1966-05-04

VACANCY

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received a communication advising me that a vacancy occurred in the representation, namely that of Mr. Clement Vincent, member for the electoral district of Nicolet-Yamaska, by way of resignation.
I have accordingly issued my warrant to the chief electoral officer to make out a writ of election for the said electoral district.



JUSTICE AND LEGAL AFFAIRS


Mr. A. J. P. Cameron (High Park) moved: that the first report of the standing committee on justice and legal affairs, presented to the house on April 26, be now concurred in.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say a few words against the adoption of this motion. I am not suggesting that the time of the house should be taken up for long. I am not suggesting that the time of the house should be taken for a division; but it seems to me that we should look very carefully at what we will be doing if this motion is passed.
The proposal is that the committee of which the hon. member for High Park is chairman have its quorum reduced from 13 to 10 members. I do not blame the hon. member for making this request, but I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that this is a very superficial way in which to deal with the problem that seems to be facing us in the committee work of this House of Commons. No suggestion for the improvement of parliament has been more universally made than the suggestion that we should do more work in committees, and that we should improve our committee work.
The government at the last session of parliament gave some attention to this problem and brought in suggestions and proposals
which, in effect, involved a complete reconstruction of our committee setup. Hon. members know that the names of committees were changed and that a number of other alterations were made. One of the alterations made was to increase relatively the size of the quorum. Under the old rules, under the provisions of standing order 65, the committees had various quorums. They ran at about 30 per cent of the total membership.
In the last session the government deliberately, after much forethought, asked this house to approve that from now on the committees would be smaller in size but would have a quorum of not less than 50 per cent of the membership. There is the provision in the standing orders for the quorum to be reduced under certain circumstances, but that was to be by way of exception.
I suggest that the government asked this house to take a deliberate decision that our committees should operate with a quorum of not less than a majority of the members. The government, in taking this step, in effect stated its view that we should do more work in our committees, and that the committees should do better work. This is a point of view that we all share, and I want to say that I share it too. I think parliament could be greatly improved if we were to upgrade the work done in our committees.
The fact is, Mr. Speaker, that the great reform that was brought in at the last session has not turned out to be such a tremendous reform after all. Committees are having difficulty in getting sufficient members to carry on. Generally speaking they are not making parliament work in the way we thought they would.
I think there are other things that ought to be done. I think the work of our committees should be upgraded by having some arrangement whereby they are encouraged to bring in reports, with the assurance that those reports will be considered in this house. I think we should make arrangements, as has been proposed, for committees to sit at times when the house does not sit so those committees can devote their full attention to their work.
It has been my experience on two or three occasions during the years I have been here
May 4, X966
4670	COMMONS
Justice and Legal Affairs Committee to be a member of committees which met while the house was not in session. The most recent example of that was a year or so ago, when the Canada Pension Plan committee met under those circumstances. I can say to the hon. member for High Park, who was the chairman of that committee-and he will confirm what I say-that we had no quorum difficulties with that committee. I am sure he will agree with me, as other hon. members would, that that was an excellent committee, and that it was able to do an excellent job.
My fear, from the way we are carrying on, is that our committees will work with reduced quorums. Letting our committees sit only when the house is sitting; making no arrangements for a time when they may occupy the centre of the stage; giving no guarantees that their reports are going to be considered on the floor of the House of Commons, all indicates one thing. It indicates that this experiment we thought we were making for a revised and improved committee structure has not worked out at all.
I believe this whole question of what we do with our committees is extremely important.
I am not trying to say that the motion before Us today is the most important motion that has ever been brought on the floor of the house. However, the way we handle our committees is extremely important. It is not good enough to say that committees cannot meet because they cannot get a quorum. As a matter of fact the committee in question, which I believe consists of 24 members, has on it 13 members representing the government side of the house. The government itself has sufficient members to provide a quorum. This is true of most of the committees.
This problem is not to be solved simply by saying that the committees can meet with fewer people present and still get their business done. This does not measure up to the great ideal of improving parliament by having a better committee structure, as was proposed last year. I hope we may hear, even if briefly, from the Prime Minister who brought in the rule changes last year, or from the leader of the house who piloted them through the Commons. This was part of the proposal; that committees should have fewer members, quorums consisting of a majority, and better opportunities to do good work.
There are a number of other suggestions which I might make in this regard, but I shall wait for another occasion to do so. I feel it would be a mistake for the house to pass this motion thinking it had thereby put these


committees on a path which might lead somewhere. I urge the house to turn this motion down and to seek other ways of improving the work the committees are doing.


Mr. Grant Deachman (Vancouver Quadra):: As the person responsible for the co-ordination of house committees during this parliament-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Grant Deachman: may be of interest to the house as it considers this motion. In the course of the current parliament 22 committees of the house have been formed. These committees have held 96 committee periods this year, periods lasting approximately one hour and a half. So to date about 144 hours of committee work have been carried out by members of the House of Commons.
Most of these committees are standing committees to which the estimates were referred on March 22 by the house leader. So, as will be seen, the bulk of the work has been accomplished since March 22. We must bear in mind that the Easter holiday intervened for a couple of weeks, with the result that the greater part of the 96 meetings which have been held and the 144 hours of committee work have been in a period lasting approximately three weeks.
I do not want any hon. member who has been serving diligently on committees to think for a moment that his efforts have failed. Indeed, I believe all members ought to congratulate themselves on the effective work they have been doing in attending these committees and operating the committee system.
With regard to the difficulty encountered in getting a quorum on some occasions, I note that on six occasions out of 96 a quorum was not obtained and committees fell on this question. On two of these occasions a very important debate was going on at the time in this chamber. Thus, in the period outside the hours when this house was sitting only four committees out of approximately 90 fell because a quorum could not be obtained. In the circumstances I believe hon. members can commend themselves for having sustained these committees in such a fashion.
There are in the House of Commons some 234 members who are eligible to attend committees. These 234 members certainly cannot be expected, with quorums fixed at 13, to
May 4. 1966	COMMONS
sustain 22 committees meeting and all attempting to get their work done. The size of committees is obviously too large, and should be reduced. The basic problem facing this house is that we are attempting to operate far too many committees with far too many members needed for a quorum.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
We must face the question of a reduction in the size of committees, and of more efficient committees, in order to get that work done. With respect to the motion moved by the hon. member for High Park, I want to say that what is good for one committee surely is good for all committees, and we in the House of Commons should not be picking apart our committee procedure piecemeal. We should act in a concerted fashion to correct something which I believe is wrong in our committee procedure.
I would appeal to parliament today to take one more look at our committee procedure, and if it needs adjustment in the size of committees-and I believe it does-then we should move quickly to make that adjustment and increase the effectiveness of the procedure, without going to the trouble of having one committee, a second, and a third coming back to the house for a reduction in size and for permission to sit while the house is sitting.
If all 22 committees were to meet while the house was sitting the House of Commons would lose its own quorum. Therefore if committees are to meet when the house is sitting there must be an orderly scheduling program for them which could be, in fact would have to be, a matter of a proper arrangement in the house satisfactory to both sides. Therefore I believe this motion should not be passed today but that some means should be found to immediately look at this question of the size of committees and their efficiency in relation to the number of committees that must operate.


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the motion of the hon. member for High Park, and I do so for various reasons. The very fact that this committee system has been rearranged from what it was in former years, with two or more committees meeting at the same time and with two or more members expected to attend meetings of two committees, it is humanly impossible for this to be done. Therefore I say that the request to reduce the quorum from 13 to 10 is very reasonable in
DEBATES	4671
Justice and Legal Affairs Committee view of the fact that the quorum fixed for a meeting of this house, which has a membership of 265, is only 20.
In this case we have a committee of 24 and a set quorum of 13. It does not seem reasonable to have such a high quorum as 13, and I speak from some experience in this matter. I speak as chairman of one committee which had to adjourn on two occasions because of the lack of a quorum. On investigating the reason we found it was due to the fact that in one instance two members, and in the second four members, were on another committee which was meeting at the same time. They were torn between the two, not knowing which meeting they should attend.
My hon. friend suggests that we could get more work done through committees. I agree with him, but I suggest that if we had a quorum of 10 we could get more work done because committees could start on time. I think all chairmen of committees would agree with me that we have had to wait 15 minutes, 20 minutes and even half an hour to get a quorum, but if the quorum were reduced to 10 we could start on time.
In the case of the public accounts committee of which I am chairman we have a tremendous amount of work to complete. We have the 1964 report of the Auditor General. We also have his 1965 report before us, and we are most anxious to get on with the work. I feel that a quorum of 10 would assist greatly.
There are many legitimate reasons why members cannot be present at committee meetings. They may be serving on parliamentary delegations to international meetings. They may be sick. There are various reasons why they cannot attend, and I believe it would be a good idea if some provision could be made whereby in such cases they could name alternates to attend committees for them. However, I must stick to the point regarding the quorum and not go into that aspect of the question.
I think the house, recognizing the points I have put before it and the fact that other committee chairmen think the same way, should see fit to endorse the motion moved by the hon. member for High Park. I have a similar motion standing in my name; therefore it has been a privilege for me to speak on behalf of the hon. member's motion and also on my own behalf in this regard.


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I should like very briefly to support the motion of the hon. member for High Park, and also
May 4, 1966
4672	COMMONS
Justice and Legal Affairs Committee to support what has been said by the hon. member for Wellington South. This year parliament is operating under a new set of rules. We are trying them out, and apparently the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre feels very badly that some of the rules which he helped to revise have not worked out perfectly. I am rather surprised at this, since the hon. member has been a member of this house for a long time-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, is the hon. member not aware of the fact that this particular rule was brought in by the government; I had no hand in it at all.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: The hon. member says he had no hand in it. Perhaps he did not directly, but as we all are aware his advice may have been sought on the matter. What I am getting at is this. When we are trying out new things I think we have to be pragmatic about the matter.
In respect of one of the important committees of this house, of which I am vice chairman, we have found it very difficult indeed to get the required quorum for the very reasons which have been expressed by the other hon. members, such as other committees meeting at the same time and the like. I think I would agree with the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra that perhaps it may be necessary for the house to start considering reducing the quorum of all committees and other things. That is fine, but these things take time, as we know, and we may not get around to approving these things in this house for weeks.
The fact of the matter is that certain committees, the one which is chaired by the hon. member for High Park, the one chaired by the hon. member for Wellington South, and other committees-and I suspect the committee of which I am vice chairman may be making a similar request-have work to do which they want to get done. Everybody is complaining about parliament not getting down to its work. These committees want to get the work done which is before them. If they have to wait for quorums for the many reasons which have been set out, this delays their work and the work of the house.
If we wait until parliament gets around to revising the rules in respect of all committees, we may wait until doomsday. I would hope that the motion by the hon. member for High Park would be supported, and that similar motions in respect of other committees would be supported in the same way. If at a later date we wish to revise the general rules with regard to committees, that is fine,
tMr. Nesbitt.]

but in the meantime let us have the committees which have work to do, get to work.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)


Mr. Raymond Langlois (Meganiic):: Mr. Speaker, after listening attentively to the arguments presented by the various members on all sides of the house, and attending some committees, I feel I may properly say that the problem of adequate attendance or quorum at the committees is real.
On the other hand, I noted that the government always has a majority of members on these committees. In some committees then, the lack of attendance is not often due to members of the opposition, but to the members of the party in power.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Raymond Langlois: I hear exclamations but it is a fact. I shall give an example among others.
At the committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts quite a few were present, more than the total membership of 24. Nevertheless, there was no quorum for the simple reason that members of the opposition are restricted to a certain number who may sit on the committee. The members of the party in power were the absentees.
I am aware that some were in attendance at other committees. But before concurring in the reduction of the quorum I would ask that the whole policy of attendance on the committees be revised. It would do away with certain insinuations we heard during the last election campaign, namely that such and such a member never shows up in the committees. It became a political football and I should not like to have the same thing happen again in an election campaign.
A few moments ago a government member requested that the quorum of the committees be reduced. Before accepting such a proposition I would call for a full revision of the committees policy, with a view to determining whether there should not be less members on the committees or better representation of the various parties. It seems to me this should be considered.
This also proves that perhaps it would be better to adjourn the house for a week so as to allow the committees to do their work.
It has always been recognized that a human being cannot be present in two different places at the same time, and fulfil a double duty.
May 4, 1966

For my part, I am strongly opposed to a reduced quorum on the committees.


