartial and that his appointments would not be made on a political basis. But will it always be the same Speaker? Indeed, would he agree to take on that job? I would be most surprised if he did. Before approving this, let us ask the Speaker if he would accept that task.
Mr. Chairman, I am going to ask you a question. If you were Speaker of the house, would you accept such a responsibility? Mr. Chairman, you who are Deputy Speaker, would you take that risk since the proposal mentions:
Any person holding the office of Speaker.
Would you accept making those appointments at the risk of my criticizing you later in the house? In my opinion, you should answer the question since you might be called upon to fill that position under the amendment which reads as follows:
The Speaker of the House of Commons or any person holding the office of Speaker.
You are such a person, Mr. Chairman. I am asking you the question. Are you ready to answer?


The Chairman:: The hon. member knows full well that the chairman of the committee is not allowed to take part in the debate.


Gilles Grégoire: I am not asking you to participate in the* debate. Since you are liable to be affected by the amendment, I am merely asking you to assist the committee because, before making an appointment, one should find out whether the appointee will accept.
Have you ever seen a senator named by the Prime Minister refusing his appointment? Certainly not. Why? Because the person was asked for his assent before being appointed to the Senate. So, if you are qualified to fulfil the duties somebody will ask you, before


your appointment, if you accept the position. Nobody is asking you to take part in the debate and, moreover, I am convinced that if you want a delay hon. members will grant it to you so that you can answer a question.
I would ask the same thing of the Minister of Transport who sponsors this bill. Did he ask the Speaker whether he was willing to accept this duty?


John Whitney Pickersgill: If the hon. member would like me to answer now, I will. I am quite sure that His Honour the Speaker, as would any Speaker, would accept any obligation which the house in its wisdom saw fit to impose upon him, so long as it did not impair his judgment. Of course if it did, he would have only one recourse. We have given many decisions to the Speaker by decision of the house in the past. I have not any doubt whatever that if it is the will of the house the Speaker will, as he undertook when he became Speaker, carry it out.


Gilles Grégoire: And if the Speaker refuses, will you appeal his decision? Will you request a vote in this house to force the Speaker to agree?
Is the Minister of Transport telling me that he pledges his word that the Speaker will agree? That is another question which I would like to have answered. Does the Minister of Transport pledge his word now, officially and in the name of the Speaker of the house, that the Speaker will accept?
Can the minister answer that?
Mr. Chairman, I can see that the minister is not willing to answer. I will put my question a third time. Is the Minister of Transport ready to pledge his word, officially and in the name of the Speaker, that the Speaker will accept the duties which we want to entrust to him?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The simple answer to that is that we are not referring to the present incumbent. We are making legislation that will be in force until it is changed. As the Speaker himself points out on many occasions, he is the servant of the house. He is a faithful servant of the house and I am sure he will do anything that the house in its wisdom entrusts him to do.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I would like to put two more questions to the Minister of Transport. If the Speaker does not agree or

is not willing to accept the new responsibilities which we would like to place on him, does it mean that the Speaker has ceased to be a wise servant of the House of Commons, and that the government would have to replace the Speaker if, for personal reasons or in anticipation of what will take place, he does not want to accept this new office? Will the government then appoint a new Speaker?
Would the minister answer that question?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, I do not think I would like to reply to that question. There is a good principle about replying to hypothetical questions, and I think we should stick to actualities.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, this is not a hypothetical question. On the contrary, it is a distinct possibility, because I believe that the Speaker-as I know him-seeing that there is strong opposition from several members, and from at least two political parties, will realize that there are objections in certain parts of the house, and I am convinced that he will refuse to accept an office involving him directly in electoral and political partisanship.
After listening to the speeches delivered by members of the New Democratic party, and understanding the attitude of the members of the Creditistes on this matter, then, the Speaker refuse, ask the chairman of the involve him directly in politics and elections.
He also takes the risk of being blamed by members in connection with the appointments he will have to make, though he will not be personally responsible for the work done by the persons appointed.
Mr. Chairman, I suggest that, before submitting his amendment the Minister of Transport should ask the Speaker of the house whether he accepts the office and, should the Speaker refuse, ask the Chairman of the committees (Mr. Lamoureux) whether he is willing to accept it.
Another point which I mentioned a while ago and would like to enlarge upon is this one. Let us suppose the acting Speaker, now chairman of the committee, should become responsible for appointing two members of the commission. I wonder if, in that event, he would feel very much at ease in appointing two members from Newfoundland to the commission. I also wonder if he would feel very much at ease in appointing two individuals from British Columbia or Alberta, individuals who would also become members of the electoral boundaries commissions.
10015
Electoral Boundaries Commissions
I do believe the chairman will admit in his heart of hearts that such a duty should not be assigned to the Speaker of the house or to the Deputy Speaker.
What would he say if the Speaker knew nobody in the other provinces? Let us suppose he did not know anybody capable of performing this duty in another province. What will happen then? From whom will the Speaker seek advice? The Prime Minister? If the Prime Minister makes both recommendations, they will be political recommendations.
On the other hand, if he tells the Prime Minister: In all fairness, I shall also consult with the Leader of the Opposition, what will happen? They will still be political appointments.
If, by any chance, the Speaker were not as fair, honest and efficient as our present Speaker or the Deputy Speaker, who are beyond reproach and well deserve the confidence of the house, what would happen?
If, in five or six years from now, the Conservative party should go back to power and appoint a Speaker who would wish to use this legislation to indulge in political partisanship, what would happen then?
Mr. Chairman, you will agree that it would become dangerous if the Speaker should be replaced and that instead of consulting with qualified people, his successor should take advice from political organizers.
Still on the same subject, Mr. Chairman, appointments are being made at the present time. Appointments of electoral officers in the constituencies, of returning officers, those are political appointments. Can it be said that in the 265 constituencies in Canada electoral officers and returning officers have all been appointed on the basis of their competence or could it be that some of them have been appointed because they were former members of parliament or staunch Liberals or Conservatives?
Are we to believe that an electoral officer appointed by a political party is going to name qualified persons as returning officers when we know that some of them cannot even read or write? Why are those returning officers appointed there? Because through political patronage, they seek to get as many votes as possible; we know that from time to time they try to call in a man from a large family so as to get all the votes in that family in favour of the Liberal candidate, since a Liberal has appointed him there.
10016	HOUSE OF
Electoral Boundaries Commissions
The same thing is likely to happen respecting those political appointments if the Speaker is not always as honest and competent as the one who occupies the chair at the present time.
And if the Speaker had to make political appointments, might not the Prime Minister have this point in mind when appointing a Speaker, and think: "I must have a Speaker who will make appointments that can be sanctioned or approved". When thinking about appointing a Speaker for the house, the Prime Minister, and designated within a po-and so, we shall just have to give him our list of names, and he will appoint those people on the electoral boundaries commission".
Mr. Speaker's being appointed by the Prime Minister, and designated within a political party is no reason for the Minister of Transport's forgetting it. If he did not think of it, I can hardly believe it, because I trusted him to be more intelligent.
Mr. Chairman, to help the committee carry on the study of the defects of the Minister of Transport's proposal, I hope that the latter, after having realized the technical and other flaws of his proposal, will try to improve it and suggest some method which will, at least, get redistribution out of politics.
Mr. Chairman, I should call it five o'clock. [Text]


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. It being five o'clock it is my duty to leave the chair so that the house may proceed to the consideration of private members' business.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The house will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper namely, notices of motions (papers), private bills and public bills.


Mr. Mcllraiih:: Mr. Speaker, I glean from discussions I have had with some hon. members that they would be agreeable to waiving private members' hour today and proceeding with public business.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, if we were to proceed with the debate on redistribution between now and six o'clock I think it would be difficult for the party leaders to consult about the various proposals we have been discussing. To allow for that kind of consultation I think we should proceed with the business set down for this time.
[Mr. Grfegoire.l


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, with your permission, I would have a suggestion to make.
The Minister of Transport would perhaps agree to put aside clause 6 until after the six o'clock adjournment when we could consider less contentious clauses.
At that time the Minister of Transport would have had all the time between five and six o'clock, and also between six and eight o'clock, not necessarily for consultation with the leaders of other parties, but also to ask the Speaker if he would accept to fill such duties and, thereafter consult with the leaders of the different parties in order to find another solution. We could perhaps reach an agreement on these points and continue with the measure concerning redistribution.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Apparently there is not unanimous agreement.


John Whitney Pickersgill: In view of the eloquent appeal we heard last night about getting on with the public business I wonder if hon. gentlemen in the New Democratic party would not consider going on with public business during the next hour.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, the items set down for discussion at five o'clock are equally important, and they are public business.


George James McIlraith: No, they are private members' business. They are not public business.


Mr. Depuly 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 notices of motions (papers).



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, October 29, consideration of the motion of Mr. Gregoire:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of the report prepared by officials of the Department of Finance concerning federal expenditures in each of the provinces of Canada.
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, before taking the vote-


Mr. Depuly Speaker:: The hon. member has already taken part in the debate and cannot speak a second time.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I believe that the standing order does at least allow me

to reply to the main arguments that may have been put forward, or to give further details-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: No. Order. The hon. member cannot speak a second time on the points that were raised during the debate.

Is the house ready for the question?


Mr. Lloyd Francis (Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, the issue involved in the production of papers in these circumstances is a very fundamental one concerning the relationship of the civil service to this house. The question involved is a very difficult and technical one in terms of explanation and understanding. Last Saturday the press printed copies of an order for return filed by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) in reply to questions originally raised by the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Balcer). We are dealing essentially with the same subject matter. The whole question of the return of taxes by provinces and federal expenditures by provinces is one that certain members of this house have distorted, and distorted I would submit for their own partisan, political advantage. They have not served the cause of national unity by this procedure. Last week in this house there was a debate brought on, I believe, by the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) in which the Minister of Finance took part, who pointed out that the reply which was filed, a careful reply summarizing the results of research in the department, consisted of ten pages of explanation of a very fine, technical nature. This did not prevent hon. members attempting to obtain an oversimplification of the returns, asking questions concerning the technical procedures and whether or not such and such an inference could be drawn.
The problem here, Mr. Speaker, is the question of the production of what are really the working papers of civil servants. I had the privilege and honour to serve as a research officer in the research and statistics division, in this case for national health and welfare, for some nine years. In the course of that time I participated in a number of projects which had as their purpose the preparation of answers for the minister in the house or deriving information which was used for programming within the department. It was frequently the case that when a first, initial draft of a study was prepared it had to be examined by senior officers within the division, examined very carefully, edited and checked. It would be a gross disservice to any department of government, to any re-20220-634J
Motions for Papers
search officer, to compel the premature, public disclosure of documents which are incomplete in themselves and which do not represent the standard of scholarship and of final preparation of material which is the mark of integrity of the civil service.
What the hon. member seeks to secure by this resolution is the publication of a series of premature, early drafts of reports which are incomplete, likely to be misinterpreted and which would do no service to Canadian unity. I do not believe it would serve the house or Canada to have this kind of material placed before the house in the form in which the hon. member who moved the motion presumably intends. I know there have been references to this matter in the press. There was a reference some weeks ago in Le Devoir, a front page story of a study in the Department of Finance, which presumed to make certain findings. We have now seen the final results as a result of screening, editing and polishing; and I use "polishing" in the sense of correcting inaccuracies or the exploring of areas of the subject matter which call for more careful attention. The results of that study have been filed and placed before this house. What can be the purpose of the mover of this motion in proceeding with it, in the face of the answers that were given by the Department of Finance to questions of an exactly similar nature posed by the hon. member for Three Rivers?
I think all members of this house should ponder the fundamental principle involved here. Are they going to, if they vote for such a motion-which I hope they will not- establish the principle that there should be no confidentiality of early drafts, of early reports of research officers in different branches of government? It would destroy scholarship within the research divisions of those men and women who serve this country and serve it well, who serve it with distinction and who are recognized in their professional capacity, if they did not have the right to work at their material, produce preliminary drafts, rework the preliminary drafts and stay with this material until they came to the conclusions and the results which they felt in their conscience and integrity they were prepared to support.
A parallel in regard to any form of research can readily be brought to mind. Someone doing laboratory research, who does experiments and makes certain initial findings which suggest certain hypotheses, does not publish these results right away. He tests them; he sets them up against repeated observation