Mr. Alexis Caron (Hull):: Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the remarks of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Deachman).
It seems to me that something is lacking. I am told several members sit on two or three committees at the same time. I know some who are members of two or three committees but do not attend any of the meetings.
I feel that the committees are made up of too many members. As the member for Vancouver Quadra said, the number of members as well as the quorum should be reduced. I am hoping for a general rule, and not a rule providing for exceptions applying to some particular committee or other. I do not like rules of exception and have never liked them. We are occasionally forced to tolerate them, but where rules of exception are concerned, you never know where you stand.
It might be a good idea for the leader of the government to come to an understanding with the leaders of the other parties in order to reduce the committee membership. Moreover, before we appoint someone to a committee, we should ask him whether he has any intention of attending; if not, he should not be appointed. Those who do not have time to sit on the committees should not be appointed; they should be left aside.
This is the reason why I ask for a much greater caution on our part. We appoint committee members right and left. We appoint Mr. So-and-so without telling him; when the time comes to sit on the committee, the whip is informed that the gentleman in question is not interested and that he wants to be replaced by Mr. So-and-so. We replace him by Mr. So-and-so who is not anymore interested than the previous one.
If the membership of our committees did not exceed 20, with a quorum of ten or eight, they might operate normally. This is why I ask the leader of the government to get in touch at once with the leaders of other parties and that the request made by the hon. member for High Park (Mr. Cameron), be denied.
[English1


Mr. Lawrence E. Kindt (Macleod):: There are just one or two matters in respect of the committees of this house that I should like to
DEBATES	4673
Justice and Legal Affairs Committee bring to the attention of this chamber. There is more wrong with committee operations than those problems relating to quorums. I suggest there is a basic problem relating to the organization of committee meetings. These committees apparently have been set up for some reason of which I am not aware. They have no responsibility, but operate for the purpose of keeping backbenchers quiet, happy and perhaps satisfied.
The second point I wish to make relates to the difficulties of committees obtaining quorums. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Pick-ersgill) may laugh, but he will laugh from the other side of his mouth before I finish speaking. He seems to be subject to fits of laughter, perhaps because he was the author of this motion. I hope he will have something to say about it, because I think he was working with those who were considering the matters in question.


Mr. Pickersgill:: I deny the paternity.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: Many of the matters discussed at committee meetings are rehashed in this house. For that reason the committees have no authority or responsibility and the members have no incentive to attend their meetings. I believe our committees are absolutely useless, and until the government of this country which is responsible-and I include the minister who is laughing-gets down to brass tacks and establishes these committees with some responsibility and purpose, they will not function as they should or serve the purpose which they are intended to serve.
It is my belief that our parliamentary committees could be as useful a part of parliament as committees are in other places, including the United Kingdom and the United States congress. In Canada our committee system, as I have said, is useless.
There is one other aspect of this matter I should like to mention. Someone should be appointed to schedule the meetings of these committees so that a member who wishes to attend a committee meeting will not find himself faced with the necessity of making a decision as to which of three or four committees he shall attend because several are sitting at the same time. Obviously such a member cannot help to form quorums on three committees which sit simultaneously. I mention this fact to indicate why I believe there is no organization behind committee meetings. This organization, or lack thereof, and the responsibility for it rests squarely on the shoulders of those hon. members who
May 4. 1966
4674	COMMONS DEBATES
Justice and Legal Affairs Committee occupy the front benches on the government side of this house.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I find myself compelled to support the mild arguments of the last speaker, because the responsibility to which he refers in my opinion does fall squarely upon the shoulders of the government. In support of this argument I should like to quote from the statement the Prime Minister made yesterday. He said, as reported at page 4626 of Hansard:
One of these pressures is our ability to get things done, to adapt our procedures to the requirements, and the struggle in this regard is often referred to as a deterioration of parliamentary action-
I think Your Honour is well aware that the committee on procedure, which was set up last year, brought in a series of recommendations after a great deal of hard and zealous effort. One of the recommendations of this committee-and it seems to me this should be perfectly obvious to anyone who has examined the situation-related to the fact that often 24 or 25 committees were suddenly handed a large amount of work with terms of reference requiring them to complete their tasks as quickly as possible. A proposal was made to cover this situation. It is perfectly obvious at this time, under the conditions which now exist, that we are not going to be able to perform the detailed work that has been set out for us. I think everyone will agree that something less than perfection exists in this parliament.
With those facts in mind I think the government fell short of accepting its responsibility when it rejected many of the recommendations of the special committee on procedure as to how these committees should operate under conditions which now exist. The committees are short of personnel, short of adequately equipped rooms with simultaneous translation facilities and short of trained staff. In terms of logistics it is impossible for all these committees to operate efficiently.
While the government has implemented certain procedures along the lines of suggestions made by the committee on procedure, I should like to point out that at this time committee hearings have only just started. Very shortly the estimates of the current fiscal year will be considered by eight or ten committees, which at this time have inadequate facilities with which to operate efficiently. Surely it is incumbent upon this government, if we are going to overcome the

present crisis, to immediately direct its attention and energy to these difficulties. It is the government's responsibility to solve these problems, and for that reason I support the motion.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
I should like to make one further suggestion which should be borne in mind when we are dealing with the committee problems relating to their ability to obtain quorums. These are not decision making committees. They are examining committees, the decisions are interlocutory in nature, and the decisions and recommendations they make come back to this house for final decision. I think no great harm is done by reducing the quorum to a number adequate to conduct the examinations which need to be conducted for the purpose for which the committees are established. Whether we have eight or 12 members I submit is immaterial, because decisions made in the committees have to be reconfirmed in this house.
I think it is positively scandalous to have prevailing the situations which have prevailed in the past, when civil servants with important jobs to do are called before a committee, compelled to wait a long period of time, and then are called back again if no quorum is established, sometimes the next day, to the detriment of their own work. I think what is suggested now is only an ad hoc solution, but I believe we should agree to it. In the meantime I hope the government will direct its attention to this problem and come up with some alternatives.


Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, shortly after the opening of this session of parliament the house adopted, on a trial basis for the duration of this session, a series of amendments to the rules of procedure. Included in those amendments was a revision of the committee structure.
Following the adoption of the revised committee structure the government referred a great deal more work to committees than has been usual. I think it was said in the house at the time the rules were adopted that the reason for their adoption on a trial basis only was to get experience with them, knowing full well that there may be a requirement for amending them before their adoption on a permanent basis.
These new rules may well be a major breakthrough in bringing the practices of this house in line with the demands that modern
May 4. 1966

times make on parliament. Today we have a motion before us by the chairman of the standing committee on justice and legal affairs, and a similar motion by the chairman of the public accounts committee, asking to reduce the committee quorum in a very modest way. An examination of the orders of the day will show the important work that has been referred to the justice committee. It does not appear so clearly in the standing orders, but anyone who follows the references to the public accounts committee will agree on the importance of the work of that committee.
These two committees are chaired by hon. members of this house who have had long experience in committee work and who are also well experienced in parliamentary work. They have come before us today making this request for a reduction in the quorum. While I hope other committees will not generally adopt the practice at this stage of asking for a reduction in quorum, because I have grave doubts whether that is the remedy for the problem, I am not surprised that the problem has arisen; because it was foreseen, at the time the amendments were made to the standing orders in respect of committees, that there would be difficulties; and there will be many more difficulties, I suspect, before the session is ended.
I would ask the house to go along with the committee structure and the new rules for the duration of the session, until we can see whether they are good or bad or what adaptation should be made to them. While I express the hope that other committees will not be prone to come too readily to the house asking for the right to reduce their quorum, I would hope that the motions respecting these two committees could be concurred in and their recommendations adopted without prejudice to any position we may wish to take later on the subject generally, or on later applications for concurrence in similar types of motions.
I want to raise one other point that is concerning me a bit. This is the last day, by statute, for considering the redistribution motions. I would hope, in light of this, that we do not unduly cut down the time for discussion of the remaining objections with regard to redistribution, and either agree to deal with these motions on a voice vote and get on with the other business or, if there is very strong objection to that, stand the debate over until another day so we will not be cutting down on the time for the discussion of the redistribution motion.
DEBATES	4675
Justice and Legal Affairs Committee


Mr. Churchill:: In other words, give
Manitoba a chance.


George James McIlraith: That is right.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I must say that having listened to the Minister of Public Works I think there will be general agreement with the argument he has advanced. I have on more than one occasion-and this is an opportunity to raise this matter again *-expressed the view that if we wish to restore parliament so the people will understand its operations, one means to bring that about would be through broadcasts or television representation of parliament from day to day. I can tell you, sir, that if this practice were adopted in committees as an experiment there would be no difficulty about having a full quorum in committees at all times.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: This is a matter that later on I intend to deal with at length, but at this time I say that if the committees could agree that when they are dealing with matters of general interest representatives of the C.B.C. and private stations might be present to broadcast the actual performance in those committees, there would be benefit to the people as a whole and to parliament; for there is nothing more condemnatory of parliament than from day to day having recorded in the press that committees have been convened which, in the words of the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Kindt), were unable to carry on because of the absence of members. This builds among the people of Canada the concept that there is dereliction on the part of members of parliament.
When I mention broadcasting of committees by way of experiment, I do so on the basis of considerations that have arisen in the last few years which in my opinion make it necessary that this whole question be considered by a committee of parliament. We broadcast on television the opening of the Canadian parliament in 1957. It was an experiment. That practice has been followed ever since. The United Kingdom tried it this year and found it of such benefit that at the present time very wide consideration is being given to continuing it in order to bring about something that we all wish, namely a closer relationship between the people and parliament. To this end they are considering having the proceedings in the British House of
May 4, 1966
4676	COMMONS
Justice and Legal Affairs Committee Commons broadcast on television and placed before the people.
I suggest that if we are really serious about this matter we will never have any concern, Mr. Speaker, that if the quorum is 20 there will not be 20 members present. I suggest there will always be a quorum if this course is followed by way of experiment. It would be one way in which one could find out the reaction of the people, for certainly today in the British press and on every side consideration is being given to this procedure as one means of bringing about a stronger relationship between the people and the parliament of the country.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)


Mr. A. B. Patterson (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, in raising this matter the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre said he would not say this was the most important motion ever to come before this house, but it certainly has generated quite a debate. I should like to make this suggestion. In view of the fact that we have seemingly reached the point where there is agreement on the matter, perhaps a reappraisal could be made of the committee structure or the membership of committees to ascertain if members are absent because they are not interested in that particular committee, if they are away because they are attending another committee, or absent because of other responsibilities in their constituencies or other government business.
It seems to me these three reasons would cover all absentees. If a member is absent because he is not interested in a particular issue before the committee, then he should be replaced. Before we go ahead with the motion to reduce the quorum of the committee we should take another look at the membership to ascertain why members are not in attendance.


Mr. Maurice Allard (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, there are complaints that members are absent from the committee sittings and, on the other hand, we are talking about reducing or maintaining the quorum. I should like to point out that the present uneasiness, in a certain sense, goes much further back.
When the committees are formed at the beginning of the session, I think more attention should be paid to the talents, the wishes and the qualifications of members. I make the point today, without any malice whatever, simply to state my position on this matter.


In my case, for instance, at the beginning of the session I called on you to express my earnest desire to sit on the justice and legal affairs committee and on the committee on broadcasting, films and assistance to the arts-in the case of the first named committee, as a lawyer and independent member. We know that it is helpful to have on the committee a member who can serve as buffer between the accusers and the accused, in the case of the second named committee, for having been on 35 televised broadcasts and for being interested in the matter.
You referred me to the member for Chambly-Rouville (Mr. Pilon). For the last three months he has been telling me that "next week," I shall be transferred to these committees. I have been put on the committee for northern affairs and national resources. I am not interested in northern affairs, nor are my electors.
If more notice were taken of the wishes, the requests and the qualifications of members, well, more members would be in attendance at the sittings of the committees. That is why I am not present at the sittings of the committee on northern affairs and national resources and of the committee on the library, and I am waiting to be transferred to the committees I have asked to sit on.
1English1


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question? Shall the motion be adopted?


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it. I declare the motion carried on division.
Motion agreed to on division.



PUBLIC ACCOUNTS


Alfred Dryden Hales: That the first report of the standing committee on public accounts, presented to the house on Wednesday, April 27, 1966, be now concurred in.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the motion carry?
May 4, 1966	COMMONS


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division, Mr. Speaker.
Motion agreed to on division.



CONCURRENCE IN SECOND REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE

Alfred Dryden Hales: That the second report of the standing committee on public accounts, presented to the house on Wednesday, April 27, 1966, be now concurred in.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: This is a slightly different motion, and the arguments that can be advanced are different from those advanced for the reduction of the quorum. I had hoped the government house leader would ask that this motion be allowed to stand until some discussion could take place amongst the parties as to the extension of sittings. The problem we have in committees cannot really be solved so long as estimates are referred to these committees.
When the members agreed to the change in the rule they were of the opinion that there was going to be a discussion of estimates in these committees, and that this discussion would eliminate some of the debates which took place in the house. In return for this many members agreed to a limitation of the debate on estimates in the house. Now we are hearing a plea for a reduction in the quorums of these committees, but they will not work any better if you reduce the quorum from 15 to 10 or to 5. Eventually we will get to the position where a committee can hold a meeting if only the chairman is present. This will not solve the problem and will not satisfy the country.
There has been a suggestion from the member who is co-ordinating these committees that members who are not on these committees be established as second class members of the committee. If every other member of the committee has completed his discussion, these second class members will be allowed to ask their questions.
In my opinion all this is contrary to what we are trying to do. I feel it is a fact that we are trying to operate more committees than we can legitimately operate. We have increased the space available for these committees; we have provided the facilities to allow them to operate. However, we just do not have enough people. It seems to me that if the Prime Minister is really interested in substituting committee consideration of estimates for consideration in the house, then those members who are interested in matters before the committees should be allowed to 23033-2971
DEBATES	4677
Public Accounts Committee participate in the discussion even though they are not members of the committee.
Then, too, the committees have got to be operated in such a way that a member will not find he has to be in three places at the same time, and therefore is not in a position to do the job he is supposed to do. One morning I was supposed to be at three committee meetings. I thought about this for several minutes and finally came to the conclusion it was not worth while making up my mind which one I should attend, so I did not go to any of them. I think this must be true of other members.
There is something else that has to be taken into consideration. There is this bilingual aspect of parliament in which most people are interested, but no consideration has been given to that. There are 35 members of the house who meet to study French for two hour periods when committees are meeting. There are seven or eight members who are studying English at this time. This further decreases the number of members free to attend committee meetings. If we are not really willing to face these facts then we can reduce the quorums, we can sit when the house is sitting, but we will not have solved the basic problem. If we are going to use the majority in this house to insist that things run smoothly on the surface, then we will create a situation that will blow sky high before very long.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
I think the house leader is well aware of the problem with which he is now faced and of our inability to solve it. On many occasions in this house recently the attendance has dropped to as low as 15 to 17 members, but no one has brought it to the attention of Your Honour for the simple reason that we are trying to get things done. I suggest that the situation will only deteriorate further if the quorum of this committee is reduced, quite apart from the quorums of other committees handling very important business which will wish to sit while the house is sitting.
I have not objected to this being done on a temporary basis. When some very important matter is put before a committee it has the right to make this request and have it granted on such an occasion. But to give blanket approval to such a situation would mean that not only would ten members of the public accounts committee be withdrawn from the house any time the committee wanted to meet, but possibly members of all the committees could be withdrawn if the occasion
May 4, 1966

Public Accounts Committee demanded, leaving perhaps no members to attend in this chamber at all, and an unhappy situation would develop.
I will not oppose this request any further Mr. Speaker, but as I say I think the situation will deteriorate very rapidly. I am sure the public will soon become aware of the fact that we have been creating new rules without really paying continuous attention to the problems which have developed. It seems to me that under these new rules we are putting ourselves into a worse position than we were under the old rules. So while I am opposed to this step, we must be prepared to put ourselves in the position of restricting ourselves further without once again changing the whole committee structure. But I warn hon. members to be cautious about such changes as these which are not made on an over-all basis. We should take the initiative right away of sitting down in our business committee and making over-all plans which are of much more advantage to members of parliament and to the country as well as to the new committee system, which I say should be given a fair chance to succeed. It is not now being given that fair chance.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Speaker, on this matter, I must say that I was probably the first to object to committees meeting while the house is sitting. This evil has existed for a long time. We objected to it while we were in opposition and I remember that, at the time, the present ministers were with us and objected to the committees meeting while the house was sitting, because we could not properly serve two masters, namely the committees and the house.
According to the division yesterday, 239 members voted. If we had thirteen members for each sitting committee, this would call for a total of 299 members. Thus, with 236 or 239 members, there would not be enough. If the number of members per committee is reduced to 10, the total is brought down to 230. Subtract from this figure the number of ministers who are not members of the committees but whose names only appear, and we would not have enough members to sit in the house.
I have suggested before that Wednesdays be reserved for committee meetings, so that the committees may sit sensibly. But we are asked that the house permit committees to meet while the house is sitting. I submit we

should not allow it. If a committee has special reasons, witnesses to be heard, in short if it is convenient, permission may be granted. Any committee can always ask permission to sit.
The other way I feel it is asking too much. For these reasons, I object, unless permission is asked to sit.
The other day it was requested that a committee be permitted to meet during the sittings of the house. It met once and has not met for the rest of the week. Permission had been asked to meet while the house was sitting.
Today, we are in a bad position. The government should seek to improve the situation, not by changing the rules but by designing acceptable rules. If time is needed for the committees to meet, let the house adjourn. We surely cannot sit at the same time on the committees and in the house. It is a physical impossibility.
To this end, I shall ask for a vote and then I shall be through speaking on the question.


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I was keenly interested in the motion moved by the hon. member for High Park and the motion which followed, moved by the chairman of the public accounts committee. I did not speak on either. The motions were carried on division and are now orders of the house. However, in view of the discussion which is now taking place on the second report of the standing committee on public accounts I feel I must say a few words.
In the 13 years that I have had the honour of sitting in this chamber as a member of the House of Commons, Mr. Speaker, I have always firmly opposed any reduction in the quorum of a committee below the accepted figure, and any suggestion that the committee should sit while the house is sitting.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I hope I have not risen for nothing, but I should like to take the liberty of reminding the hon. member that the first motion has now been carried, and his remarks should be limited to the subject matter of the second motion.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, I should have thought, in view of the position I have taken in this House of Commons for 13 years, I could be allowed to say two sentences without being called to order by Your Honour. What is now before us is the question of the right of the public accounts committee to sit
May 4, 1966

Public Accounts Committee
while the house is in session, which involves a principle I have opposed for 13 years. However, Mr. Speaker, today out of necessity I support it, in view of the requirement that certain work referred by the House of Commons to the public accounts committee should be completed.
The Auditor General of Canada is not responsible to the government; he is responsible to the House of Commons. He files his reports with the House of Commons. The House of Commons does not deal with the reports of the Auditor General but refers them to the public accounts committee. At this session of parliament the House of Commons has referred to the public accounts committee the Auditor General's report for the fiscal year ending 1964, which contains 184 matters which the Auditor General thought the House of Commons should know about. The House of Commons has referred to the public accounts committee the report of the Auditor General for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1965, which contains 263 matters which should be considered by the House of Commons and the public accounts committee.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
So there are now before the public accounts committee a total of 447 recommendations or matters of concern to us. Sir, in considering this, let me say that a decision has already been made by the public accounts committee to call witnesses from across Canada. It will be calling witnesses, not just the 10 or 12 in Ottawa, but from the crown corporations and from as far away as Halifax.
I say, sir, that even with a reduction in quorum to 10 members it is still absolutely essential that we bring in witnesses from across Canada to appear before this committee, under our order, or under our subpoena. In carrying on with the work of the committee, we must give reasonable consideration to the fact that these men and women will be called before us from across Canada. We cannot day by day decide that we should come to the House of Commons and ask for special permission to sit on the day we request permission, or the next day. I say, sir, that the public accounts committee should have the general authority to sit while the house is sitting, which I assure you, sir, will only be exercised under some extreme emergency.


Mr. Real Caouelle (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I have only a few remarks to make concerning the report presented by the chairman of the standing committee on public accounts.
In my opinion, the leaders of the various parties should consider the advisability of reducing the number of standing committees rather than the membership of those committees or the quorum required to allow them to sit.
It seems to me the various departments should be more concentrated and that fewer committees should be established in order to enable members of the house to attend their sittings. I cannot see any other solution at present. Even though the quorum or the membership of every committee were reduced, it would not provide a final solution, whereas decreasing the number of committees would enable the members interested in those committees to attend their meetings when the house is not sitting. I feel that it would then make the work of the house and of the committees much easier, because at the present time committees are unable to get the required quorum.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Mr. Speaker, I think we should agree to bring this debate to a close. We have spent considerable time on it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member needs the consent of the house to speak now because this is not a substantive motion, and he does not have the right of reply. However, in view of the fact that the hon. member has not availed himself of the opportunity to make a statement, I am sure the house will not mind his saying a few words at this time.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Mr. Speaker, I shall be very brief. All points, I think, have been well covered. The standing committee on public accounts is asking for permission of the house to sit while the house is in session. There are three points which ought to be mentioned. The first is the terrific work load that is before the committee. The second is the fact that we have witnesses to call from all parts of the country, and accordingly we have to plan our meetings as far as one month or even more in advance. Third, as time has gone on we have been given a tremendous work load and we must get down to work.