Motions for Papers
and experiment before the results are placed, as contributions to knowledge, in the public record. The acceptance of a motion of this nature would destroy the integrity of research operations in the federal civil service and would have very serious repercussions in terms of morale, in terms of the operations of government departments and in terms of the government itself of this country. I know that the mover of the motion thinks he can gain certain advantage by consistently pursuing a question which has been the subject of a great deal of ill informed speculation. There is the question in terms of federal expenditures. The hon. member who questioned the Minister of Finance the other day raised the matter of interest on the national debt. The question was asked, how was this distributed by provinces, and the assumption was that this would be done on a per capita basis. The mover of the motion then asked, "What would happen in the case of payments, in regard to the federal debt, of persons who reside outside Canada? What allowances are made?" Again this illustrates the very difficult and involved technical preparations that must be part of any such study, not only on the expenditures side but on the revenue side.
The Minister of Finance indicated, in response to questions asked in the early stages of debate on this motion, that revenues which are raised in any particular part of the country cannot be ascribed at first glance simply to the place from which they are reported. Sales taxes paid by a manufacturing concern are in fact paid in many different parts of the country; customs duties levied at one port cannot be properly ascribed to any one province without a careful examination of the nature of the goods on which duty has been paid.
The problem of distribution involves a very difficult study of the whole question of the incidence of taxation. There are no simple or easy answers to this, Mr. Speaker. The answers which have been given by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) are the best which can be provided. Presumably they are not good enough for the mover of the motion; he wants answers which will suit his own purposes. I am reminded of the old story about the facts: that if they do not suit the theory then so much the worse for the facts. We have given the facts to the hon. member in the most careful, polished and complete form in which they can be presented with academic integrity, and I use that phrase to this house in its very best sense. There can be no useful purpose served

by the mover of the motion's seeking to go beyond the presentation which has been made and seeking to explore through compelling disclosure of early drafts, working papers and incomplete statements a matter as explosive, as difficult and as emotional as this one.
These are days, Mr. Speaker, when perhaps greater strains are laid on our confederate structure than have been laid for many decades. There is an onus on all of us to be responsible in our public statements and to be responsible in this house. We should not lightly without good reason question such a matter as a formal statement by the Minister of Finance disclosing the origins of taxes and the destination of expenditures by provinces, such as that prepared in the way this return has been prepared. We raise much greater questions of national unity if we seek to go beyond the best professional competence and judgment of the officials of the department who have been responsible for the preparation of the order for return and the material contained in it.
For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that we have no choice but to say that this is not the kind of motion which should be accepted by this house. It is wrong because it seeks to compel premature disclosure of information which is not complete in itself. It is wrong because it would challenge the very integrity of those in the public service who are entrusted with research and investigation operations in various government departments. It is wrong because it seeks to give a distorted and very dangerous interpretation, within the present context of our confederation, of what one area gives and receives compared to what another area gives and receives. It is wrong because it seeks in the course of a public debate to deal with matters of an intricate and technical nature involving the compilation and interpretation of statistical data which can only be collected by those, in justice to the persons concerned, who are trained to interpret and understand that data, data which should not be misused for any narrow political or partisan advantage.
For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, and for many other reasons which can be advanced, I think it would be proper for the mover of the motion to say to the house at this time that this is not the procedure for seeking such information. The procedure for seeking such information is by putting questions on the order paper. The questions which have been placed on the order paper dealing with

this matter have been answered. If there is a question concerning the nature and validity of the assumptions and the interpretation of the material, then the most satisfactory procedure is again to phrase additional questions dealing with the returns which have been filed. These questions can be stated precisely. They can be framed by the hon. member, if necessary by consulting with persons who are trained, to make sure that the proper points are raised, and the answers can be prepared and filed accordingly. This procedure is the orderly, responsible and I suggest the sensible way of dealing with this matter.
The alternative procedure would, in my submission, seek to compel the premature and I would suggest disturbing publication of incomplete, early, preliminary notes, preliminary findings and preliminary tables which are in many cases prepared by a junior officer who is assigned to the project, and subsequently reviewed by his senior in that particular section or division. Any procedure which distorts the research process by placing the civil servants involved in a position where their academic integrity and reputation would inevitably be jeopardized is one which I am sure on reflection will not commend itself to many members of this house.
I would strongly suggest to the very utmost of whatever persuasive powers I possess that the mover of the motion should withdraw it; that he should have recourse to the alternative of phrasing questions which can be put on the order paper and which can deal with any particular aspect of the problem which he feels has not properly or adequately been answered in the order for return which was tabled by the Minister of Finance in reply to the question posed by the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Balcer). Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I would ask the mover of the motion to withdraw it. I think the reasons for withdrawing it are compelling. Failing withdrawal I believe there is no alternative but for the members of this house to say that the principle involved here in moving this motion is repugnant to us, that we cannot accept it and that in all conscience we must vote against it should it come to a vote, which I sincerely hope the mover of the motion will refrain from asking.


Mr. Caoueiie:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Villeneuve has already participated in the debate and cannot speak a second time.
Motions for Papers


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I pointed out that it was six o'clock but I did not think that my time was up.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Unfortunately, the hon. member did not ask to speak at the beginning of the time allotted to private members' business as listed on the order paper, and as his speech must be considered as having ended at six o'clock, I do not think that under the standing order he can be heard now.
Is the house ready for the question? If the hon. member for Lapointe takes the floor now he will thus close the debate.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I thought that at the beginning of this sitting I was speaking so as to close the debate, but I noticed that the Liberals, as usual, insisted in obstructing and delaying this discussion indefinitely. A certain member spoke for 20 minutes and said nothing, while I was prepared to close the debate around five o'clock in order that we could proceed as soon as possible with the other business of the house. This proves that the business of the house is not always delayed by the opposition, but often by the members of the party in office.
I must admit, Mr. Speaker, that the arguments which were brought forward did not convince me in the least, except that some persons fear to produce figures.
The hon. member who has just spoken reminds me of the ostrich which hides its head in the sand and shows its rear when danger threatens. We must not be afraid to give figures, because only when we know exactly what is going on can we propose solutions, and when we make suggestions, then we can reach an agreement.
If facts are never revealed, if they are kept hidden, so that there are only complaints, warranted or not, so that the present system can continue without being amended, there will always be uneasiness and criticism.
We want the figures to be published.
I admit, Mr. Speaker, that since I presented my motion the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) has given us an answer to a question put on the order paper.
What surprised me is that according to the reply all the provinces got more from Ottawa than they paid into the federal treasury. If that is the case, how does one account for the difference? If each province gets more than it pays out, where does the money come from?

Motions for Papers
Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia get twice as much as they pay in; in the case of Manitoba and Saskatchewan, it is just about twice as much also British Columbia and Alberta get one and a half times what they give and Quebec and Ontario nearly 12 per cent more.
Where does the federal government get the money to give to the provinces more than it receives from them?
Would it be that it has started using the Bank of Canada? Is he multiplying money, to give more than he receives?
The Minister of Finance did not answer this question, but the answer is quite simple: if he ran into debt for that purpose, there was a deficit.


Mr. Turner:: Correct.


Gilles Grégoire: I hear the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George say that it is correct.
If in order to give us an extra amount the Minister of Finance incurs a deficit, why then include the deficit in the figures he gave us? That is not very smart.
In other words, in the $915 million which is deemed to have been given to the province of Quebec at the rate of so much per capita, they cannot say why it is such an amount. No details have been given. It is known there is one billion dollars in regard to the debt interest, but it is neither the citizens of the province of Quebec nor those of Ontario who receive the interest on the debt. The interest is paid in a proportion of between 70 and 75 per cent to foreigners: Americans, English, Belgians, Swiss, French, Italians. That money does not find its way into our province.
We are told that the $915 million going back to the province of Quebec includes a part of defence expenditures totalling $1.5 billion. But we can hardly say that when we bought Voodoos, Bomarcs and nuclear arms in the United States, weapons that will never be used again, such expenditures were made in the interest of one province only, no.
And when the amount includes a deficit, because the money must come from somewhere, and we learned a moment ago that it did come from a deficit, that deficit is not passed on to the citizens of a province. However, interest must be paid on the deficit.
Therefore, the amount should not be based on what we receive but on what we pay.
The figures submitted by the Minister of Finance are misleading.
Why could we not be told how half or nearly half the total amount is redistributed?

For instance, in the case of the Farm Credit Corporation the province of Quebec gets practically nothing. In the case of expenditures of the federal government in the field of transportation, for railway crossings or installation of traffic lights, for instance, Quebec gets 25 per cent. The same thing can be said about expenditures of the Department of Fisheries where Quebec only gets a very small percentage of the amount involved.
The estimates of the Department of Finance amount to $83 million, $48 million of which are going to the wheat board, that is to the three prairie provinces, while $10 million were spent on reforestation across the country but not a single penny in the province of Quebec.
But the Minister of Finance received reports and was faced with complications. Then the results were disastrous for his department because he noticed that there was a lack of balance in the country as a whole. At that time he made it a point to hide the true figures and statistics. He included them in a total of $915 million, saying: it is so much per capita, but there was no question of figuring out the debt in each province. It was said: it is so much per capita. That is less incriminating.
Mr. Speaker, we got only part of the report the Minister of Finance was supposed to give us. We did not get the whole thing. We feel that even if he let us have part of it, the Minister of Finance should now give us a breakdown of the $915 million remaining, which make up more than half the total.
The people of Canada must know the facts as well as the House of Commons. Nor will we be content with a partial reply; we want a full reply.
That is why we will ask a vote to be taken on that matter, and then we will see who, in this House of Commons, wants things out in broad daylight, and who, through their votes, will indicate that they prefer to hide the truth, to keep it under a bushel.


David Réal Caouette: Hide the financier.


Gilles Grégoire: Hide the financier, as the hon. member for Villeneuve says.
We will see, through the vote, who wants to play ostrich, to stick his head in the sand and his posterior in the air in times of danger, and who are those who do not fear to see the facts brought out in broad daylight.
This will help to arrive at a better computation of what has been badly calculated in the past.

This is the reason why we are asking for the production of that report in full.


Mr. Habel:: It looks to me as if the separatists convinced you last night.



PRIVATE BILLS

[Stage Direction]
Watson (Assiniboia) Watson (CMteauguay-Huntingdon-Laprairie) Webb Winkler Woolliams-110.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, October 15, consideration of the motion of Mr. Bas-ford for the second reading of Bill No. S-13, to incorporate Laurentide bank of Canada.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order No. 2, resuming debate on the motion of Mr. Basford for the second reading of Bill No. S-13, to incorporate Laurentide bank of Canada.
++NAYS
Messrs:


Mr. MacNaughl:: Stand at the request of the government.
Alkenbrack	Kelly
Badanai	Klein
Baldwin	Knowles
Barnett	Konantz, Mrs.
Batten	Lachance
Benson	Laing
Berger	LaMarsh, Miss
Bigg	Lambert
Boulanger	Lamontagne
Byrne	Leboe
Cardin	Legault
Caron	Lloyd
Carter	Loney
Cashin	Macdonald
Choquette	Mackasey
Churchill	MacLean (Queens)
Clancy	MacNaught
Coates	Macquarrie
Cooper	McBain
Cyr	Mcllraith
Danforth	McIntosh
Deachman	Madill
Diefenbaker	Martin (Essex East)
Doucett	Matheson
Drury	Millar
Ethier	More
Eudes	Moreau
Forest	Munro
Forgie	Nasser den
Foy	Nielsen
Francis	Nugent
Gelber	O'Keefe
Gendron	Olson
Godin	Ormiston
Gordon	Otto
Granger	Ouellet
Gray	Pascoe
Greene	Pennell
Gundlock	Pickersgill
Habel	Pigeon
Haidasz	Pilon
Hays	Rapp
Hellyer	Ricard
Honey	Rinfret
Horner (Acadia)	Rock
Homer (The Battlefords) Rouleau	
Howe (Wellington-	Ryan
Huron)	Starr
Irvine	Stenson
Jewett, Miss	Tardif


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent of the house to stand this measure?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There is not unanimous agreement. Is the house ready for the question?


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Getting on with the country's business.


William Arnold Peters: -as the minister said, we are getting on with the country's business by establishing a number of banks. This matter is of considerable interest to me because I have been interested in the negotiations that have taken place in recent years between the banking institutions that we have, the number of banks that have been established and their relationship particularly to the small loans field. It has been of interest to me, Mr. Speaker, to learn that all the banks we now have, and they are not numerous in Canada, have been more interested in amalgamation than they have been in establishing a number of small regional banks.
I believe that this whole problem of banking should have been referred, as it is necessary by law to do every ten years, to the appropriate committee for discussion. There should have been a decision with regard to the policy to be followed under the Bank Act for the next ten years, before these bills were brought before parliament. You will recall that some of our major banks, banks which have been in operation many years, have amalgamated. The Imperial Bank of Canada, recently amalgamated with the Bank of Com-

Private Bills
merce to form the Imperial Bank of Commerce. This has been repeated by several of the other major banks. In fact there has been a tendency for banks to amalgamate and we are now faced with a new concept in the banking facilities of the nation, particularly in relation to the proposed Laurentide bank.
This is an institution which warrants a great deal of attention from members, particularly with regard to the reasons why it is proposed. It will be a rather unique bank, with a wholesale-retail operation. The bank will wholesale for its retail outlet, the Laurentide Trust and Finance Company. How will this work and how will it fit into the pattern we have established for banks in the national sphere?
This is a bank that will not need to deal in loans as do other banks, and it is interesting to note that the parent company recently bought a finance company which is in a dubious position and whose affairs are now before the courts.
We have not been able to examine fully this matter of vertical integration in the banking industry. There must be reasons why the old stalwart banks have found it necessary to amalgamate, and they have reached great size by doing so.
We have had very stable banking institutions in Canada. At times members of parliament have been distressed because of the policy taken by individual banks in relation to retail credit, but on the whole our banking institutions have been responsible, and have been subject to control, suggestion and direction by the government of the nation. Governments will continue to give such direction and for this reason it makes one wonder why we are now embarking on a new course which we have not previously allowed.
Several banks have been able to take advantage of the ceiling on small loans to charge interest rates greater than the 6 per cent which by law is allowed. They have been able to do this through such things as insurance, and devaluating the value placed on the collateral pledged with them. In many cases they have been able to boost interest rates to 12 per cent, 14 per cent and even higher; but these rates do not come within the ambit of those charged by finance companies, including the Laurentide Trust and Finance Company, because many of these charge interest rates as high as 30 and 40 per cent.
I do not believe it is in the national interest to charter a bank which will act only as a wholesale agency for its finance company. I would point out that bills to incorporate banks

are completely different from other private bills which come before parliament, such as those dealing with divorce or the building of pipe lines. I believe a committee of both houses should be made aware of policy changes with respect to the Bank Act. As we know, by law it is necessary to review it every ten years, and it is shortly due for revision. I think any decision on the chartering of new banks should await policy decision with respect to this revision.
It is also interesting that this is a Senate bill. Many editorials have appeared in newspapers questioning the impartiality of members of the other house to decide on certain banking bills, when hon. members of that house themselves in many cases are members of the boards of directors of competing banks.


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: Order. The hour for the consideration of private members' business has expired.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to provisional standing order 39A, to inform the house that the questions to be raised at ten o'clock this day are as follows: The hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Wool-liams); national parks-amendment of regulations respecting zoning and building; second, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles); public service-superannuated federal employees' request for increased pensions; third, the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard); grain-Prince Rupert, B.C.-increase in elevator capacity.
The house will now revert to the business interrupted at five o'clock.



REDISTRIBUTION


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of Bill No. C-72, to provide for the establishment of electoral boundaries commissions to report upon the readjustment of the representation of the provinces in the House of Commons and to provide for the readjustment of such representation in accordance therewith-Mr. Pickersgill (for Mr. Pearson)-Mr. Lamoureux in the Chair.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
Lucien Lamoureux: Order. House again in committee of the whole on Bill No. C-72.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Lucien Lamoureux: The question is on the amendment.


Mr, Woolliams:: Mr. Chairman, I am not going to delay this matter because I might be accused of filibustering, and I see that my friends are already in agreement. But I would like to say a few words in reference to the remarks made this afternoon by the hon. member for Skeena, and particularly that puritan element of his remarks. I think it has been proven this afternoon that where you have four or five parties it makes the work of parliament quite difficult. There is no doubt about it, there was an impasse as far as redistribution is concerned. I think I can perhaps take the blame for my party in this regard; I fought the amendment, what I call the Knowles amendment, and I fought it with all my heart because I thought it was wrong. Finally the government said, "Look; we will compromise". We then asked for an adjournment; we got that adjournment, and we had a meeting. We did compromise. We were ready and willing to accept the first proposal made by the Minister of Transport.
Then we find that immediately the shoe is on the other foot and it pinches, these puritans, these people who go on television and say, "We don't filibuster. We are the purest Canadians; vote for us in the next election. We would never think of filibustering; we are pure; we are the purest people there are. We would never think of delaying any legislation or opposing any compromise" *-this is what the Leader of the New Democratic party has been saying-hold up this legislation. These people went all across this nation and said, "We are the party. Don't trust those old line parties that have governed Canada since confederation". But they are the people who must take the blame for this bill not being voted on at five o'clock, and they must face that fact.


An hon. Member:: Filibuster.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I knew they would cry, Mr. Chairman, because they hate to hear the truth. When you have four or five parties in parliament it makes our work very difficult. It has been proven today. I have said this at other times, and it has been proven
Electoral Boundaries Commissions correct. We talk about amending the rules. The fact is that you can amend the rules, and it does not matter whether we are talking about redistribution or anything else; parliament will never function properly, no matter what kind of rules we have, when you have four or five parties with different ideas. As soon as the shoe pinched and was on the other foot, we saw who filibustered this afternoon.
I want to see a vote on the subject; I want to see it tonight. I would like to get on with the nation's business, and I want everybody to know-and I hope the press write about it-that these puritans who went on television and said, "We don't filibuster. We don't talk for nothing", include the Howards and-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order, please. I am sure the hon. member will recognize that for the last few minutes he has strayed quite a distance away from the subject matter now before us, which is an amendment moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. I was hoping that after a few introductory words the hon. member would come to the subject matter. I think he has perhaps gone beyond the point of no return now, and I would ask him to limit his further remarks to the question before the committee.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, may I make a comment, on a point of order, before we proceed any further. I would ask that Your Honour be lenient. The hon. member for Bow River is trying desperately to dig his party out of the grave, and we should cooperate with him.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Chairman, I am going to listen to your ruling, except that I would like to say one sentence, if I may, with reference to this matter. They talk about filibustering. What about the question of divorce in this House of Commons? What about the Ralliement Creditiste-and there is not one of them here tonight-and the bank bill?


Lucien Lamoureux: Order, please. That was two sentences.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I must say, Mr. Chairman, that I think you are one of the most tolerant chairmen we have had in a long time. I want to see a vote on the subject.


An hon. Member:: Then sit down.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I will sit down later, and when I do sit down I hope this filibuster is

Electoral Boundaries Commissions over, because when it is I will have served parliament. We took a strong position. We asked for an adjournment. We got one. We discussed this matter. We compromised. Compromise, as I said this afternoon, means settlement, or giving way a little each way. We have arrived at a settlement, and I hope we have a vote and get the matter ended now.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, just to help the filibuster along and help the hon. member for Bow River out, I would like to say a few words. We are discussing an amendment and have been discussing an amendment that is not before the house. We discussed this afternoon and are discussing this evening -although certainly this was not evident from the remarks just made-an amendment that really is not before us at the present time. The amendment before us is one moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre.


Some hon. Members:: North.


William Arnold Peters: Winnipeg North Centre. It was moved by the hon. member some time ago; in fact in April of this year. Today the discussion-and the hon. member for Bow River just now certainly confirmed this-is on an amendment that was worked out in a back room between the two major parties in this house.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege. I can tell him right now that there was no amendment worked out in a back room. With regard to the inference the hon. member is drawing, let us just review for a few minutes-this is in reference to the question of privilege-


William Arnold Peters: Just stay on the point.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I will stay on the point. Don't ever worry about me. You never knew a point when you saw one. Let me finish, Mr. Chairman. We asked the minister if they would adjourn the matter, and if they would we would meet together. We met and we made a decision. We came back into the house, in the face of that meeting, and made our decision. We announced our decision. Therefore I would hope that the New Democratic party would stop drawing inferences from facts of which they have no knowledge.


William Arnold Peters: Let me make it very plain, Mr. Chairman, that the "we" he is referring to is not the members of this house but probably two political parties in this house. Everyone has the amendment before them-


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: On another point of order, Mr. Chairman; when I say "we" I mean the Conservative party, and I would hope the member would stop imputing motives to me and the rest of the Conservatives.


William Arnold Peters: I do not think I can impute any that probably could not be worn. The amendment before us I believe comes from the government and is going to be moved by the government. Therefore I assume that the meeting in the back room was comprised of these two political parties, and not the members of this house.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Were you absent the other day when the minister announced it in the house?


William Arnold Peters: I have a copy of it.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Were you absent?


William Arnold Peters: I am also of the opinion that this was not worked out in the house or in the normal manner; that it is by passing an amendment that has not been voted on yet, which is one that I think warrants consideration by members in open discussion in the house. I also hope that even the member for Bow River will give some consideration to the proposal. The proposal that has been made concerns a system that I understand is in operation in the province of Manitoba, in the provincial sphere, and has been quite acceptable in that province and has removed politics from the redistribution of seats there. It is very important, in my opinion, that politics be taken out of the redistribution of seats in Canada. It is important to every Canadian that we come as closely as possible to-


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: This is a filibuster.


William Arnold Peters: -re-implementing one vote, one member representation, whereby each person has equal representation no matter from which part of the country he comes. I believe this is British justice.
In years gone by there has been a great deal of gerrymandering with regard to electoral boundaries. I believe this gerrymandering has occurred because of the kind of arrangements which have been made in back rooms by the two political parties which are suggesting another arrangement today. The only hope I have is that the Speaker of this house, who must be impartial if he is to receive the respect due him as first commoner of the nation, is not asked to do such a political job as making this decision. The question was asked this afternoon whether the Speaker would not

have difficulty in choosing people in various parts of the country. I should have thought that under the old system one political party would have difficulty in choosing people, and in my opinion two political parties will have difficulty in agreeing on the persons who can and should be chosen to decide the electoral boundaries in this country.
The amendment before us tonight suggests that lists should be made from which the chief justices of the provinces would be able to choose the people who will assist the redistribution officer in selecting representatives from the provinces. Perhaps the amendment should state whom the lists should include. There may be an argument put forward that the chief electoral officer in each province should be represented. There may be some argument that some provinces may not have academically capable persons in provincial universities who would agree to representation on this basis. I think a lot of these considerations are superfluous anyway because the chief electoral officer has possibly already decided who are the best people for the job. I would suggest that there is no rush to get this bill passed at all if these people are already chosen and the boundaries pretty well defined, because there need only be a brief examination of each particular boundary, with its endorsement by the commissions. I believe these people are available and willing to act and that they have already been approached.
I also believe there is not much doubt about the fact that the man who has been chosen to head up the redistribution of the electoral seats in Canada is sincere in his desire to do it on a non-political basis and to make the representation as equal and as fair as possible in every part of Canada. I believe we do not need any back room agreements. We do not want to load upon the Speaker lists of persons who may be appointed by either one of the major political parties of this country. I believe that this parliament should make that decision by providing these lists so that we can get on with the job of redistribution in a truly non-political and non-partisan manner.
I suggest that rather than making these back door agreements and arrangements which perpetuate the system which has been adopted in the past to the detriment of everybody, and rather than making an arrangement which will force the Speaker to make appointments which may not be non-political and for which he may be criticized later, the committee would be well advised to consider the amendment before it now. Hon. members have had a
Electoral Boundaries Commissions chance to look at it for some months now and I hope they will give it favourable consideration, because in my opinion it will completely eliminate the gerrymandering system we have had in the past and will totally remove any political overtones which may have been previously intended.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, when Bill No. C-72 was introduced several months ago, we discussed ways and means of carrying out redistribution.
For instance, it was suggested that provinces familiar with geography and provincial organizations should be consulted regarding readjustment of boundaries. Clause 6 (2) concerning appointment of other members reads as follows:
Of the two members of the commission other than the chairman and the representation commissioner, one shall be appointed by the leader of the government in the House of Commons and one shall be appointed by the leader of the opposition in the House of Commons, but in the event of failure to make any such appointment within the time provided therefore by this act, the appointment shall be made by the chairman.
Today the government is introducing the draft of a bill to replace clause 6(2) and it reads as follows:
Appointment of other members: The two members of the commission, acting for a province, other than the chairman and the representation commissioner, shall be appointed by the Speaker of the House of Commons and selected among persons residing in that province and whom he judges competent...
That is the French word. Some may believe that it means "iodine", but apparently it is "idoine" (competent), to the effect that the Speaker of the House of Commons may choose the two members concerned in every province of Canada.
Mr. Chairman, I believe sincerely that our provinces are more qualified to suggest the boundaries of new electoral ridings than any federal organization or any organization appointed by the federal government. After reading paragraph (1) of clause 6, which reads as follows:
(1) The chairman of the commission for a province shall be appointed by the chief justice of the province from among the judges of the court over which he presides...
-or after consulting with the chief justice.
Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Timis-kaming (Mr. Peters) just indicated that political interference in the appointment of members of redistribution commissions should be put beyond any political point of view.
10026	HOUSE OF
Electoral Boundaries Commissions I am in complete agreement. All judges of the superior court, anywhere in Canada, Mr. Chairman, without any exception, were appointed politically by the party in office. We all know that from experience. Those are not just wild suggestions or ill-considered words, but they are truly based on what we have seen, on what does exist, not only in one province, but in every province. And that is why I think we should call upon organizations which have nothing to do with politics, with the Liberal or the Conservative parties, and ask them to select the persons who will be appointed to the commission that will look after redistribution.
So far as I am concerned, I have no objection to the Speaker of the house appointing two persons from among the residents of a province, but in regard to the province of Quebec, I wonder whether the Speaker himself is well aware of what is going on in that province, whether he is aware of all that is happening in our province.
I see that the Secretary of State (Mr. Lamontagne) is in his seat. He knows perfectly well that in Quebec, in our province, there are completely non-political organizations that could be commissioned to deal with the redistribution of those ridings.
When I spoke about redistribution a few months ago, Mr. Chairman, I said that I myself had gone to see the maps drawn by the chief electoral officer and I noted then that the population was taken into account for certain ridings, while for others, geographical matters were being considered.
Now, Mr. Chairman, the fact remains that if an electoral redistribution is to be effected throughout Canada, and more especially in the province of Quebec, I feel we must select fair-minded people without any political affiliation whatsoever, who will see to it that the province of Quebec is divided, organized or reorganized, following the federal redistribution, according to the wishes of that province. I do not think it is up to Ottawa to select the people who will decide upon readjustment of federal riding boundaries in the province of Quebec. Quebec is part of our confederation and is in Canada, of course, but each province should be free and have the opportunity to decide upon the representation it should have in the federal parliament.
Mr. Chairman, that is what I am suggesting, without any political bias or partisanship. We want adequate representation. We want a representation which will truly reflect the mentality, the spirit, the will, the intelligence
[Mr. Caouette.J