May 4, 1966
Question of Privilege
That is why the standing committee asks for permission of the house, and I hope the house will see fit to give that permission to this committee regardless of what may be the feeling with respect to the other committees.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the wish of the house to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it. I declare the motion carried on division.
Motion agreed to on division.



PRIVILEGE


Mr. Terence Nugent (Edmonlon-Siraih-cona):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to refer to a question of privilege affecting all hon. members in this house. It has to do with the transcript of the record of debates in this house for yesterday, and with what I believe to be an unwarranted change which has been made in that record by someone.
I am referring to some of the remarks made by the Prime Minister in this house, as reported in the Toronto Globe and Mail for Wednesday, May 4, and as reported in the Ottawa Journal for the same date. Two words appear to have been deleted, for some reason or other, from the record. I do not think the words which have been deleted change the sense of what was said. The sentence quoted means the same whether or not the missing words are included in it. The important point is, what does this house allow by way of interference with the record as it is taken down by the shorthand reporters? Certainly I think we all agree that an hon. member, in order to make sense of ambiguous statements, may change some words as taken down by the reporter, for the sake of clarity.

I do not think that is the case here. The words in question that I refer to are a part of the Prime Minister's statement referring to the testimony of Commissioner McClellan. The Ottawa Journal, on page 17, says:
I was looking for that kind of scandal in relation to members of parliament with government departments and their intervention on behalf of dubious elements.
In Hansard, page 4632, the words "of scandal" have been deleted. In the Globe and Mail version of the same story the same words appear. I will read the paragraph, if I may, to make clear what I mean:
If he was talking about scandal in the sense of the Rivard scandal-and at that time the word scandal was being tossed about in this house without any reference except to political scandal-if the commissioner was referring to that kind of scandal, I was looking for that kind of scandal in relation to members of parliament with government departments and their intervention on behalf of dubious elements.
At page 4632 of Hansard, part way down the right hand column appear the words:
-if the commissioner was referring to that kind of scandal I was looking for that kind in relation-
And the words "of scandal" have been deleted in the Hansard record.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: The point is simple, Mr. Speaker. The meaning is approximately the same whether or not the missing words are in the sentence or not.


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: There is no reason why a person should claim the right to go to the Hansard office, save for the purposes of accuracy to make sense of what he has said. There is no right to interfere with the record. What has been done establishes a precedent, Mr. Speaker, whereby hon. members have the right to go to the Hansard office to see if they can improve the language of their speeches. Perhaps something looks better if it is put in a certain way. If certain words are repeated too often, is the aesthetic sense of what has been said affected? I do not think the members of this house have ever pretended that anyone has the right to so varnish his speech.
Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (Minister of Public
Works): Mr. Speaker, here we have had the extraordinary spectacle of the house being asked, on a question of privilege, to take newspaper accounts of what was said rather than the official record of Hansard. There is
May 4, 1966

no suggestion, obviously, that any change was made by anyone in Hansard since the meaning, as must be apparent to all who listened, is identical in both usages.
Surely this house cannot be asked to take the newspaper record as the official record instead of the record of Hansard. A point could be made if it were suggested that there had been some change in the meaning, but surely the staff of this house are not to be charged with having acted improperly on the strength of a newspaper report of the text of what was said here, when they are the professional and trusted writers in the house, as against the other writers who have to make their notes as best they can. It is quite clear from the two records that the meaning is identical; there is no change in meaning.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that to my mind there is no prima facie question of privilege here. The hon. member may have had a point of order on the general question whether hon. members should correct or have the right to correct in some way the "blues" or the draft of the take which is sent to their offices. It is my understanding that this right has been recognized for a long time, even to the extent that there is a reference to it on the back page of our daily Hansards.
In the circumstances I suggest to the hon. member that there is no question of privilege here and that we should not debate this matter further.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: What the Minister of Public Works said with respect to the transcript-


Some hon. Members:: Order.



NATIONAL GALLERY


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Secretary of Slate):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform the house that the Civil Service Commission has approved the appointment of Dr. Jean Sutherland Boggs as director of the National Gallery of Canada. Her appointment also has the unanimous support of the board of trustees of the gallery.
Miss Boggs, now Steinberg professor of art at Washington University in St. Louis, will take up her new appointment on June 1. Dr. Boggs, who is a Canadian, is a graduate of the University of Toronto in fine art and of Radcliffe College at Harvard University, where she obtained her doctorate. From 1948
National Gallery
to 1962 she was employed as an assistant and associate professor of art at three institutions in the United States.
In 1962 Miss Boggs was appointed curator of the Art Gallery of Toronto. In 1964 she left Toronto to take up the Steinberg professorship at Washington University, the first to be established on this continent for the study of modern art.
I think all Canadians interested in the development of the gallery and the furtherance of our cultural life in general will be pleased at the appointment of a Canadian of such national and international stature. For my own part I need hardly add that I am particularly happy to see a woman filling such a senior position among our cultural agencies. She is, in fact, the first woman in Canadian history to head an agency with the status of deputy minister.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Royal: Because the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona spoke of aesthetic considerations, I have the obligation to reply on behalf of the official opposition to the minister's interesting announcement about the appointment of a director of the National Gallery. I thank the hon. lady for providing a copy of the announcement.
I think we need to remind ourselves of the important role which the National Gallery could and should play in the cultural life of this nation. I suggest we should ensure that the gallery has an adequate budget. I suggest further that public people-and by that I mean members of parliament-should not interfere with the selection of its acquisitions.
One recalls that the gallery and its staff have been the subject of some angry differences of opinion over the years, a situation which to my mind has not done any good to the public image of the gallery. I hope we can be assured that the trustees were fully consulted and that several nominations were considered by them before this appointment was announced. I hope also that the senior staff of the gallery were not overlooked when the selection was under discussion.
In the course of her press release the minister said she would introduce new legislation. I would point out that the position of director has been vacant for almost a year, and to me it seems a pity that during this time the minister was without the benefit of

May 4, 1966
National Gallery
the knowledge which obviously the new director could bring to this situation.


Mr. R. W. Prittie (Burnaby-Richmond):: have a brief comment on the same subject. The position of director of the National Gallery has been vacant since last July. There is nothing wrong with that; it takes time to find the right person for such a position, a person with good academic qualifications as well as the administrative gifts necessary for the running of a large organization.
Dr. Boggs appears to be very well qualified academically, and the fact that for four years she was curator of the Toronto Art Gallery does demonstrate her administrative ability. I have looked over the curriculum vitae. The new director has an impressive list of publications to her credit. It was interesting to hear the minister say that she is the first lady to be appointed to a federal position in Canada carrying a status equivalent to that of a deputy minister. Perhaps we shall see more of such appointments in the future. We welcome the appointment of Dr. Boggs. She seems to be well qualified to undertake the large task which is to be done at the gallery.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I wish personally and on behalf of my group to congratulate Miss Boggs on her appointment as director of the National Gallery of Canada.
According to the information given by the hon. minister, Miss Boggs is fully qualified for this position.
Now, I should like to know whether, in appointing Miss Boggs, the Civil Service Commission and the Board of Directors of the National Gallery also considered the bicultural character of our country.
The National Gallery of Canada is not meant only for a small part of the country but for the whole of Canada. This is very important, since the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) has been saying for some years that we should always take into account the bicultural character of our country. Is the new director perfectly bilingual? Does she speak French as fluently as English? It would be worthwhile to give the house this information when such an appointment is made.
Did the Civil Service Commission take this into account? There is no doubt whatsoever that Miss Boggs is fully qualified, but what if

there were others, equally qualified but bilingual? On the other hand, if Miss Boggs is bilingual, I should like to be the first to congratulate her and to support her appointment to a position on the same level as that of deputy minister.
Mr. Speaker, these are the few comments I wished to make on the occasion of this appointment by the Civil Service Commission announced by the hon. Secretary of State (Miss LaMarsh). It would be important and interesting to know whether the bicultural character of Canada was considered before this appointment was made. I should like the hon. minister to give us information on this subject.
lEnglishl


Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Revel-stoke):: The hon. minister will have noticed that the comments on her statement were delayed; that once more art in Canada had to give way to politics.


An hon. Member:: Explain.


Howard Earl Johnston: I do not think any explanation is necessary. With regard to the hon. lady's announcement I should like to say this. Bearing in mind that the greatest single genius produced in the ranks of Canadian artists-I am speaking of the visual arts-may well have been Emily Carr of British Columbia, we join in welcoming the announcement that Dr. Jean Sutherland Boggs has been appointed director of the National Gallery. We will expect that under her direction the National Gallery will break new ground, as does her appointment. We also hope that her tenure will not be shortened by the hesitancy and delay which have characterized this government in its approach to necessary legislation, or by its failure to provide the gallery and its director with an adequate budget.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE TABLING OF CORRESPONDENCE WITH PROVINCES

Mr. John R. Maiheson (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: I wish to
ask leave of the house to table the correspondence exchanged with the provinces respecting the forthcoming federal-provincial conference.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Does this correspondence include the letters written by the
May 4, 1966	COMMONS
governments of the various provinces with respect to the setting up of a royal commission on crime which has been the subject of an exchange between the Prime Minister and myself?


John Ross Matheson: It does not.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)


Erik Nielsen: Would there be any objection to tabling that exchange?


John Ross Matheson: That is a different subject.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the parliamentary secretary have leave to table the said correspondence?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The Minister of Trade and Commerce.


Erik Nielsen: Well, before that passes, I think all hon. members must give their consent.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It was given.


Erik Nielsen: It was not given at all. The subject which was the exchange between the Prime Minister and the members on this side recalls that he did give the house his assurance-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. There should be no debate. There is either consent or not. Is there consent to the tabling of this correspondence?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Erik Nielsen: I understood there was going to be included that exchange with the Prime Minister.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member knows that under the rules there can be no debate on a request of this kind. The hon. member, however, has every right to object to the tabling of the correspondence if he wishes to do that. Is there agreement?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



WHEAT-PROTOCOL EXTENDING OPERATION OF INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENT

Hon. Robert Winters (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to advise hon. members that on April 28 our charge d'affaires in Washington signed, on
DEBATES	4683
International Wheat Agreement behalf of the government of Canada, a protocol extending the current international wheat agreement, without amendment, for a further year to July 31, 1967. The International Wheat Council agreed at its session last November to recommend to member governments the second one year extension of the agreement in view of the continuing negotiations in the Kennedy round for comprehensive arrangements covering cereals generally.


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order please. It is difficult for the Chair to determine whether the minister was merely making a statement. If he made a statement, then spokesmen for parties in opposition have a right, according to our rules, to make comments. I could not follow the minister's words too clearly and I am just wondering whether he was simply tabling documents or making a statement.