and the aspirations of a province within confederation.
Mr. Chairman, if the Speaker of the house can select able men and women to preside over redistribution, I will be the first one to help him, but I think the government should see to it that each province may decide for itself; whether it is the small province of Prince Edward Island, the province of Newfoundland, British Columbia, Ontario, Manitoba or the province of Quebec, the main thing is to contact responsible people in those provinces so that we may finally reach an agreement on a national basis which will not only be respected by part of the country but by the whole Canadian nation, especially by all the provinces which are now constituting Canada as we know it.
Mr. Chairman, all we are suggesting is that appointees should not already be committed to some political organizations. We are asking for the appointment of impartial people who will see to it that boundaries of federal constituencies will be readjusted according to the hopes and the will of the Canadian people and the people residing in each Canadian province.
Those then are the remarks I wanted to make on the present resolution; namely, who should choose the members of the commission? The Speaker, the leader of the opposition, or the leader of the government? In the province of Quebec, the official opposition is not Conservative, for the Conservatives are fewer than we are. There are more Creditistes than there are Conservatives in the province of Quebec. Things being so, why not suggest the appointment of a delegate from the opposition which is represented by the Ralliement Creditiste in the province of Quebec?
Mr. Chairman, we do not ask to appoint these people; on the other hand, we do not want the leader of the official opposition in the house, or the leader of the government, to dictate to the province of Quebec the decision to be taken concerning the electoral redistribution in our province.
It is not results we are seeking; we want to be treated justly. The leader of the official opposition has nothing to do in our province at this time. The government can accept our suggestions, but on the other hand we can challenge those allegations that the government is introducing as an amendment to the elections act.
Mr. Chairman, I have said and repeated a little while ago that we do not want to

interfere; we want justice not only for the province of Quebec, but for the whole of Canada.
If it is better for the Speaker to select the members of the commission, if he can give us the assurance that there will be no political interference in the appointment of the members of the said commission-these Mr. Chairman, are the comments I want to make on clause 6 of Bill No. C-72-we will not object to redistribution.
But we will object if we And that there is political interference at any level, in the discussion which is taking place at this time.
We do not want the people appointed by political parties to decide about redistribution.
We want genuine Canadians, just plain Canadians, to be duly and respectably represented in the House of Commons. This is our hope in the best interest of the future of Canadians.


Marcel Lessard: Mr. Chairman, I would like to add a few words to what has been said so far on this matter.
When Bill No. C-72 was introduced, at the beginning of this session, we reached the conclusion after a few hours of debate that clause 6 should be amended, because its wording indicated obviously-and directly-political partisanship in the appointment of persons who would be entrusted with the task of redistribution in Canada.
That is why, when the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) presented his amendment, we thought that it might be better for our group to support it, since it was in fact an improvement over the government's proposal.
But today we are faced with another amendment moved by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) which I feel is equally acceptable, because it is clearly much better than the initial proposal made by the government. Some people here claim that it is possible to eliminate political partisanship entirely from that commission.
Well, Mr. Chairman, I am not fooling myself; I am convinced that, no matter how this commission goes about it, there will be, in one way or the other, some degree of political intervention. Let us not deceive ourselves about that. No matter how those people are appointed, since I do not think there is in Canada a single person that is not active in some way on the political level-everyone has opinions-they will certainly make their ideas and opinions felt one way or the other.
Electoral Boundaries Commissions
Therefore, I do not think we can find in Canada people entirely free from political prejudice. In my opinion it would be useless to continue this discussion indefinitely and, as far as I am concerned, I shall limit my remarks on this point by saying that I will vote against the amendment moved by the members of the New Democratic party, and I support the resolution as it is now put before us, without, however, foregoing the right to consider any further amendment which could be brought to it during the present debate.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Lucien Lamoureux: The question is on the amendment as proposed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre on April 16, 1964. Does the committee wish the chairman to read the amendment?


Some hon. Members:: Read it.


Some hon. Members:: Dispense.


Lucien Lamoureux: Dispense.
Amendment (Mr. Knowles) negatived: Yeas, 22; nays, 80.


Lucien Lamoureux: I declare the amendment lost.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder whether, without any explanation or anything else, I could now move:
That Bill C-72 be amended by striking out clause 6 thereof and substituting therefor the following:-
Since I think nearly all hon. members have "the following" perhaps I could dispense with reading it except to say there is an error in the last line of subclause 2. A word is omitted. After the word "among" there should be the word "such". I have inserted the word in my copy which I am sending to the Chair.


Mr. Thomas:: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman; some members have not received copies of both of these amendments. Will the minister tell us which amendment we are dealing with?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think the hon. gentleman is perhaps right. I will read it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Could we not compromise and have it read either by the minister or by the chairman? We do not need it read twice.

Electoral Boundaries Commissions Mr. Pickersgill: The chairman has a far better voice.


Lucien Lamoureux: Perhaps it would be easier if the Chair were to read it. Mr. Pickersgill moves:
That Bill C-72 be amended by striking out clause 6 thereof and substituting therefor the following: Appointment 6. (1) The chairman of the com-of chairman mission for a province shall be appointed by the chief justice of the province from among the judges of the court over which he presides or, after consultation with the chief justice of any other branch or division of that court or any other superior court in that province, from among the judges of that branch, division or other superior court, but in the event that there is no such judge able or free to act as chairman or where for any other reason no such appointment is made within the time provided therefor by this act, the Chief Justice of Canada or in the event of his absence or incapacity the senior puisne judge of the Supreme Court of Canada shall make the appointment from among such persons resident in that province as he deems suitable.
Appointment (2) The two members of the cora-of other mission for a province other than the members chairman and the representation commissioner shall be appointed by the Speaker of the House of Commons from among such persons resident in that province as he deems suitable.
Notice of	(3) Forthwith upon the making of
appointment any appointment as provided in this to be given section, the person making the appointment shall notify the Secretary of State thereof.
References to chief justice and Speaker
(4) A reference in subsection (1) to the chief justice of a province includes a reference to the acting chief justice of the province or any person performing for the time being the duties of the chief justice thereof, and a reference in subsection (2) to the Speaker of the House of Commons includes a reference to any person performing for the time being the duties of the Speaker.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I rise for the purpose of moving an amendment to the amendment, which reads as follows:
That the amendment be amended by changing the period at the end of subclause (2) to a comma, and by inserting immediately thereafter the following words:
''provided, however, that at least one of the persons appointed by the Speaker of the House of Commons shall, if possible, be appointed from among such persons coming within the following class, that is to say: the chief electoral officer, the surveyor general or the registrar of vital statistics of the province, or the holder of any similar office in the province."

I do not believe it is necessary to argue at length for this amendment. Hon. members will realize what it seeks to do. It is still my view, as it was the view of the Minister of Transport and his colleagues when they sat on this side of the house in the parliament before the last, that parliament should know if not the actual persons, at least the kind of persons being put on a commission of this kind. It is my view also that we should not leave this all to the Speaker without giving him some guidelines to give him an indication of the kind of person parliament has in mind.
My earlier amendment, which has been turned down by the committee, suggested that there be two categories and that whoever made the appointments should pick the two members, one from one category and one from the other. The committee having turned down that proposition, like the hon. member for Bow River I am offering a compromise. I suggest that we lay out at least one type of person from whom the Speaker ought to make the choice. I have in the amendment used the words "if possible", for the obvious reason that these persons are not federal employees and hence, if the Speaker is not able to get the consent of the chief electoral officer of the province or such person to take on the assignment, the Speaker will need to have the right to pick someone else in that province whom he deems to be suitable.
As was pointed out this afternoon by the Minister of Transport, the whole idea that I have put forward is based on the very successful experience we have had in the province of Manitoba, where we have the only province-wide independent, impartial commission working in this field. In that province the commission consists of the chief electoral officer, the president of the university and the chief justice of the province. It has worked very well there. I think it would be good for us to suggest to the Speaker that if he is going to make these appointments parliament would like something along that line. I hope, therefore, it will not take as long to deal with this subamendment I am proposing on November 12 as it took to deal with the amendment I moved on April 16. I hope that the Minister of Transport, who took this position when he was in opposition and has said he thinks a method like this is a better one, will support the subamendment.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I commend the hon. gentleman for his brevity and I will

Electoral Boundaries Commissions
try to make my observations equally brief. I must say, to start with, that I do believe the persons described in this subamendment are the kind of persons who, if they were available, would be the kind of persons who would be suitable for a commission. I would be swallowing myself if I did not say that, because I have said it over and over again, and that is the way the Manitoba commission is formed. I do think if all three appointments were to be made by the same person, namely the chief justice of a province, who as I pointed out earlier today once he is appointed is not under the jurisdiction of this parliament, it would be necessary for this parliament to indicate guidelines of this sort.
I do really believe, sir, that if we are going to accept the amendment that I have put forward and entrust to His Honour the Speaker, who is our servant and who is subject to this house and would of course be subject to censure by this house if he did anything wrong, that the Speaker, knowing what has been said about this matter and knowing as he does what we have said in all our debates, does not need this guideline. I do not believe the amendment would serve any useful purpose. I really feel so mildly about this, which is not altogether usual for me, that I do not believe it would do any great harm if the committeee accepted it. However I believe that, like a lot of things that are relatively harmless, it is also relatively useless.
For all of these reasons, I just do not think in these circumstances I will be the slightest degree inconsistent if I say, so far as I am concerned and I say this reluctantly of course, that I do not believe I can vote for the hon. gentleman's subamendment.


Frank Howard: May I ask the minister if he would consider a mild Minister of Transport relatively harmless?


John Whitney Pickersgill: That, I believe, is a very debatable question and I would be out of order if I debated it now.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, taking note of the subamendment just submitted by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), I think that it would change neither the motion nor the main proposition in any significant way.
Indeed, the hon. member pointed it out himself when he repeated two or three times the words "if possible".
At that time, it will be up to Mr. Speaker to decide whether it is possible or not.
A subamendment like this simply means that absolutely nothing will be changed in the original suggestion. The minister who just answered the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is perfectly right, in that we are not here to vote in favour of a subamendment which is neither fish nor fowl, and quite meaningless, but just says "if possible"-as it may, or may not, be so.
Under the circumstances, we shall vote against the subamendment, which means absolutely nothing and just tends to lengthen, or protract, the discussion.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I want to say, first of all, that we still hold the same position we took this afternoon. We believe the important thing is to get the whole bill passed rather than quibble over these amendments. I do believe it would be useful, however, for the Speaker to consider the kind of people who hold the positions suggested in the subamendment. I believe the chief electoral officer of a province would be one of the most qualified persons you could find in a province to put on a commission. I believe the surveyor general also would fall into that category. I hope, whether this subamendment is accepted or not, the Speaker would carefully consider the gentlemen who hold these offices for nomination to the various commissions across the country.
As I say, whether or not it is carried, I hope he would take this into consideration. The amendment says, "if possible", as the hon. member for Villeneuve has pointed out. Therefore all it would require the Speaker to do is inquire whether or not one of these two men was available. That would set the groundwork for one appointment and, since it is not particularly binding because of these words "if possible," we would be prepared to support the subamendment.


Mr. Prittie:: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that in order to get this thing through the government has given in, in very large measure, to the official opposition.


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Robert William Prittie: Well, Mr. Chairman, these people who yell "question" are those who held up parliament for months. I would like to ask the minister if he or his advisers have given much thought to the procedure

Electoral Boundaries Commissions the Speaker would use in finding persons in each province to act on a commission. He cannot be acquainted with persons in all ten provinces. He must turn to someone for advice and I ask where this advice will come from?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Before answering that question I would like to make one observation about what the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond said. His party, the Social Credit party and the Ralliement Creditiste all took some exception to the bill in its original form. If my amendment is adopted the bill will not remain in its original form and therefore I do not think it is quite fair for the hon. gentleman to say that the government is giving in to anyone.
We are doing what we said at the very beginning we would do. We said we would try to listen to any reasonable suggestion from any quarter and try to get a consensus that would give us as good a measure as possible. I have tried not to question the motives of members in any quarter and I hope mine will not be questioned either.
As to the method in which the Speaker would make these selections, I would point out that the Speaker is a grown adult. He is not a child; he has lived in the world for a long time. He will certainly be thoroughly familiar with these debates and I, like the hon. member for Medicine Hat, hope he will seriously consider persons such as are suggested in these categories here. I do not think anyone in the chamber thinks these persons are not suitable, but I am not prepared to go to the length of supporting a motion prescribing him to do so.


Gordon Minto Churchill: May I say I am in agreement with the Minister of Transport. As a matter of fact during consideration of this bill there was no difficulty in processing it through second reading and committee stage until the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre introduced his amendment to clause 6, as I recall it, on April 16. At that time we were prepared to complete the bill by that night, had it not been for the amendment introduced at that time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: How long did you talk on that amendment?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I have the record here.
There were two days debate on it, and it was an unnecessary delay occasioned by him at that time, just as there is unnecessary delay right now. The burden of talk today has been carried by members of the New
[Mr. Prittie.l
Democratic party and by the Creditistes, who constantly complain about delay in the house but who are now showing how delay is brought about by their chatter during most of today.
The subamendment attempts to limit the jurisdictional power given to the Speaker, and mentions persons such as the chief electoral officer, the surveyor general and the registrar of vital statistics in a province. May I point out that in the bill we give to the commission in each province the authority to employ such technical advisers and other staff as may be necessary. We have also indicated that the dominion statistician and the director of the surveys and mapping branch of the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys shall perform that function if required. The persons mentioned in the subamendment are the type I think a provincial commission might wish to employ as technical advisers because of their special knowledge of the provinces they serve. Consequently I see no reason why any of them should be named as a member of a commission. Their knowledge, ability and experience could be made available as technical advisers, and in fact a provincial commission would likely be well advised to call on the services of persons like these.
On April 17 I drew attention to the experience in the United Kingdom where at one time they had the registrar general and the director general of ordnance surveys as members of the commission. This was changed and they were made technical experts or officers of the commission. Therefore I suggest that the subamendment might well be rejected because it does not exclude the persons mentioned from acting in some capacity as advisers to a provincial commission.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Question.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, I should like to comment on the remarks just made by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre. There is no question, as he has said, that he and his colleagues in the Tory party were prepared in April of this year to give passage to clause 6 which we are now being asked to amend, but their support for its passage was based on a purely selfish attitude of having a finger in the pie. They wanted to give political direction to the people who would be doing the redistributing, and that was the same attitude as the Prime Minister had when the bill was introduced in the first instance.

Electoral Boundaries Commissions
The bill originally proposed a definite assurance that the Leader of the Opposition would appoint one of the commissioners other than the chairman, and what else could one expect but that the Tory party, with its history of trying to direct everything from a partisan political point of view, would accept that proposition, just the same as the Liberal government thought it desirable to have the Prime Minister select one of the other commissioners.
It is not at all surprising that the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre says he and his party were prepared to pass clause 6, but it is something for which he should not take any credit. He should not gloat too much over his desire in April to give speedy passage to this because it simply meant that he was prepared to have some sort of long, sticky, political finger in the appointment of the commissions in the various provinces.
It was that position which we argued against, because we said then, and we say now, that if you are going to try to establish a non-political or non-partisan redistribution commission, let us go all the way and make it non-partisan; let us not try to have it both ways. It did not surprise me a bit when the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre stated that which he just stated. He only surprised me by having the gall to state it as a peerless point of view, which it was not. [Translation]


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, according to the remarks made by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill), the members of the New Democratic party and of the Ralliement Creditistes would be the ones who prevented the passing of that legislation, and who, so to speak, delayed the legislation.
I would like to make it clear that if there is one member in this house who delays passing of legislation by discussing just about anything, it is certainly the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre who wastes our precious time by his interventions, usually as serious as those he made a while ago.
While subsection 2 of clause 6 of Bill No. C-72 suggests that two members are to be appointed by the leader of the government and the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Commons, I wonder whether the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre has considered the way the Leader of the Opposition would choose a member in the province of Quebec.
Would he appoint the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Balcer), the member for
Nicolet-Yamaska (Mr. Vincent), or the one for Berthier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere (Mr. Paul)? Who would he propose for the province of Quebec?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The law says no, on clause 8. Read your bill.


David Réal Caouette: The law says no. The law is not passed yet; then, it does not say anything for the time being.
Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre is making much ado about the filibuster carried out by the New Democratic party, the Social Credit and the Ralliement Creditiste. Nevertheless, he is not saying that he is, himself, conducting a general filibuster for the whole of the legislation across the country. Therefore, the hon. member should be more consistent instead of blaming others; he should look in a mirror; he would recognize himself.
Why does he not bring forth something logical, instead of talking all kinds of nonsense as he did a few minutes ago.


Lucien Lamoureux: Is the committee ready to vote on the subamendment?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Lucien Lamoureux: The question will be on the subamendment proposed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. Does the committee wish the chairman to read the subamendment?


Some hon. Members:: Dispense.
Amendment to the amendment (Mr. Knowles) negatived: Yeas, 20; nays, 84.


Lucien Lamoureux: I declare the amendment to the amendment lost.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Lucien Lamoureux: The question is on the amendment moved by the Minister of Transport.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether before this amendment carries we might not refer to it according to that grand old Yankee custom and call it the Pickersgill-Woolliams amendment?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.
Amendment (Mr. Pickersgill) agreed to: Yeas, 92; nays, 11.
10032	HOUSE OF
Electoral Boundaries Commissions


Lucien Lamoureux: I declare the amendment carried. Shall the clause as amended carry?
Clause 6 as amended agreed to.
Clauses 7 to 9 inclusive agreed to.
Clause 12 agreed to.
On clause 13-Rules to be applied in preparing report.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman-


Some hon. Members:: Filibuster.


Gordon Minto Churchill: -I judge this is the last clause that is in front of us and it has to do with the tolerance figure. We spent some time discussing this earlier when the bill was before us for second reading.
We suggested a higher figure than the one which appears here. Some people suggested a lower figure. Others on the government side suggested something in between the two. I am wondering what is the general attitude on the part of the government tonight with regard to this. We have as a committee worked together on many of the clauses here and reached a consensus, as it is called, and I was wondering whether the Minister of Transport has any suggestion to make to us on this particular clause in order that there may be achieved here, as has been achieved with other clauses, an element of compromise between the varying points of view.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, so far as I myself am concerned I think it would make relatively little difference to the actual distribution which would take place whether the tolerance was 20 per cent or 25 per cent. Certainly I would not be prepared to support any figure higher than 25 per cent. I think we should face the fact, regardless of what is the actual tolerance, that if these commissions do their job conscientiously, they will try as far as possible to hew to the line. A tolerance is a tolerance. It is not meant to be a licence to go as far as possible away from what parliament wants. It is to meet hard situations that may arise. Without hard situations it could be done not by commissions at all but by I.B.M. machines, computers or something of that sort. That would be the fairest way of all to have redistribution, except that it would be utterly inhuman and would produce ridiculous results. It is to meet these human situations that there is a tolerance at all and that we depart from the strict rule of representation by population.
I do not think there is anyone in the committee who would argue that there should
[The Chairman.]

not be some tolerance; there is in every country where this kind of redistribution exists. It varies from one country to another, and the tendency over the years has been to make the figure smaller. But speaking for myself I would not in the least object if the general view was that it should remain at 20 per cent or if the general view was that it should be 25 per cent. As far as I am concerned I am quite prepared to support either position.
I think the best way of deciding this question is this. If someone wants to vary it he could move-I do not mind doing it myself and am quite prepared to do so if that is the general feeling-that the tolerance be 25 per cent. Then if the committee wants to turn that down they are free to do so. Each member may vote as he pleases. I know there are some hon. members who feel very strongly that it should not be higher than 20 per cent. Others have expressed the view that it should be 30 per cent. Of course if I move a motion I will vote for it, and if there is the general feeling that we should take the sense of the committee on this point-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Before the minister moves an amendment, how does he come to the conclusion that there is a general feeling he should move it?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps the hon. gentleman, who is more precise than I am, is right there. If there is any strong feeling in the committee that we should take the sense of the committee on this point I am quite prepared to make the motion and let the sense of the committee be taken.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Why could the minister not let us find the sense of the committee on the 20 per cent?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am very familiar with these questions about "Have you stopped beating your wife?"; but if we vote on the 20 per cent and accept that figure there is no chance whatever of the 25 per cent even being considered. In order to let the committee decide whether or not it should be 25 per cent I think-


Stanley Howard Knowles: I rise on a question of privilege. Throughout the debate in committee on this bill both when the Minister of Labour was piloting certain clauses through and since the Minister of Transport has been back on the job we have followed the practice of having a general discussion. We have even departed from the rules-and it has been a tough role for the chairman-by having proposals made and discussed before they

were moved. We did this several times. Then after discussion something else has been put in.
Now the minister, who is the first member to speak to this clause-I am sorry; there was the brief comment from the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre-and before there has been any general discussion proposes to move an amendment to the bill. He has already said it does not matter to him whether the figure is 20 per cent or 25 per cent, but he also said that if he moves an amendment he will vote for it. I suggest that we are not treating this clause in the same manner as we have treated the others which have been the subject of contention in this committee. In fact it smacks of something which I do not like.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think the hon. gentleman has a point and I would be glad to sit quietly and listen to four or five members express their views, and then make up my mind after that.


Lucien Lamoureux: The hon. member for Bow River.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Chairman, it is nice even to have the unanimous consent of the splinter parties. I can be quite brief on this tolerance clause. Let us think of some of the provinces which have a special tolerance. For example, the maritimes cannot have less members-and I am sure everyone agrees- than the number of senators from that area. Then we have the amendment to the British North America Act with which I dealt last April, I think it was-but anyway, a long time ago-where a province like Saskatchewan, if it lost a certain number of its members, would have less constituencies than provided for by the tolerance figure, even if the tolerance figure was zero.
There has been a lot of misunderstanding about the tolerance figure. If there is a tolerance of 10 per cent it does not mean that you would have 70,000 people plus 10 per cent. If the tolerance is 20 per cent it does not mean you would have 70,000 people plus 20 per cent. If you had a tolerance of 25 per cent it does not mean you would have 70,000 people in each constituency plus 25 per cent. All constituencies should consist of 70,000 people. It might be 72,000 now because the population of Canada has gone up since the last census. The figure could be zero; it could be 1 per cent. But a percentage is called for in the bill. Let us understand that a toler-
Electoral Boundaries Commissions ance does not mean you will have a greater figure up to 25 per cent, 20 per cent or 10 per cent.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Make it 100 per cent.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The hon. member for Port Arthur said, make it 100 per cent. I think it was the hon. member for Port Arthur; I am not used to these big round figures. But if the hon. member is following me, if it is 100 per cent it does not mean a constituency will have 140,000 people. If the commissions do their work we will get as near as we can to having 70,000 people in each constituency, or 72,000, depending on the population increase.
However, there are certain problems. There are as many rotten boroughs-I use the word in its historical sense

in the city of Montreal and the city of Toronto as there are in the rural communities of western Canada, and certain problems arise where certain areas require a given tolerance. Certain provinces need a fairly high tolerance, although we hope the commissions will keep it down to the minimum. We hope the commissions will keep it down to a minimum of perhaps 1 or 2 per cent.
Surely we can compromise again and expedite the business of the house tonight. In my opinion we have expedited our business today by compromise in reference to redistribution, and I hope we can continue to do so.
Mr. Chairman, I am now prepared to move-


An hon. Member:: Seconded by Mr. Pickersgill.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Chairman, I can tell my friend that I did not draft this amendment. It was drafted by the hon. member for Edmonton West. In view of the fact it was drafted, following discussion at a meeting, it is in his writing, but if there is any question about it I will allow the hon. member for Skeena to have a look at it.


Frank Howard: I am sure it would not convince me.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Nothing would convince you.