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker, I was just informing the house of the signing of a protocol.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, the announcement by the minister may sound a very routine one but I would like to point out to the house that it affects the movement of over 2 billion bushels of wheat, worth between $3 billion and $4 billion in world trade, into world markets. It affects the livelihood of hundreds of thousands of producers in Australia, Canada, the United States, Argentina and France.
This is the second time we have extended this international wheat agreement and I would like to point out very clearly that, for two or three very good reasons, the time has come not to give any more extensions. At the meeting in November, 1961 the United States held up the signing of the international wheat agreement for many weeks, and it was only with the strong support of all other producing nations, coupled with the support of farm organizations in the United States, that we were able to get the United States government to agree to increase the floor and ceiling price by 12J cents at that time.
The agreement came up for renewal two years ago, and instead of renewing it, as it should have been done for a three year period, it was agreed each time since to extend it for one year. The prices of the things the farmers must purchase in Australia, Argentina, the United States, France
May 4, 1966

International Wheat Agreement and Canada are rising steadily and the purpose of this agreement is to stabilize prices and provide some fair relationship between the cost of production and the price the producers receive.
The excuse given is that we are waiting for action by the cereals division of the GATT negotiations in Geneva, but if we have to wait for it to agree on an over-all cereals program for all cereals in the world we will be waiting for many years before we get back to our international wheat agreement.
I would very strongly suggest to the new Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Winters) that the time is now ripe to make a concerted approach to the United States government, and to ask for two things in exchange for a third. The two things we should ask for are that in the renewal of the old agreement there be no price wars like we had to endure in 1962 and in 1965. This type of agreement would be supported by the Argentine, I believe by France, I know for sure by Australia, I know Canada would support it, and I think the Americans would too if approached at this time. Before I continue I think I should point out that this agreement was agreed to in 1957 by the heads of states. It is not a matter for wheat boards.
The second thing we should ask for, because the time is ripe, is that the international wheat committee be brought together this fall, in November, and that the floor and ceiling prices both be raised a minimum of 20 cents. In this move we would have the support of the Argentinians, the Australians, the Canadian Wheat Board, as well as farm organizations in the United States. I think this time we could get the support of the United States government because last February 10 President Johnson announced to the United States nation that the old philosophy of the wheat policies of the United States government was changing from one of getting rid of surpluses to one of calling on producers in the United States and all over the world to grow all they could to feed the people of the world. His speech of February 10 was taken to the United States Congress by his Secretary of Agriculture, Mr. Freeman, and has since been repeated throughout the United States in various forms by various members of the administration.
If they want to carry the appeal of President Johnson to all the producers of the world to meet world needs, because we are very short of cereals-and the United States is 
asking Canada and Australia specifically to contribute a million tons of wheat per year to supply India, with which we are all in favour-then at this moment, when the United States is trying to take the diplomatic initiative we should ask in exchange that they abandon their policy on prices, which has held down world wheat prices so long and to agree, if we meet our responsibility to provide a million tons a year to India, and if Australia meets its commitment also, to stop their opposition on wheat prices.
They should give us the stability of no more price boards. They should give us an additional 20 cents on the floor and ceiling prices, and then we can make a deal. I personally intend to do all I can as a member in opposition to achieve these things. I spoke to the Australians when I was there three weeks ago and I know they are fully behind this. I have spoken to the Canadian Wheat Board and to certain farm organizations in the United States. When I go to Washington in two weeks time I hope to take this matter up with the Secretary of Agriculture, Mr. Freeman, and I hope the minister will try to back up this play to get price stabilization, and to get the producers to produce the wheat that the world needs.


Mr. Ed. Schreyer (Springfield):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to offer some brief comment on this important matter which affects world grain export prices and the stability of income of many of our Canadian farm people. The statement which was made by the minister today is practically identical, word for word, with the statement made last year by the previous minister of trade and commerce. On reading the previous minister's statement as given in Hansard I notice that he not only expressed the hope but gave an assurance that within a year the negotiations in the Kennedy round would come to an end and we would have a new international wheat and cereals agreement.
I am not sure on what basis the minister was able to give an assurance on the outcome of international negotiations, but the fact remains that he did.
I would like to take this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to express the hope that the Canadian representatives at the Kennedy round talks will firmly resist any attempts made there to lower the grain export price levels. There has been much speculative talk in recent months to the effect that the United States government and others were strongly
May 4, 1966

pressing for such a reduction. If this were to happen it would put Canadian producers in a very unenviable and precarious income position.
There is a greater onus on the Canadian representatives to these talks than on the representatives of any other country, for the reason that it is only in Canada that grain producers, farmers, are expected to bear the brunt of international price fluctuations without any kind of price stabilization and support by government.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
If the United States, for example, succeeds in obtaining an agreement-as we are told it is attempting to do-toward a reduction, then of course this in the United States will be cushioned by the effect of an increase in government price support or subsidy. If the Canadian representatives fail-and of course similarly this is a multilateral negotiation-the government will have to take responsibility and work toward possibly the necessity of a program of price support in respect of grain marketing. So I can only express the hope that in the course of the next short while the negotiation of the Kennedy round will come speedily toward finalization and that there will be a better level of prices which will be reflected in the Canadian economy, and which will help the problem of the cost price squeeze facing agriculture.


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the statement by the Minister of Trade and Commerce in respect of the signing of the protocol agreement-the extension. This statement did not say much more than what I heard last year on this subject. I should like to remind hon. members, as did the hon. member who spoke previously, that I do not know what the other minister of trade and commerce was basing his assurance on when he assured us there would be an agreement on price stabilization last year. Nevertheless this exchange of practically two billion bushels of grain between the different countries involved, of which we are required to furnish approximately one million tons, for our country represents quite a sector of our economy, and especially the producers of this grain.
There is an extension without coming to any kind of a final agreement with regard to the floor price of the wheat or cereal, because the cereal agreement is not terminated yet and we do not know when it will be. As the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Hamilton)
International Wheat Agreement mentioned, it might be next year or in two years; we never know how long these discussions will be carried on. In the meantime our Canadian producers are left more or less on the fence.
We know this might last for one year; what is going to come next? I do agree with the proposal of the hon. member for Qu'Appelle that we should insist on the United States government coming to a final agreement in respect of stabilizing the world price of wheat which would give a fair share to Canadian as well as any other producers. This price support I think is a thing which the farmers have been asking for. It seems to me Canadians and the Canadian government should be striving to obtain this; other countries are requesting it.
Now we are faced with just a renewal of the part time agreement for another year; it is an extension. I would have liked the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Winters) to say at least what he expected out of this renewal, and to have told us whether there was any definite time in which he could foresee this agreement, so as to give assurance to the Canadian farmers.
As I said at the beginning, this is a one million ton business proposition; it represents a great deal to Canadian producers. Because of Canada's position within such an agreement and because of our large contribution, possibly we should have the most to say. I think the minister in his dealings with Washington should strive to come to a final agreement, and not only a renewal. He should endeavour to have a definite policy agreed upon in respect of wheat and world prices to give Canadians a higher price. The hon. member for Qu'Appelle mentioned 20 cents. If it is possible to give more, then give them more; if not, give them something definite and let us not always play the sidelines while Washington plays the main line.


Alexander Bell Patterson: Mr. Speaker, I regret that my colleague from Medicine Hat (Mr. Olson) is not here this afternoon; he is unavoidably absent. I should like to make one or two comments on the statement made by the minister. Surely all Canadians recognize the importance of this particular agreement. Since we know that the extension is just being made now on a yearly basis, I do not think this contributes in any way to the stability of the pricing or the stability of our agricultural economy.
As the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Hamilton) has pointed out, a great many

May 4. 1966
Questions
people are affected seriously by this particular agreement. Just this morning some oi the members of the farm union delegation pointed out how essential it is to have some long-term program and planning with regard to agricultural matters. I think surely one of the major efforts should be directed toward resolving the problems which are delaying the return to the normal desirable extensions of this particular agreement.
I believe there should be maintenance of a reasonable price. Mention has been made that there should be an increase in the floor. Maintenance of a reasonable price for their product is absolutely essential to the welfare of those in our agricultural community. I trust that every endeavour will be put forward to bring the discussions-the Kennedy round-to a conclusion in order that these other matters can be resolved satisfactorily.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. At this time I should like to remind hon. members once again of the provisions of our provisional standing orders, particularly standing order 15 (2a) which enjoins hon. members when making comments in connection with ministerial statements to limit these comments as much as possible. Perhaps I should commend the Minister of Trade and Commerce, whose statement was a model of brevity.



QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. Cashin: Has the Minister of Justice or any other minister had any communication from the province of Nova Scotia about any action necessary to give effect in that province to the amendment of The Judges Act (12 Elizabeth H), passed in 1963?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am informed as follows: Yes by the Minister of Justice.


'EXPORTS AND IMPORTS, CANADA-CHINA
Mr. Mather: 1.	What was the value, in dollars, of Canadian exports to mainland China in 1964 and 1965?
2.	What was the value, in dollars, of Canada's imports from mainland China in the same years?
3.	Has mainland China been invited to participate in Canada's world fair in 1967, and, if not, for what reason?
IMr. Patterson.]


Mr. Jean-Charles Cantin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, in answer to part 1 of the question, the value of Canadian exports to mainland China in 1964 amounted to $136,263,000. In 1965, the latest information available is for the first 11 months, when the value of exports to mainland China was $95,547,000.
In reply to the second part of the hon. member's question, the value of imports from mainland China amounted to $9,420,000 in 1964 and to $11,512,000 for the January to September period 1965, the latest figure available.
The answer to part 3 is no. An invitation has not been extended to the government of mainland China for the reasons indicated to the House of Commons by the then minister of trade and commerce on March 3, 1964.


DEATH SENTENCES COMMUTED
Mr. Irvine: 1.	How many people in Canada were sentenced to be hanged in each of the years 1930 to 1965?
2.	How many of these sentences were commuted to life imprisonment in each year?
3.	Of those sentenced to life imprisonment in the years 1930 to 1955, how many were paroled and when?


Hon. L. T. Pennell (Solicitor General):: Answers to parts 1 and 2 will be found in the following table.
3. The following table shows the number of paroles, by year, of persons who were sentenced to death in the period of 1930-1955 and whose sentences were commuted to life imprisonment: 1930, 0; 1931, 0; 1932, 0; 1933, 0; 1934, 0; 1935, 0; 1936, 0; 1937, 0; 1938, 0; 1939, 0; 1940, 0; 1941, 0; 1942, 1; 1943, 0; 1944, 0; 1945, 3; 1946, 0; 1947, 1; 1948, 2; 1949, 0; 1950, 4; 1951, 8; 1952, 1; 1953, 3; 1954, 3; 1955, 7.
The following table shows the number of persons sentenced to death, executed, commuted or otherwise dealt with in the years 1930 to 1965. Each case is carried through to its conclusion under the year in which the sentence was imposed. In comparing these figures with those otherwise sometimes published, it should be noted that the latter may include convictions resulting from both the original and a subsequent trial, while the figures given here eliminate this duplication. The classification "otherwise" covers cases in which the conviction was quashed on appeal or the person died before the case was disposed of.
May 4, 1966	COMMONS DEBATES
Questions
Sentenced
Year	to	death	Executed	Commuted	Otherwise	M	F	M	F	M	F	M	F1930	21	0	13	0	5	0	3	01931	32	0	25	0	3	0	4	01932	22	0	13	0	5	0	4	01933	19	0	16	0	3	0	0	01934	19	3	11	1	4	1	4	11935	14	3	11	1	2	1	1	11936	19	1	14	0	3	1	2	01937	12	0	7	0	2	0	3	01938	17	1	8	1	8	0	1	01939	9	1	4	0	3	1	2	010 yrs.	184	9	122	3	38	4	24	21940	17	2	9	0	6	0	2	21941	15	0	7	0	7	0	1	01942	12	1	6	0	1	0	5	11943	9	0	7	0	1	0	1	01944	17	0	9	0	4	0	4	01945	19	0	10	0	5	0	4	01946	24	4	12	1	7	1	5	21947	16	0	10	0	3	0	3	01948	26	0	12	0	5	0	9	01949	26	0	11	0	6	0	9	010 yrs.	181	7	93	1	45	1	43	51950	16	1	10	0	3	0	3	11951	15	2	10	1	2	1	3	01952	22	0	10	0	8	0	4	01953	20	0	8	0	6	0	6	01954	23	0	11	0	4	0	8	01955	16	1	6	0	8	1	2	01956	16	1	5	0	5	0	6	11957	11	0	3	0	5	0	3	01958	21	0	3	0	16	0	2	01959	15	0	3	0	11	0	1	010 yrs.	175	5	69	1	68	2	38	21960	10	0	2	0	6	0	2	01961	17	0	1	0	10	0	6	01962	13	0	2	0	8	0	3	01963	12	0	0	0	8	0	4	01964	4	0	0	0	3	0	1	01965	20	0	0	0	5	0	15*	06 yrs.	76	0	5	0	40	0	31	0
* Includes eleven condemned persons whose cases are still on appeal.