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


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Chairman, I always like to hear questions asked by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I should just like the hon. member to clear up a point with reference to the meeting to which he referred. I think

Electoral Boundaries Commissions I know the answer to this question, but I should like to have it on the record. What meeting does the hon. member have reference to?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Chairman, sometimes one has to drive points in with a hammer. I could repeat the story told by the leader of the party to which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre belongs, but I do not intend to waste time. It seems that sometimes one has to say things four or five times to get them across to some people.
I have said today on several occasions that the Conservatives have met, as a result of what the Minister of Transport said in the House of Commons at the time we asked that this bill be put aside for consideration. We met and discussed the bill as a party. I hope the party to my left has also met to discuss this bill. We had a meeting this morning, as a result of which we agreed to certain compromises. We intended today to get down to business, and we have got down to business. I do not think anyone can criticize us in that regard.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Chairman, in view of the exuberance shown by hon. members to my left I should like to state that when it comes to filibustering I cannot run a close second to the members of the New Democratic party. I remember the kind of filibustering they carried on in respect of divorce bills. I also remember the former member for Assiniboia, Mr. Hazen Argue, who was the best filibusterer ever to hit this House of Commons, but he was busted out as a result of an election.
Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to get sidetracked. I should like to move my amendment, which is as follows:
That subclause (b) of clause 13 be amended by deleting therefrom in lines 49 and 50 the word "twenty" and by substituting therefor the words "twenty five".


An hon. Member:: Where is your seconder?


Maurice John Moreau: Mr. Chairman, I should like to comment briefly about the amendment to subclause (b) of clause 13 as proposed by the hon. member for Bow River. I am not sure of the proper procedure to be followed regarding a subamendment, but I think the 25 per cent figure would be much more palatable, at least to me, if we could change subparagraph (i) of paragraph (b), clause 13, by substituting the word "or" in fine 2 for a comma, and adding after the word "density" the words "or growth", so the paragraph would read:


-special geographic considerations, including in particular the sparsity, density or growth of population of various regions of the province-
I think that would be much better, Mr. Chairman.


Mr. Nielsen:: How about adding the word "diminution" as well?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: What is the difference? It escapes me.


Maurice John Moreau: The hon. member asks what the difference is. We are now working on the 1961 census figures. In my riding particularly, and I am sure in other areas where there has been a rapid increase in the population of communities, we are now dealing with far out-dated figures. 1 feel by the addition of the words "or growth", we would give the commissions enough latitude that they could take this factor into consideration.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I think a procedural point is involved in this suggestion. I wonder whether the hon. member would withhold his proposed subamendment until we deal with the amendment, and then perhaps put his suggestion forward in the form of another amendment. What he has suggested does not really constitute a subamendment because, although it proposes a change to the same clause, it deals with a completely separate item.


Maurice John Moreau: I appreciate that fact, Mr. Chairman, but I think the two items are related, and if we add the words "or growth" that would make the tolerance aspect of the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Bow River much more acceptable.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, clause 13 clearly states the rules by which each commission for a province shall be governed. Clause 13 (a) reads as follows:
The division of the province into electoral districts and the description of the boundaries thereof shall proceed on the basis that the population of each electoral district in the province as a result thereof shall correspond as nearly as may be to the electoral quota for the province-
I had the good fortune of seeing the map prepared by the office of the chief electoral officer. In our area of northwestern Quebec, that is in the counties of Chapleau and Vil-leneuve-and I am not only concerned about my own riding here-emphasis has been laid on clause 13 (b) which reads as follows:
(b) The commission may be depart from the strict application of rule (a) in any case where
(i) special geographic considerations-

We explained that Chapleau county went up to Janies Bay and that in view of geographic considerations, we should divide the two counties, or even the three counties of Pontiac-Temiscamingue, Villeneuve and Chapleau, leaving Noranda in Villeneuve county, Rouyn in Pontiac-Temiscamingue county, adding Villeneuve to Amos, St. Marc de Figurie and Senneterre, and then leave in Chapleau county the northern part of the province where there are hardly any inhabitants except Indians, perhaps 1,500 to
2.000	at the most, which would not change much in the next ten years.
At present, changes are made in the ridings because it is said that population is no longer important and that geography is the basis of everything.
Then, I found that the proposed solution was perfectly unreasonable, namely to add to the Villeneuve riding the towns of Amos, St. Marc, Senneterre, Barraute, Belcourt, and make a Chapleau riding from the Ontario boundary, that is from La Reine, La Sarre, Malartic, Taschereau, then, turning above Amos, and following the railway line to Parent, and then going north to Chibougamau.
Those are geographic considerations where there is no population, where the towns and villages I just mentioned are taken away from Chapleau.
We cannot admit that. The Pontiac-Temiscamingue riding is all right as it is, the Villeneuve riding is all right as it is and the Chapleau riding is also well as it is, even if the territory of Chapleau is twice as large as that of Villeneuve and Pontiac-Temiscamingue, because there is no population. If we were to include in the Chapleau riding all the Baffin land, for instance, where there is not a living soul, what would that mean as far as the increase of total votes is concerned for Chapleau riding?
That is what we find illogical. Changes might be necessary in urban areas such as Montreal, where one riding has 150,000 to
200.000	voters, while a small riding, has only
25.000	or 30,000. Then, changes must be made; a redistribution is necessary, but not in rural ridings such as ours in the northern area.
In subparagraph (i) of paragraph (b) of clause 13, it is said that:
-special geographic considerations-
The bill says exactly what the chief electoral officer told me. The bill is right as the chief electoral officer was when he explained to me the situation in our area
Electoral Boundaries Commissions
(i)	special geographic considerations, including in particular the sparsity or density of population of various regions of the province, the accessibility of such regions or the size or shape thereof, appear to the commission to render such a departure necessary or desirable, or
(ii)	any special community or diversity of interests of the inhabitants of various regions of the province appears to the commission to render such a departure necessary or desirable.
Mr. Chairman, which commission decided that? We read:
-appears to the commission.
But the commission has not been appointed yet. We are at clause 13 of the bill. There is no commission as yet and we are asked to approve a bill that a non-existent commission decided to introduce to the House of Commons.
Is there anything more stupid, more idiotic than that? Are we here to be laughed at?
Which commission has been appointed in the province of Quebec at the present time in order to work with the Ottawa organization, as far as the establishment of electoral boundaries is concerned in that province? Which Ontario commission now works with the Ottawa commission to establish the electoral districts in Ontario in the north, at Cochrane, or anywhere?
We are told:
The commission suggests.
Which commission? There is not even a commission and we are told in the bill that the commission suggests such and such principle or procedure.
Mr. Chairman, are we being taken for sidewalk superintendents in the House of Commons? Are we being taken for irresponsible people, or people who do not know where they are going?


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: Come now.


David Réal Caouette: I hear my very good friend, the hon. member from Cochrane say: Come now.
Well, which is the commission for the province of Quebec?


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: May I ask a question?


David Réal Caouette: With pleasure.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: You voted for clause 6 which contains exactly the same words: "the commission", and when the bill is passed, the commission will be appointed and will act under the legislation passed by the house.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, in putting a question to me, the hon. member for Cochrane states positively that after clause 6 had

Electoral Boundaries Commissions been agreed to, the commission decided to submit to us clause 13-


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: It will be part of the bill.


David Réal Caouette: It does not exist.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: It will.


David Réal Caouette: It does not exist, it is not mentioned, but in clause 13, we are told that the commission must establish the electoral boundaries on the basis of population on the one hand and of geographic considerations on the other hand.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: It will decide.


David Réal Caouette: Who will decide? The commission or parliament?
Mr. Chairman, I continue reading subparagraph (ii):
-but in no case shall the population of any electoral district in the province as a result thereof depart from the electoral quota for that province to a greater extent than 20 per cent more or 20 per cent less.
The proposed amendment aims at increasing this margin from 20 per cent to 25 per cent. In my opinion, 25 per cent is more acceptable than 20 per cent. But even there, why should we consider on the one hand the population and on the other hand special geographic considerations to establish the size of a territory where there is nobody, where there are no voters, where there are no Canadians to be represented?
Such is the case in my area, Rouyn-Nor-anda, Villeneuve, and also Chapleau and Pontiac-Temiscamingue.
I do not think that a commission, either federal-provincial or just federal, could make an intelligent decision by taking into account geographic considerations only in our area.
If we take the population into consideration -and the chief electoral officer knows it- we do not need to change the boundaries of the ridings as they exist at present in the northwestern part of the province of Quebec nor, probably, those of the northeastern district of the province of Ontario. However, we should not be deceived or misled with geographical problems, when there is no population in those districts.
Mr. Chairman, the amendment raising from 20 to 25 per cent the electoral quota should be adopted. The Minister of Transport said a while ago that he had no objection to it and that he would even move that amendment or motion himself. If he is ready to do so, we are also ready to accept that a figure of 25 per cent be substituted for 20 per cent.

The only thing is that it is entirely inadmissible-and I wish to draw that fact to the attention of the minister and of those who are entrusted with the administration of the Canada Elections Act-that clause 13 should take the geographical factor into account. Members of parliament are elected by people, not by geography. The geographical map is of little importance. Let us bring the map up to date but it is the electors that count because we represent each and every one of them, not an area. Let us take them into consideration instead of geography as the government would have us do under clause 13 we are discussing at present.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I am rather bothered by the remarks of the hon. member for Villeneuve because he has taken an interpretation, it seems to me, with regard to the hinterland ridings that I cannot understand. It is my understanding that those of us who represent sparsely settled regions will stand to gain very much by the fact the tolerance is set at 25 per cent, and that this 25 per cent is almost certain to be operating as a minus factor rather than a plus factor. Whether it does or not, great changes are certain in the hinterland areas, much more so than almost any other part of the country including the large cities.
As I interpret this, it is actually to my advantage or to the advantage of the electors in my area if I support the 25 per cent tolerance rather than the 20 per cent. However, I intend to vote against the amendment. I would put it to the members in the house, particularly those who represent cities that, although the effect may be small, if you go along with the 25 per cent tolerance you just get that much farther away from the one man, one vote and one representative concept. I myself would support, even though again it is going to be more difficult to change some of these hinterland areas, a tolerance of 10 per cent. I just wanted to express the fact that I am going to vote against the amendment, and I know some of my colleagues will. I believe one or two of them would be prepared to have an even larger tolerance.
I wanted to refer to the point raised by the hon. member for York-Scarborough which had to do really with the idea of rate of growth.


Maurice John Moreau: That is the way the amendment will read.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I think it would be a good idea to have that point in this provision, for the

reason that redistribution commissioners, in effect, will have an office going all the time. We know that office is already conscious of some of the transitions that are taking place. We would hope, since we are likely to have two redistributions within much less than a decade, that there will be some experienced personnel. For that reason, I think it would be quite valuable to have this rate of growth concept embodied in the provision.
One of the things that has bothered me about the approach of the minister tonight as I have understood it, not least about the general line that is going around about this question of tolerance, is the line that it really does not matter that much whether the tolerance is set at 35 per cent or 25 per cent; that it is at the discretion of the commissioner. It may be all very well to give them that discretion, but I suggest the larger we make the tolerance the more likely there is to be strong representation for more changes, and jockeying from people outside and inside the political arena. I believe, therefore, the government would be well advised to stick with 20 per cent. I hope there will be enough members in this house who support that idea to defeat the amendment that has been put forward by the official opposition.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Since the hon. gentleman has mentioned me, perhaps I could explain my stand in one sentence. I would find the amendment much easier to vote for if the committee were also disposed to accept the amendment proposed by the hon. member for York-Scarborough. I do believe we have to consider the very rapid rate of growth. The hon. gentleman from York-Scarborough and I have been discussing this very point. He had to revise his amendment to put in the rate of growth because we do know that this suburban growth has been very rapid since the redistribution of 1951. It is a factor, and if there is to be anything like a fair redistribution the first time, some account must be taken of it.
I have said that I do not think there is much difference between 20 per cent and 25 per cent. I did not say 35 per cent. I think that would be quite ridiculous, and I could not support that at all. I would not be willing to support even 30 per cent. I think it is possible that 25 per cent might meet a few hard cases that would otherwise arise, and particularly if we were willing at the same time to accept the suggestion made by the hon. member for York-Scarborough, that would meet the situation. I would, on balance, want to support the amendment.
Electoral Boundaries Commissions


Bert Raymond Leboe: I will only take a minute, as usual. I should like to say that we, in this group, are quite prepared to support the amendment. I think it is a move in the right direction. As a matter of fact, I would have said that 25 per cent is about where it ought to be.
In so far as the amendment it is understood the hon. member for York-Scarborough is proposing is concerned, I would think that amendment would certainly be already in the mind of anybody who is going to make this assessment. For instance, it would seem to me that there are two places we will have to start with this orientation, and that is in the hard core of the city where there is not going to be any growth worth mentioning. There are places in cities where industrial areas are taking over and people are being moved out. There is therefore a trend away from an increase in population. Certainly, in these areas, the tolerance would be set to take account of not just the population that is possible within that tolerance. Then, when you come to areas of fast growth, naturally the converse would be true. In other words, you would set the smallest amount of population over a larger area. Of course, in a constituency that has a large land mass and a lighter population you can look forward to an increased growth, and rather rapidly in some cases. I suggest, therefore, that the 25 per cent tolerance we are discussing here would be about as close as one could come to that type of consideration in this committee.


John Napier Turner: I am just rising to speak briefly on this rate of growth situation introduced by the hon. member for York-Scarborough. I want to refer directly to the remarks made a moment ago by the hon. member for Cariboo. He referred to downtown constituencies. I want to suggest to the committee that there is a rate of growth problem in these constituencies as well and it arises from two factors. The first is large immigration. When people arrive and have spent five years in this country under status of landed immigrants they can qualify for Canadian citizenship. It is conceivable in some of those areas there will be a large rise in population and quite a dramatic increase in the number of voters available in these constituencies.
The second factor is that in certain of these downtown areas there are projects for urban renewal, housing projects and large high rise apartments. These projects are reviving some of these downtown areas. If this

Electoral Boundaries Commissions rate of growth concept is accepted, I suggest that when the commissioner considers it, he keep these factors in mind as well.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I decided I would rise briefly on the suggestion raised originally by the hon. member for York-Scarborough, principally because when the minister referred to it he confined himself to urban areas. Of course, these are the areas in which the hon. member for York-Scarborough is interested. I should like to point out that this rate of growth factor is not confined to metropolitan urban areas. It could apply equally to rural industrial areas, particularly where large industries may be planted in the wilderness. I have in mind, for example, a suggestion in my own constituency under which an entirely new town of 5,000 people is going to come into being very shortly. Whether those estimates are a bit optimistic for the immediate future, I would not want to say offhand, but that is the kind of thing which can happen which would make the inclusion of this rate of growth factor quite valuable.
This is apart from the redistribution which lies immediately ahead of us. There is always likely to be some time lag in the actual carrying out of redistribution following a census, and in many areas the quota may be somewhat out of line. I am quite prepared to support this when it comes before us in the form of an amendment, but I would like to reiterate my own belief that 20 per cent is preferable to the amendment before us at the moment.


Mr. Winkler:: Mr. Chairman, I wish to speak briefly in regard to this amendment. The suggestion put forward by the hon. member for York-Scarborough is quite in order, and I will support the 25 per cent figure. However, I recall the debate that took place some time ago in this chamber when we were speaking about growth rates, and I remember the hon. member for York-Scarborough speaking in an uncomplimentary way about some rural areas and the way in which they were represented.
I suggest that the Minister of Transport use his influence with his colleagues with respect to the decentralization of industries to areas where they would promote growth. This would be of great benefit to many rural areas, and we in the rural areas of Ontario would certainly like to have a measure of the growth rate about which the hon. member for York-Scarborough complains.
I know this does not lie within the jurisdiction of the Minister of Transport but I believe he should use his influence in this matter. As you may recall, initially I supported a larger

tolerance figure and I felt all along it would be a much better proposition for a commissioner to work on the larger tolerance.
I would ask the minister to take note of what I have said because we in the rural areas of Ontario are interested in these population changes, and in population growth provincially and municipally. The recent figures that have been issued show we have a reasonable right to consideration in this respect.


Frank Howard: I support the ideas put forward by the hon. member for Port Arthur so far as the percentage tolerance is concerned. We have ridings which are somewhat similar geographically and which will be similarly affected by this proposal. Apart from that, I want to say how much I enjoyed the obviously unrehearsed show which went on earlier when this amendment was put before the committee. If it were not so awkward to accept this naked show of power displayed by the two old line parties, when they do not give a hoot whose toes they trample on when they want to put something into effect, it would be comic.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Try and be nice.


Frank Howard: I am trying to be nice, Eldon, but it is difficult. We saw the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre crow for a little bit, and put forward the suggestion which was immediately grasped by the Minister of Transport, who picked up a prepared document from his desk, ready to put this preconceived plan into effect. But then he ran into a little difficulty-he should have realized he would anyway-and graciously withdrew. Then came the clincher from the hon. member for Bow River to help him out. Obviously it was a deal which had been worked out in advance. I suggest to the two old line parties that, in future, if they want to connive in this way they had better rehearse a little better.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is like the things said about me and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre by the hon. member for Bow River. They are both wrong.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


James Ernest Pascoe: Mr. Chairman, I regret it is nearly ten o'clock but I feel constrained to speak in support of the province of Saskatchewan, which will suffer the most seriously under this redistribution. I was prepared to ask for a greater tolerance than 25 per cent but I will accept the 25 per cent in certain instances. However, I think it

should be more than 25 per cent in the case of some areas of Saskatchewan.
The Minister of Transport said he was in favour of limiting the tolerance to 20 per cent and then asked for our opinions. I have quite a lot to say on this, Mr. Chairman, but I note it is ten o'clock.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I wonder if we should extend the time tonight so that we might be able to finish the debate, as everybody seems in such agreement.


Frank Howard: I do not see how we can proceed when it is ten o'clock. You gentlemen wanted to filibuster, and you will have to put up with this.


Lucien Lamoureux: Is it the wish of the committee that the chairman call it ten o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Frank Howard: It is not the wish of the committee; it is ten o'clock.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: We can extend the time by unanimous consent, and if the N.D.P. want to veto that consent then we know where they stand with reference to getting business through the house.


Frank Howard: No matter how hard the hon. member digs he will not get himself out of the hole he got himself into.


Lucien Lamoureux: Since the committee does not have the unanimous agreement required it is my duty to rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the house leader about the business for tomorrow and Monday.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we will continue with what I hope will be the completion of the bill we have been discussing tonight. When it is completed we will proceed with the estimates as indicated on Tuesday night in Hansard; that is, the estimates of the Secretary of State, followed by the estimates for which the Minister of Forestry is responsible, then the estimates of the Department of Public Works and the estimates of the Department of Trade and Commerce.
10039
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION
A motion to adjourn the house under provisional standing order 39A deemed to have been moved.



NATIONAL PARKS-AMENDMENT OF REGULATIONS RESPECTING ZONING AND BUILDING

Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, when I am through with what I have to say tonight it will prove that there has never been any marriage between myself and the Liberals, or if there was that it has now been dissolved by an act of divorce.


William Arnold Peters: What about annulment?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I do not know anything about annulment; you might know something about that. I now want to deal with a question I put to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Laing). I asked him today whether there were any changes in orders in council in reference to the zoning of parks and a building permit. There are various areas zoned in the townsite of Banff for business, and certain sections are zoned as residential areas. I suggest to the minister that the Bow River project, which is going to be a three-storey hotel with a cocktail lounge, is being built in the best residential part of Banff townsite and in an area which has that beauty that makes building on it contrary to the terms and conditions of the National Parks Act. But the worst thing of all is that the minister said today these orders in council were not rescinded; they were only rescinded in regard to this particular project. I want to read to the minister something for which he has perhaps a great deal of respect, namely the words of Mackenzie King, when it comes to passing orders in council, particularly in secret. That is why I wanted them filed in the house. We noticed that the minister was most reluctant today to answer the questions. This is what Mackenzie King said in reference to these secret orders in council. This was the statement quoted by Senator Power who was then a member of parliament in this House of Commons. He was dealing with the law and he said, in brief, that the law should be known to every Canadian. This is what Mackenzie King said:
Now let us come to another point, which I wish particularly to stress. I refer to the right set out in Magna Carta that no man shall be dispossessed of his rights without the lawful Judgment of his peers under the law of the land; not the law as made by the governor in council, not the law as made by some unnamed and as yet unexisting
10040	HOUSE OF
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion body, but the law of the land as known to everyone. It is an essential principle of liberty and freedom that the law of the land should be known, that it should be so known that every man as he runs may read. The law should not be something which is to make its appearance in the Canada Gazette after some board or governor in council, not parliament, has passed a regulation; it is something that should appear in the statutes of the country.
In brief, Mr. Speaker, we have certain orders in council known to the council of Banff, an elected body, and the minister in order to give-and I suggest to him this is suspicious-certain people the right to build certain things in Banff, amended those laws unknown to parliament, unknown to the people of Canada and unknown to Banff, and refused today to table them until pressed by myself, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefen-baker) and the former minister. I wish I had time in the seven minutes at my disposal, but I have not, to read from the minutes what the minister said at his meeting with the council of Banff. I have a copy of the minutes, which give word for word what took place between himself and the elected body of Banff. He said to that body, in brief, in Calgary recently, "You apologize to the Prime Minister and myself, because you asked for my resignation from the Prime Minister. If you don't apologize, I won't even listen to you. You mean nothing to me", I am going to read what he said to these people. This is what he said as reported at page 8 of these minutes, taken right at the meeting. I would say it was the most disgraceful performance of any minister in this country, to speak to an elected body in the manner in which he spoke to them. I cannot believe the minister was serious on that occasion; I can only think he must have lost his temper. Fancy speaking to an elected body in this manner:


Arthur Laing: -
This is what he said to an elected, democratic body in this country:
I want to tell you X am not particularly small on my own integrity.
We do not question the minister's integrity about this.
I think it is time that somebody dug their heels in against irresponsible talk such as this against people who offer themselves to public life and, by and large, are giving service to a higher calibre than the people they serve.
Then the president of the council, Mr. Roberge, said:
We are giving a service too, where we receive no recognition or pay, nothing. We are living with the problem and advising to the best of our ability.


Now, what did the minister say to the council? He said that they had better improve their manners before he would listen to them. That is not good enough for a minister of the crown in speaking to an elected body in Banff. I say that he blackmailed the council. Regardless of the kind of project we are talking about I say he had no right to go to a democratic organization and tell them to apologize and withdraw the wire which called for his resignation, and unless they did so he would not listen to them.
Worse than that, he bluffed them. He said he would give further consideration to this matter. He never gave any consideration to it. He learned from them that there was an order in council in this regard which said he could not do what he was doing. He broke the law by allowing these people to start building this project, and then he said to them: "Look, I have not rescinded this order in council which protects the liberties of these people; I only did this in connection with this project".
Then he wrote a letter-and what an arrogant letter it was-on November 4, 1964, and I only wish I had time tonight to read the terms of that letter. It is a disgrace for any minister to talk to a democratic organization in this way. I thought they had overstepped themselves in calling for the minister's resignation, but when I read carefully through the 24 pages here and discovered the things he said to that democratic organization I can only say I think they were right in calling for his resignation.
I am not saying that we need no development of the parks, but these people do have rights and the minister has run over those rights. I would say to him what Mackenzie King said in this House of Commons, that when you pass secret orders in council behind closed doors, unknown in this case to the elected council of Banff, you are running slipshod over the rights of the people of Canada. I want to hear the minister's explanation. He blackmailed them and I am suspicious of the kind of project which we have in Banff at this time.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member's time has expired.


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, I almost admire the righteous indignation of the hon. member for Bow River. I am sure he followed the advice of the minister who once said that if you have a weak argument you should shout loudly. I will be glad to

answer the hon. member regarding the actions of the advisory council of Banff, one of whose members had said there was obviously a pay-off here. I told these people that before I discussed anything with them they would have to retract that statement. I told them I was defending not myself, because I was not anxious about myself, but the great body of public servants in this country who are doing the best they can by the public. They retracted it. They also said they had wired the Prime Minister telling him they would withdraw their request for my resignation; I had asked for that too.
Then we got down to some discussions and I think we are working along pretty well. We are in the process of revising the regulations at Banff in accord with the Oberlander report. They are not yet published. There is no order in council yet covering them. But all the things we are doing and the regulations and actions we are taking are directly in conformity with the recommendations of the Oberlander report. We will have to make a number of other regulations, and the land use code which will be published will take care of the whole matter.
I am astonished that the hon. member should even mention Bow View lodge, because I have here a letter which he wrote to the owners of the Bow View lodge property on December 5, 1962, as follows:
Messrs. Bassie, Kempo, Hochachka & Shew-chuk... Re: Proposed motor hotel at the site of Bow View lodge, (lots 22A and 23A, Block A, plan Banff 1301 FW)
We are having a meeting tomorrow morning with the minister, Mr. Dinsdale, to discuss Dr. Oberlander's report, and we should know within a few days the rones that are going to be accepted for the building of motels and hotels in Banff.
Your application is before me and has been fully discussed. You can rest assured I am pressing for your interests.
Yet the hon. member stands up here tonight full of hot anger because of the fact I have now assisted his friends in doing that thing he promised to do in 1962. Accusations have been made that these people are from Edmonton and that they should not be allowed to carry on this development in Banff. The hon. member has made accusations that one of the people behind this is the mayor of Edmonton. I am satisfied that he is not remotely connected with it in any way, shape or form.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Have you checked through the registrations at the registrar's office in Edmonton?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.
20220-635i
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion


Arthur Laing: I used every possible means of finding out who are the owners, and I am satisfied that he is not in any way connected.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The Banff council does not agree with you.


Arthur Laing: The Banff council and I are getting along very well, and I would not want that fine relationship hindered by the hon. member for Bow River. I hope from now on we will be able to get along very well.
If exception is taken to the fact that we have issued this licence without having an order in council, I might say again that this is old stuff, because when my hon. friend was sitting on this side of the house in 1960, the Spruce Grove motel in Banff had its building permit issued on May 3, 1960, and it was not until August 28, 1963 that we rectified the situation, approved the issuance of that permit and authorized it by order in council. Over three years elapsed between the time the permit was issued and the order in council passed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. minister's time has expired.