FEED GRAIN PRODUCTION. ATLANTIC PROVINCES
Mr. Flemming: What was the production of feed grains in the Atlantic provinces for the years 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964 (a) in bushels (b) in dollar value?


Hon. Maurice Sauve (Minister of Forestry):: The estimated production and farm value of feedgrains in the Atlantic provinces from 1960 to 1964 were as follows:
1961
1963
(a)	(b)
Production Total farm value in '000 bus. in '000 dollars
15,147	12,666
13,761	12,471
15,155	12,706
13,060	11,490
15,338	13,472

May 4, 1966
Questions


ABOLITION OF PATENTS ON DRUGS
Mr. Orlikow: Was a recommendation made in the report of the restrictive trade practices commission on the manufacture, distribution and sale of drugs that "patents with respect to drugs be abolished" since "in the opinion of the commission this is the only effective remedy to reduce the price of drugs in Canada" and, if so, has the government reached any decision as to the desirability of implementing that recommendation?


Hon. Guy Favreau (President of ihe Privy Council):: The report of the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission concerning the manufacture, distribution and sale of drugs speaks for itself. Careful consideration is being given to the recommendations contained in the report but it is not expected that a decision will be made until after the report of the committee on drug costs and prices has been received.


DOCKING FACILITIES. CHAMPLAIN INDUSTRIAL PARK. N.B.
Mr. MacEwan: 1.	Does the government intend to construct a wharf and docking facilities in the Champlain industrial park, Charlotte county, New Brunswick?
2.	If so, what will be the size of the facilities and the estimated cost of same?
3.	Will these facilities be operated by the government, or by private interests?
4.	If by private interests, what is the name of the person or company who will operate same?


George James McIlraith: 1. This is under investigation at the present time.
2. 3. and 4. See answer to 1.


TENDERS FOR PIER RECONSTRUCTION. TORONTO
Mr. Loney: 1.	What are the names and addresses of the tenderers of tender for harbour improvements-reconstruction of pier 30, Toronto, Ontario, tender date April 6, 1966?
2.	What was the price quoted by each tenderer?
3.	Was the lowest tender accepted and, if not, for what reason?


George James McIlraith: 1. Bermingham Construction Limited, Marine Terminal, Wellington Street, Hamilton, Ont.; Ruliff Grass Construction Company Limited, P.O. Box 550, Thornhill, Ont.; Canadian Dredge & Dock Co. Limited, 60 Harbour Street, Toronto, Ont.; Robert McAlpine Ltd., Challenge Road, Rexdale, Ont.; Doyle Hinton

Limited, 477 Mount Pleasant Road, Toronto 7, Ont.; C. A. Pitts Construction (Ontario) Limited, 30 Commercial Road, Toronto 17, Ont.
2.	Bermingham Construction Limited, $181,099; Ruliff Grass Construction Company Limited, $196,695; Canadian Dredge & Dock Co. Limited, $209,876; Robert McAlpine Ltd., $217,947.50; Doyle Hinton Limited, $277,874; C. A. Pitts Construction (Ontario) Limited, $283,698.
3.	Yes.


FILMS MADE BY NATIONAL FILM BOARD
Mr. Allard: 1.	Of the films produced by the National Film Board since January 1, 1959 (a) how many dealt with penal institutions (b) how many dealt with the National Parole Board?
2.	What was the cost of these films?
3.	How many of these films were in the French language?
4.	How many were in the English language only, and for what reasons?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: National Film Board
1.	(a) 6; (b) 0.
2.	$190,328.
3.	Six (all six films were produced in French and in English).
4.	None.


CANADA PENSION PLAN AND ESTATE TAX
Mr. Bell (Carleton): 1.	Will it be the practice of the Department of National Revenue to include the commuted value of a survivor's pension under the Canada Pension Plan in determining the value of a deceased estate for estate tax purposes?
2.	If so, upon what basis or principle will the commuted value be determined?
3.	Will the government consider an amendment to the Estates Tax Act exempting payments made pursuant to the Canada Pension Plan from estates tax?


Mr. Albert Bechard (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I am informed by the departments of national revenue and finance as follows:
1.	Yes, under the provisions of the Estate Tax Act as they now are.
2.	The pensions will be calculated, as far as possible, in accordance with existing regulations and tables.
May 4, 1966

3.	This is a matter of government policy. If any changes are to be proposed in the Estate Tax Act they will be announced at the appropriate time.


REFUND OF ESTATE TAX. ALBERTA
Mr. Bell (Carleton): 1.	Have there been any discussions or correspondence between the government of Canada and the government of Alberta or representatives of either, regarding the proposal of the latter government to rebate to estates in that province seventy-five per centum of the estate tax collected from estates of decedents resident in that province?
2.	If so, what has been the nature of such discussions or correspondence and what was the result thereof?


Mr. Jean Chretien (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the first part, yes. In answer to the second part, by letter Hon. A. O. Aalborg, provincial treasurer of the province of Alberta, informed the Minister of Finance of the resolution concerning the estate tax adopted by the legislature of Alberta on April 15, 1966. The Alberta legislature resolved that legislation be submitted to the next session of the legislature providing for the rebate of estate tax remitted to the province by the government of Canada in all cases where the deceased was a bona fide resident of Alberta and, that the government of Alberta enter into negotiations with the government of Canada with a view to securing the removal of estate tax in its entirety in so far as it applied to residents of Alberta.
Mr. Aalborg indicated that Alberta would be requesting later this year a meeting with the Minister of Finance to discuss the proposal that the government of Canada remove the estate tax in its entirety in Alberta commencing in 1967.


INCREASE IN SUCCESSION DUTIES EXEMPTION, ONTARIO
Mr. Bell (Carleton): 1.	Have there been any discussions or correspondence between the government of Canada and the government of Ontario, or representatives of either, regarding the increases in exemption from succession duties granted in Ontario?
2.	If so, what has been the nature of such discussions or correspondence and what was the result thereof?
3.	Will the government of Canada consider now increasing exemptions under the Estate Tax Act to achieve exemptions at least as favourable to taxpayers as those now granted under the Ontario succession duty act?
Questions


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first part of the question is, no. The answer to the second part is not applicable. The answer to the third part is, this is a matter of government policy. If any changes are to be proposed in the Estate Tax Act they will be announced at the appropriate time.


FEDERAL BUILDING. PARRSBORO, N.S.
Mr. Coates: 1.	Is it the intention of the government to construct a new federal building or post office at Parrsboro, N.S.?
2.	Have investigations been carried out in the Parrsboro area with regard to the purchase of a site for a new federal building or post office and, if so (a) has any land been acquired by the government and (b) from whom and at what price?


George James McIlraith: 1. Yes a federal building.
2. Preliminary site investigations have been carried out with regard to the purchase of a site, (a) no, (b) not applicable.


NATIONAL MUSEUM SPACE
Mr. Reid: Are all the functions of the National Museum consolidated in one building and, if not (a) for what reason (b) what are the other addresses (c) what functions or departments of the National Museum are housed there (d) what is the cost to the government for this space?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am informed by the directors of National Museum as follows:
The answers to Question 1,365 are that the functions of the National Museum are not consolidated in one building, because
(a)	the Victoria Memorial Museum has long been too small; and
(b)	the other addresses are: (i) The Canadian War Museum, in a one storey building used for exhibits on Sussex street; (ii) The National Aviation Museum in space rented for exhibits from D.O.T. at Uplands airport, under an agreement between the Minister for Northern Affairs and National Resources and the Minister of Transport, dated July 1, 1960, for a rent of $60,000 per annum paid out of the museum estimates; (iii) Hangars 66, 67 and 68 at Rockcliffe used for exhibition of aircraft from the national collection of historic aircraft, for workshops for the repair of aircraft and the storage of aircraft not currently on display; (iv) 7 Murray street,

May 4. 1966
Orders for Returns
Ottawa, for the Canadian War Museum's laboratories, renovation work and study collections containing specimens not currently on display; also offices for the staff employed there; (v) 1523 Laperriere avenue, Ottawa, for housing the study collections of the history division and specimens held for the future Museum of Science and Technology; workshops for renovation and conservation; offices for the staff employed there; (vi) Until September, 1966, the Engine House, Ottawa West, for housing historic railway material; (vii) The Cote building, Carillon and Iberville streets, Hull, housing palaeontological and zoological study collections; (viii) Mines Branch Annex, Sussex and George streets, Ottawa, housing paleontological offices, laboratories, workshop and study collections; (ix) 860 Bank st., Ottawa; storage for the Technical Services and Display Sections; mu-seological items; and field equipment; (x) Services building, 211 Montcalm street, Hull, P.Q., for housing study collections of Canadian War Museum and National Aviation Museum.
(c)	Rentals for this space total $188,528.23 per annum including the $60,000 for the aviation museum.


CONTINUATION OF NATIONAL MUSEUM WORK
Mr. Reid: Does the government intend to continue the scientific and educational work carried on by the national museum (a) in the present building and, if so, for how long (b) in the proposed new national museum building and. if not, for what reason?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am informed by the directors of National Museum as follows: (a) Yes, in the present buildings and additional temporary space as necessary, until the new building is ready.
(b)	Yes.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Allard: 1.	Are there French language sections in the National Research Council, the Canada Council and other federal research institutions and, if so, what are their designations and locations?
2.	In small research centres established by the National Research Council (a) where is each centre located (b) how long has it been active
(c)	what is the subject of each research project
(d)	what were the amounts spent in 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964 and 1965 (e) on whose representations was each centre established?
Return tabled.


STATEMENTS OF ELECTION EXPENSES
Mr. Caouelie: 1.	What are the names of the candidates who have not submitted, within the prescribed time, the declaration concerning their electoral expenses for the federal election of November 8, 1965?
2.	Will the penalties prescribed by section 63 of the Canada Elections Act be imposed upon them and, if not, for what reason?
Return tabled.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

Albert Béchard: Mr. Speaker, notices of motions No. 119 and 123 are acceptable to the government.
Notice of motion No. 122 is also acceptable to the government and the papers in question are tabled forthwith.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the other notices of motions stand.



AIRCRAFT SEPARATION ON NORTH ATLANTIC ROUTE

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 119-Mr. Dinsdale:
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this house a copy of the Canadian submission to the I.C.A.O. on the question of separation of aircraft on the north Atlantic route.
Motion agreed to.
HOLDERS OF BROADCASTING LICENCES Motion No. 122-Mr. Stafford:
That an order of the house do issue for a list of owners and shareholders of all private radio and television companies licensed to broadcast in Canada and at present holding licences issued under the authority of the Department of Transport.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 123-Mr. Horner (Acadia):
That an order of the house do issue for copies of letters or correspondence with the Department of External Affairs or other departments concerning a request by Canadian representatives of Russian shipping in Canada for permission to sail up the St. Lawrence seaway.
Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house that notice of motion No. 123 be deemed to have been adopted?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
May 4, 1966


Mr. D. S. Macdonald (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, is it my understanding that notice of motion No. 123 is deemed to have been adopted? There may have been a slip of the tongue, because the government's intention is that this motion should be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: The parliamentary secretary called notices of motion Nos. 119, 122 and 123 and they were deemed to have been adopted.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the government's request is that No. 123 be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Unfortunately a motion has been made by the hon. parliamentary secretary and carried.


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secrelary of Stale for External Affairs: Mr. Speaker, I must take responsibility for this difficulty which occurred while I was otherwise engaged. I spoke to the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Horner) about this matter and he agreed that this motion should stand, for the reasons I discussed with him.


Mr. Starr:: He is not here-


Mr. Martin (Essex East):: He was here and I discussed this with him.


Michael Starr: The motion has now been
passed.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Surely the house does not want to pass something that is-


Michael Starr: The house has already passed it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Paul Joseph James Martin: If my hon. friend knew the circumstances I am sure he would agree that-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. In view of the explanations given by the parliamentary secretary and the Secretary of State for External Affairs, is it the wish of this house that this motion be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The mover of the motion is not in the house, sir.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Inquiries of the Ministry GRAIN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce arising out of his statement in respect of the one-year extension of the protocol on the international wheat agreement. Is it not a fact that this will result, as far as the farmer-producers of this country are concerned, in the price of farm products being frozen for another year, in spite of the fact that the cost of various items required by farmers, such as machinery, fertilizer and the like, have increased to great heights? What representations has the government of Canada made to the United States in order to impress upon that nation that the Canadian farmer has been caught in an impossible position as a result of this additional year of frozen prices, and the ever increasing cost of production?


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first part of the right hon. gentleman's question is that present price limits are extended for the next year under the terms of the protocol. In answer to the second part I should point out that the Canadian government recognizes the position of the farmers and is doing everything within its power to bring this situation to the attention of importers throughout the world.


John George Diefenbaker: What representations
have been made by the Canadian government to the United States in this connection, to point out that the Canadian farmer will have the price of his produce frozen at a time when everything he purchases is increasing in cost?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the right hon. Leader of the Opposition that his question is argumentative.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I can rephrase my question so that it is something other than argumentative. What representations has the government of Canada made to the United States regarding the injustice of this situation.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the right hon. Leader of the Opposition that he has merely paraphrased his question rather than rephrased it.
May 4, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry TRANSPORT



REQUEST FOR RETURN OF BOX CARS FROM UNITED STATES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. Has the management of the Canadian Pacific Railway made representations to the Prime Minister and the Minister of Transport asking them personally to intervene with United States authorities in an attempt to obtain the return of some 2,000 box cars which are being held in the United States? If such representations have been made, what action does the government intend to take concerning this matter?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of any such representations having been made to me, but I shall be glad to look into the matter at once. I do not know whether representations have been made to my colleague, the Minister of Transport.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. gentleman indicate his understanding as to whom these representations were made?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I asked whether representations were made to the Minister of Transport and, following no action on his part, to the Prime Minister.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to ask the hon. gentleman whether he can indicate to whom the representations were made, because that is the part of his question I could not hear.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, were representation made to the Minister of Transport and the Prime Minister asking them personally to intervene with United States authorities in an attempt to enable the Canadian Pacific Railway to repossess some 2,000 box cars which are being held in the United States, and which the C.P.R. has not been able to repossess to meet the serious need for the movement of grain?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If this is the only question asked by the hon. member, I think it is out of order. The hon. member is asking whether representations have been made to the minister, and I suggest this is not an urgent matter.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I, with great deference, Mr. Speaker, point out that previously I had asked what action was being taken, because I am sure Your Honour recognizes that the holding in the United States of 2,000 box cars belonging to the C.P.R. is a matter of great urgency to the farmers of Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I was under the impression that the hon. member had dropped the other part of his question.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Not at all.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker in order to clear up this matter I may say that I have had several conversations, and so has the Ministei of Finance, with various officers of the Canadian Pacific Railway, and on every one of these occasions we have drawn attention to the desirability of doing everything possible to get Canadian box cars back from the United States as fast as possible. The railway has on every occasion assured us that they wanted to do so because they could make a lot more money if they had them in Canada, rather than the United States. I believe they are making every effort to have them returned to this country.
At one stage very briefly, for one or two days, there was some order of the United States authorities which might have created difficulties. It was removed almost immediately as a result of representations, not made by me, but made in the ordinary way through the ordinary channels in Washington. I know of no other way in which the United States authorities have intervened at all to prevent the normal operation of the arrangements between the railways.



PUBLIC WORKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Public Works I shall put my question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
Tenders will be opened Friday night for the selection of a company to tear down the Roxborough building. The department called for tenders from four companies. Why did the federal government not proceed as usual, that is by inviting public tenders and awarding a contract to the lowest bidder?
May 4, 1968	COMMONS


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Perhaps the hon.
member has a grievance to raise, but the question he puts at this time is out of order.
'.English]



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Howard Earl Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries. Considering the repeated questions raised in this house which have added to the demand from the Fisheries Council of Canada yesterday for measures to protect Canadian fisheries for Canadians, is the government prepared to set a deadline within which agreement must be reached for the application of a 12-mile protected fishing zone measured from a headland-to-headland base line?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This appears to be a question of a very general nature and I suggest to the hon. member that it cannot be asked at this time.


Howard Earl Johnston: Mr. Speaker, the negotiations on this question have been going on for two years.


Mr. Speaker:: This is why I thought the question should not be asked at this time.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. H. A. Thomas (Middlesex West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Forestry of which I have given him notice. Recently the minister issued a press release indicating that the federal government and the government of Ontario have arranged through ARDA to share the costs of drainage work in eastern Ontario municipalities in a five-year drainage program. Would the minister be prepared to participate in a similar arrangement to promote drainage work on Indian reserves wherever the agricultural capability of Indian land would be improved thereby?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I would suggest to the hon. member that he place his question on the order paper.
DEBATES	4693
Inquiries of the Ministry AGRICULTURE



INCREASE IN TRANSPORTATION COSTS TO DAIRY FARMERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of our dairy producers I should like to put to the Minister of Agriculture this urgent question. Since a very few days ago when the minister announced his new dairy subsidy policy, have certain processors raised their transportation costs by as much as 50 per cent in some cases? If the minister is so informed, will he intervene right away, before it is too late, so the individual farmer will get the benefit of the minister's new policy? Has the minister been informed that this has happened in the few days since he announced his policy? It is an urgent matter that can only be dealt with immediately.


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I will take this question as notice and report to the hon. member.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. It is my understanding that a study has been undertaken by the federal and provincial governments relative to the proper terminus in Nova Scotia for a second ferry between New England and Nova Scotia. Would the minister inform the house when a report on the progress being made by this study group may be expected, and whether we can anticipate the provision of this very much needed second ferry within the next year?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I hope quite soon to be able to say something about this subject.



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

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture? I would ask the minister whether his attention has been drawn to a brief presented to the government yesterday by the
May 4. 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry National Farmers Union, wherein the National Farmers Union indicates that there is a growing volume of exports of western grain through west coast ports and regrets the postponement or delay in the expansion of the grain elevator facilities at Prince Rupert. I would also ask whether this has tended to change the minister's mind about that grain elevator.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question cannot be put in this way and is not acceptable.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.   J.-A. Mongrain@Trois-Rivieres: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Has the minister received lately representations about the copper scrap shortage and suggestions that the embargo on this ore should be extended to the United States?


Mr. Speaker:: I would invite the hon. member to place the question on the order paper.


Mr. Mongrain:: Ten o'clock, please, Mr. Speaker.

HEAVY LOSS ON MONTREAL WATERFRONT On the orders of the day:


Mr. Milton L. Klein (Cartier):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Is the government conducting an investigation into the disastrous fire which occurred on the Montreal waterfront, and if so does the minister have anything to report to the house in this connection?


John Whitney Pickersgill: We certainly are conducting such an investigation. It is a very worrying situation.
I should like, if I might, to pay tribute to the wonderful work done by the Montreal fire department in saving all that could be saved of these buildings.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the 
Minister of Agriculture. Would the minister mind, for the information of members of this house, having a pamphlet issued by his department informing consumers what is being done by the Department of Agriculture to protect consumers with respect to grade standards in all types of agricultural produce?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that the question is not so urgent that it should be asked at this time, and it might be placed on the order paper or perhaps debated at a later hour.



ABITIBI-REQUEST FOR COMPENSATION FOR CROP DAMAGE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Agriculture.
Could the minister tell us whether the federal government will make direct payments to the farmers of the Abitibi area, as was done in the case of the farmers of the Lake St. John area, for damage sustained by their crops in 1964? If so, will those amounts be paid soon?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I understand this question refers to a situation back in 1964 and I fail to understand the immediate urgency of the question. I would suggest to the hon. member that he place it on the order paper.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, when a similar question was put to the minister the other day, he was able to reply that an amount of $12 million had been paid to the province of Quebec for the farmers of the Abitibi and Lake St. John areas.
The member for Chapleau is now asking whether the federal Department of Agriculture has started paying those amounts.


Mr. Speaker:: If the minister wishes to make a statement on this matter, he is free to do so.
May 4, 1966


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for having given me notice of his question. My departmental officials inform me that the cheques in question were mailed yesterday.



EDUCATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kings-way):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the minister's statement within the last day or so in Halifax that lack of education is the most important of the causes of poverty and that free university education may become ncessary, will the minister say how the government proposes to determine the extent of poverty necessary before a policy to make free university education possible can be provided?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question is argumentative.



EXPO '67 USE BY EDMONTON OF &quot;KLONDIKE&quot; THEME

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reid Scott (Danforth):: I wanted to ask a question of the Minister of National Defence affecting the peace and security of the country. It arises out of a certificate I received this morning referring to the Yu-kon-Klondike defence force, in which this statement is made:
This .... puts you in the front line of battle of the Yukon's fight with Edmonton to win back the Klondike.
I want to ask the minister whether the recruitment of this private army to wage war on Edmonton-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please, this question cannot be accepted.


Reid Scott: Ten o'clock.



PUBLIC WORKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Ralph Cowan (York-Humber):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Public works a question relating to the illegal filling of lake Ontario at the city of
Redistribution
Toronto. Why is it that officials of the Department of Public Works stopped the town of New Toronto from extending their two public parks into the lake, and yet they did not stop the private developers, Millgate? Should the town of New Toronto hire a new lawyer?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member may want to discuss this matter at a later hour.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Howard Earl Johnston: I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, which arises out of remarks made to the external affairs committee. In view of the reports in this morning's Globe and Mail that proposals for the removal from France of NATO political as well as military headquarters have gained ground among NATO experts and diplomats could the minister tell this house whether this is a result of this government taking the initiative?