PUBLIC SERVICE-SUPERANNUATED FEDERAL EMPLOYEES-REQUEST FOR INCREASED PENSIONS

Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, on orders of the day this afternoon I asked the Prime Minister whether he could disclose the terms of his answer to those who saw the government two weeks ago concerning the need for an increase in the pensions of superannuated civil servants. The Prime Minister indicated briefly what those terms were, and press reports have spelled them out in more detail and indicate in fact that the government's answer to this very urgent appeal was no.
Mr. Speaker, I express on behalf of superannuated civil servants and widows of superannuated civil servants great disappointment that the government has again given this kind of an answer. Earlier during this session representations were made to the government. They were dealt with by the Minister of Finance, and after a period of time he gave a negative answer. As the weeks and months of this session have passed, further representations have been made. Finally two weeks ago Tuesday, I believe, representatives of two or three bodies speaking for superannuated civil servants met with the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance, and I believe one or two other ministers, and
10042	HOUSE OF
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion presented their case. They were assured that their case would be given consideration. Now again they have been told that this government can do nothing for them.
The arguments which are given are not new, and I suggest that they are no more valid today than they were when given on past occasions. The principal argument that the government seems to use again and again is that superannuated civil servants should not expect anything better than pensioned employees of other employers in the country. Surely if that argument carries any weight, then no one in the government service can expect better salaries or conditions than those found elsewhere in the country. Surely this argument is full of holes, and what the government ought to be doing is to be leading rather than dragging behind other employers.
The suggestion that other employers do not do this is also made from time to time. I find that an increasing number of employers, particularly municipal organizations, some of the provinces, as well as employers in other countries are recognizing that retired employees have a right to share in the increased productivity of the society or nation of which they have been a part. I suggest that this principle was in fact accepted by parliament in 1959 when it passed the Public Service Pension Adjustment Act. This of course was when a Conservative government was in power but the Liberals of that day did not oppose the measure. In other words, any suggestion that it is a sin or a crime to raise the pensions of former government employees was surely set aside by the action that parliament took on that occasion.
One of the other suggestions made by the Prime Minister, according to press reports, is that the government is doing things for older people generally and that superannuated civil servants must be satisfied to share in these general improvements. Apparently one of the improvements cited is that the old age security pension is going to have built into it a cost of living bonus. We now know what that means. It means that in 1968, if superannuated civil servants drawing the old age security pension are still alive, they stand a chance of getting an increase in their old age security pension of 75 cents a month or if the cost of living has gone up high enough they will get $1.50 a month but no more. When we talk about 1968 in relation to old people obviously many of them will be dead before that time comes.


I submit that the government is being callous and unfair to these former employees and that it is being unfair to the desire of Canadians as a whole to be decent to our employees. I submit that the government is completely wrong in its failure to give a lead of any kind. This very day the Prime Minister, in response to a question from the Leader of the Opposition with regard to veterans pensions, admitted that perhaps with respect to veterans pensions the time had come for a cyclical review of these pensions every two years. Indeed, even the cost of living bonus in the Canada pension plan and in the Old Age Security Act is an admission there is a case for these amounts to be reviewed and increased after pensions have been put in payment.
I submit that on all counts the government is being most unfair to its former employees, the superannuated civil servants, retired members of the services, of the mounted police and others, in continually saying no to these faithful former servants. This is supposed to be a question, Mr. Speaker, and obviously I have been making a statement expressing my disappointment at the announcement made by the Prime Minister today on orders of the day. I close with a question. What has the government got to say to give some hope, some encouragement, to these former employees?


Mr. L. T. Pennell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre in expressing himself suggested that the government was callous in its attitude toward this question. His criticism affords me the opportunity to remind him that no one has a more sincere regard and deeper concern for pensioners and other retired people in this country than the Prime Minister, and as head of the government he has translated that concern into constructive action on more than one occasion.
The Prime Minister, with real regret, was impelled to make the decision in regard to this matter which he announced to the house. We transmitted that decision in the form of a letter to Mr. Fred W. Whitehouse, national secretary-treasurer of the federal superannuates national association, in a letter similar in substance to Mr. F. T. Gough, national secretary-treasurer of the civil service association of Canada and in another letter to Mr. J. G. Dumouchel, first vice-president of the civil service federation of Canada. I stated that these letters are similar in substance although they vary somewhat in form. The

variations are due to the fact that the associations submitted briefs that were different in some respects, and consequently they had to be answered in a slightly different manner. With the indulgence of the house I should like to read into the record the answer the Prime Minister sent to Mr. Whitehouse and which will also cover the replies to the officials of the other associations. The letter is dated November 10, 1964, and reads as follows:
Dear Mr. Whitehouse:
My colleagues and I have studied the brief which you left with me on October 27 when we had a discussion concerning your proposal to adjust the pensions paid to superannuated civil servants.
After reviewing the principles involved in your proposal as well as the facts which you have cited, we have come to the conclusion that any steps which the government should propose to parliament to alleviate difficulties faced by retired persons should be general in character and not confined to former employees of the government of Canada. I am sure that your association will recognize on reflection that there have been a number of general actions taken which have bene-fitted members of your association as well as other retired people in Canada; the main ones, of course, have been the increases in the old age security pensions. Already those over 70 will have received benefits increased by $240 per year per pensioner over the level that pertained at the time the Public Service Pension Adjustment Act was passed in 1958. In addition, there have been corresponding increases in old age assistance for those who require it between the ages of 65 and 70, as well as other measures-


Mr. Depuly Speaker:: Order, the parliamentary secretary's time has expired.


Lawrence T. Pennell: May I ask the indulgence of the house, Mr. Speaker, to complete this letter? I believe it is of great interest to the members of the house.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is irregular, but perhaps he could be permitted to just put it on Hansard.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is this agreed? The rules under which we are operating after ten o'clock are rather strict, as all hon. members know. If we make exceptions at any time to go beyond either the seven minutes allowed to a questioner or the three minutes allotted to the member replying on behalf of the government, we may get into difficulty. The suggestion has been made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that the parliamentary secretary be allowed to include the balance of this letter as part of his speech.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I make an alternative suggestion? Could it be agreed that it be made
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion an appendix to today's Hansard, that is the whole letter?


Lawrence T. Pennell: I would be pleased to agree to the suggestion of the hon. member if I could just finish the sentence so it will appear in proper form in Hansard.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It will be in Hansard.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: For text of letter referred to above see appendix.]


Mr. Depuly Speaker:: Order, please; the hon. member for Skeena.



GRAIN-PRINCE RUPERT, B.C.-INCREASE IN ELEVATOR CAPACITY

Frank Howard: I raised by way of question today, and have done so on many other days in the past, the subject of the grain elevator in the city of Prince Rupert, a terminal point on the Canadian National Railway. On each of the many occasions upon which I have asked the minister about prospects for doubling the capacity of that elevator he has said, either directly or in effect, that the matter is under consideration.
The elevator at Prince Rupert, by the admission of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Sharp) himself, is one of the most efficiently operated terminal elevators in Canada. It has a working capacity of about one million bushels. Grain handling ships today are of a size now that they can carry upwards from three quarters of a million bushels in one cargo. This leaves the elevator in a position of being unable to load more than one ship at a time. It would have to wait, after one ship is loaded, for an influx of grain by rail, then have the grain cleaned, processed and stored until the approximately three quarters of a million bushels capacity was reached again, which would be sufficient for another ship of similar size.
In recent years we have seen tremendously large sales of grain to other countries, notably to China and the Soviet union, which have resulted in the west coast ports being used to the maximum. They have also resulted in the city of Vancouver, as it were, getting the gravy. A further result was an announcement just a few months ago of a large increase in the capacity of one of the elevators in Vancouver, and as a consequence the city of Prince Rupert and the operation of the grain elevator there are being pushed more and more into the background.
Nearly every argument or reason that one can think of is in favour of doubling the
10044	HOUSE OF
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion capacity of the elevator there. Incidentally, it was built with this thought in mind in 1926, at a cost-and I am guessing-of between $1J million and $2 million, so that its capacity could be doubled. On March 31 of this year we had a debate in this chamber about the Prince Rupert elevator and the minister answered me as follows:
I am quite sympathetic to what the hon. member has said, and I am sorry that I cannot say tonight some of the things I should like to say. But I can say this, that all of the storage facilities which are controlled by the Canadian government in one way or another have been carefully discussed, and I hope in the not too distant future that we will be able to present something to the hon. member which will be satisfactory in so far as the Prince Rupert terminal is concerned.
That was at the end of March and now it is pretty near the end of the year.
Mr. Speaker, the people in Rupert have been waiting and living in hope since that day, and even before that day. Each time we pose the question to the minister the only answer we get is the same as we got today, namely that it is under consideration. It has even got to the point where the minister says this laughingly, as if it were a joke. But it is not a joke; it is a very serious matter.
Maybe it was appropriate that the minister made those comments on March 31, the eve of April Fool's day. Perhaps he had in mind perpetrating an April Fool's joke on the people of Rupert. I hope not, and I hope that he will soon finish his consideration. Surely it does not take months and months of dragged out consideration to come to a conclusion. I ask him to tell the people in Rupert whether the government is going to double the elevator capacity or not? This is the simple answer the people want. They think this consideration has gone on far too

long. It is long past the time for action. They would like to see this take place, and so would I.


Mr. Bruce S. Beer (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for Skeena for his continuing interest in this question of the terminal elevator at Prince Rupert.


Frank Howard: Action is what we want.


Bruce Silas Beer: I also want to assure him that the Minister of Agriculture is interested in every aspect of agriculture, and not the least of his interest is in the provision of proper facilities for the handling of grain, including the terminal elevator at Prince Rupert.
The minister of course is justified in this interest in view of the fact that in 1963 we harvested the largest crop of wheat and grain in our history, amounting to some 725 million bushels, and of this total some 632 million bushels were sold for export. When you add to that the amount of grain used domestically, which amounted to another 155 million bushels, this indicates our total output for that year was more than the total amount harvested, which of course means we have eaten into our reserves.
The hon. member for Skeena will realize that by asking this type of question he is inquiring into what government policy might be, and I have no alternative but to reply that this matter has been given very thorough consideration and is being considered constantly, and when an announcement is possible it will be made by the minister in the house.


Frank Howard: Thank you very much.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.32 p.m.



APPENDIX


[Stage Direction]
Ottawa, November 10, 1964.
Mr. Fred W. Whitehouse,
National Secretary-Treasurer,
Federal Superannuates National Association,
2696 MacDonald Drive,
Victoria, B.C.
Dear Mr. Whitehouse:
My colleagues and I have studied the brief which you left with me on October 27 when we had a discussion concerning your proposal to adjust the pensions paid to superannuated civil servants.
After reviewing the principles involved in your proposal as well as the facts which you have cited, we have come to the conclusion that any steps which the government should propose to parliament to alleviate difficulties faced by retired persons should be general in character and not confined to former employees of the government of Canada. I am sure that your association will recognize on reflection that there have been a number of general actions taken which have benefitted members of your association as well as other retired people in Canada; the main ones, of course, have been the increases in the old age security pensions. Already those over 70 will have received benefits increased by $240 per year per pensioner over the level that pertained at the time the Public Service Pension Adjustment Act was passed in 1958. In addition, there have been corresponding increases in old age assistance for those who require it between the ages of 65 and 70, as well as other measures taken by the provinces to meet the situation of those in need. In addition to this, hospital insurance has become available to retired persons on a national basis since that time. Since retired people constitute a high-cost group under such insurance, the establishment of hospital insurance programs is of quite substantial help to them.
Under the provisions of the Canada pension plan bill which has just been made public the amount of the old age security pension available to all Canadians meeting the residence qualifications will be adjusted to take into account changes in the cost of living. Consequently, when this bill is enacted by parliament members of your association will be able to rely upon the real value of their old age security pension being maintained.
The government believes that it would be unfair to the great majority of retired Canadians who have not worked for the government to make special provision to protect the former employees of the government of Canada itself against increases in living costs. Pensions paid to former government employees under the Superannuation Act or under other similar acts must be looked upon basically as part of the remuneration received by these employees for the services they rendered when they were employed. They are not payments based upon need, nor should they be regarded as payments that are subject to increase on compassionate grounds. To make them such would be to favour this minority of retired people by comparison with the majority of other retired Canadians who cannot expect such treatment either from the government as such or from employers for whom they had worked in the past. In this sense, to accede to the requests of your association would constitute a form of discrimination against the majority.
It is with real regret that I send you a decision which I know will be disappointing to you and to the members of your association, but I feel it would be unfair to them to leave the situation uncertain once the government had reviewed the principles involved in your proposal and come to the reluctant conclusion that it could not accept them.
Yours sincerely,
L. B. Pearson.
[Stage Direction]

Friday, November 13, 1964