Mr. Speaker:: This question cannot be accepted. The question is out of order.


REDISTRIBUTION
Mr. Speaker:: The house will now proceed to the consideration of objection No. 14, relating to the province of Manitoba. A notice of the objection in the form of a motion was filed with Mr. Speaker in the following terms:
Proposed Electoral Districts of the Province of Manitoba:
That, pursuant to Section 20 of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act (Chapter 31, Statutes of Canada 1964-65), and for the reasons hereinafter specified, consideration be given by this House to the matter of an objection to the following provisions of the Report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission for the Province of Manitoba, laid before the House by Mr. Speaker on Wednesday, January 19, 1966.
The objections to the provisions of the Manitoba report are as follows:
1.	The Commission failed to give sufficient emphasis to geographical considerations, the sparsity, density and relative rate of growth of the population, and overlooked the special problem of communication and transportation in respect of certain new electoral districts.

May 4, 1966
Redistribution
2.	The Commission failed to give special consideration to the accessibility of one region to another region in determining the boundaries of certain electoral districts.
3.	The Commission failed to give proper attention to the physical, social or economic cohesion in some of the new electoral districts created, thus ignoring the importance of unity or community of interest in those electoral districts.
4.	And such other objections that the undersigned Members may deem necessary to carry out the spirit and terms and conditions of the Act in question.


Michael Starr: Since this is the last day of the debate on this subject, Mr. Speaker, and the objections of one province, the province of Manitoba, are to be considered, and since the business of the house has consumed so much of the time, I wonder if the house would agree to hearing all of those who wish to speak on the objections concerning the province of Manitoba, even though this might take us beyond six o'clock?


Mr. Speaker:: Order; I understand that in addition to the objections relating to the province of Manitoba there are still two specific objections from the province of Quebec to be considered. I assume that if hon. members want the house to make an order respecting these particular objections, that order should also include a reference to the two objections from Quebec. Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Eric Slefanson (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, I know that the tasks that were assigned to the redistribution commission were difficult. It is essential, however, that the best maps possible should be submitted for final approval. It is desirable that as few people as possible be left dissatisfied. It is for this reason I propose to make a few remarks on the objections before us, in an endeavour to be helpful to the commission. If, during my comments, I use some strong words about some of the things proposed by the commission, it will be because I have the strong feeling that some people are not getting fair treatment. I feel that I have to speak on behalf of these people. I feel, too, that it is of major importance to get started on the right foot and produce a map that will be acceptable to most people.
Before I deal with the map proposed by the commission, I want to point out that the four original ridings were Provencher, Lisgar, Marquette and Selkirk. These are historic ridings. It does not seem right or fair that

one name should be dropped and three retained. The historic name of Selkirk certainly deserves to be retained, but this should not be done in a meaningless way. It should be done in such a manner that the town of Selkirk would remain an important hub of such a riding. The name of the constituency should not be a hyphenated name.
In dealing with the map proposed by the federal Redistribution Commission for the province of Manitoba, I should like to say that I have some serious doubts concerning the redistribution act itself. I also question the knowledge that the members of the Manitoba Redistribution Commission have regarding the community interests of people located in rural Manitoba. The commission, in fact, completely ignored the geographical, cultural and economic interests of Manitoba's rural people. In addition, they have ignored the basic lines of communication throughout the province. With due respect to the members of the commission, I ask why there was not a professional geographer on the commission and why there was not one person from rural Manitoba on it.
I have heard rumours that the maps were actually sketched by university students at Carleton University in Ottawa and that the Manitoba commission merely chose one of those maps and made slight alterations thereon. If this is true, I consider it an insult to the people of Manitoba. The opinion of a great number of Canadians who have studied this problem is that the members of the provincial commissions are dominated, and in some cases actually afraid of, the representation commissioner. The rumour in Manitoba is that the commission has decided their choice of maps is final, and that no evidence produced by members of parliament will change their minds. This is precisely the same arrogant attitude which they took at the public hearings last fall.
There were many excellent representations made by people from the interlake area and the northern part of the province. The arguments presented by those people would certainly have convinced an independent judge that there are serious faults in the proposed map. In addition, a brilliant presentation was made by Mr. J. A. MacKay of Winnipeg. Mr. MacKay presented a map that is far superior in all aspects to that of the commission. If the people of Manitoba had their choice in the matter, I predict they would take Mr. Mac-Kay's map. Why do the members of the commission not go out to rural Manitoba and
May 4, 19S6

obtain the opinions of the people? Should political maps not be the ones which the people want? It appears that we do not have this, but instead we have a dictatorship that is unwilling to accept the opinion of the people. Is this what we want? Is this what is meant by an independent commission? If this is the situation, and it appears that it is, we have gone backwards rather than forwards. Instead of satisfying the people's wishes we have put the redistribution of federal seats in each province into the hands of a four man dictatorship rather than in the hands of 265 elected representatives of the people.
What were the most frequently mentioned complaints at the hearings last fall? For the record, they were as follows:
1.	That it is completely unnecessary to have rural areas in a Winnipeg seat or to have a Winnipeg area in a rural seat. The reasoning is quite clear. People should not be dominated by others who have completely different interests.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
2.	That the interlake area forms a natural unit and should not be divided into three parts but should form one constituency. If it must be divided, it should be divided along the highways system. There are three main highways running through the interlake, all of which run in a north-south direction. One highway, the St. Laurent-Ashern line, is situated on the west side, and the other two are close together on the east side.
3.	The Churchill constituency, which has been extremely difficult in the past, has become impossible by the addition of the northern interlake. In addition, complaints were heard from the people of the northern interlake who feel that they do not belong in Churchill.
What did the commission do about these complaints? First of all, they moved the people of Gimli and Riverton into the Win-nipeg-Selkirk seat, making this seat more impossible in that they have allowed additional domination, and in that they have given this seat, which is one third rural, the second largest population of any seat in Canada.
Second, they moved the dividing line between Portage and Churchill a few miles north, reducing Churchill's population by some 3,000 people. Do they actually think that this has eased the Churchill situation? Well, I have represented this area for eight
Redistribution
years and I know that it has not. The member still has to travel three lines, and whether or not he must cover a few extra villages makes no difference. It appears to me that all they saw was population figures and they were determined to reduce the population of Churchill.
It is true that population was an argument, but there is much more to redistribution than population. In making the change, they have cut through two municipalities which were originally included in one constituency. The people of Fisher Branch, Broad Valley and Poplarfield are one family and the commissioners have worsened the situation by drawing a line through that area.
What could they have done without redrawing the map? They could have made great improvements by making changes as slight as they did. First, Brooklands could have been transferred into Winnipeg North from Portage; Old Kildonan and West St. Paul could have been moved from Winnipeg North to Winnipeg-Selkirk. The result is an increase of 1,000 people in Winnipeg North.
There were complaints at the hearings from the town of Brooklands. Those who are almost in the centre of Winnipeg do not want to be dominated by a rural area. Everything in the municipality of St. Andrews that is north of the town of Selkirk could have gone into Portage. If these changes were now made, Portage would have a population of approximately 65,000 and Winnipeg-Selkirk would have a population of approximately 77,000. This minimum of change would have eliminated most of the domination which now exists. The commission could then have redrawn the Portage-Churchill line in order to ease the Churchill situation. This would have little or no effect on the populations of the constituencies concerned.
As I see it, the major faults in the proposed maps are as follows:
1.	Lines of communication and community interests have been completely ignored in the Churchill constituency.
2.	Metro Winnipeg has not been given its fair share of Manitoba's 13 seats.
3.	Lines of communication and community interests have been completely ignored in that the interlake area has been divided into three.
4.	The proposed map allows certain areas to dominate other areas which are completely unrelated.

May 4. 1966
Redistribution
5.	It is quite clear that my complaints are the same as those presented by the people of Manitoba.
On the first point, the reasons for objecting to the proposed Churchill constituency are so numerous that an entire volume could be written on it. The Churchill constituency as it was before redistribution had sufficient population and should be left as it was. The argument put forth by the commission for not doing this is that the farming district in the Swan River valley should not come under the same representation as the northern towns of Flin Flon, Thompson, etc. They have therefore placed it with the northern interlake. The same argument applies to the northern interlake in that the largest industry in the northern interlake is mixed farming.
In addition, there are numerous other arguments as to why the Swan River valley should be in Churchill. First, Swan River has come under Churchill representation in the past and is therefore accustomed to it. I have heard that these people would prefer to be in Churchill. Second, the main highway to the north goes through the Swan River area and not through the interlake. Third, the distance between the northern towns to the Swan River valley is much closer than it is to the northern interlake.
Fourth, the Churchill constituency is one of the largest in Canada and therefore difficult enough to represent without making it much more difficult. The northern interlake area is out of the way and loosely connected. Fifth, by including a part of the interlake in Churchill, the commission has split the natural, economic, cultural and political interlake unit.
As I have already stated, the interlake is a natural unit bordered by lakes on both sides. Someone stated at last fall's hearings that the commission claims to advocate natural boundaries and that they have ignored the most natural boundary of all. Lakes have a tendency to separate people whereas rivers and other boundaries do not. The numerous arguments as to why the entire interlake area should come under one representation were tabled in detail at the hearings last September. I should, however, like to make a special plea for the people in Ashern, Fisher Branch and other towns included in Churchill. These people are extremely unhappy and feel completely neglected. Their only source of communication is with the people to the south. I should also like to make a special plea for the people on Hecla island. The only 
direct communication that these people have is with the people of Riverton. They therefore must come under the same representation.
Besides being a natural unit, the entire interlake area is a designated ARDA area. This is an additional reason why the entire area should come under one representation. If the interlake must be divided, it can only be divided in two, not into three as the commission has done. If it is divided, the only logical way to do so is to divide it on a north-south line; that is, the provincial constituency of St. George could go into Churchill and the remainder into another constituency. At least the entire interlake population in Churchill would then be in along one highway, that is highway No. 6. The portion now included in Churchill is very loosely connected. There is limited road connection from east to west.
The same problem was encountered in the last provincial redistribution and at that time the commission made the change and divided St. George and Fisher by a north-south line rather than an east-west line. Why is this course not followed this time?
A special objection should be made to the proposed Winnipeg-Selkirk seat. The chairman of the Manitoba commission has stated on several occasions that a proper population distribution was essential and that this had created problems for the commission. The typical Winnipeg constituency has been given a population of approximately 84,000 and the typical rural constituency a population of
60,000	people. In this case, a constituency which is two thirds Winnipeg and one third rural should have a population of 76,000 people. It is therefore extremely unfair to give Winnipeg-Selkirk the largest population of any seat in Manitoba.
Another objection which I have to this seat is that there is absolutely no community of interest between the people of a town such as Riverton and the people of Elmwood, a district in Winnipeg. The placing of Riverton with Elmwood is the same as if Morden were placed in St. Boniface, or if Pine Falls were placed with St. James. Unless it is absolutely necessary, no city seat should contain a rural area or vice versa.
If a rural area must be placed in a Winnipeg seat, at least the areas should be adjacent to each other. For example, Riverton is 100 miles from Elmwood with no highways leading into Elmwood. There are two highways from Riverton to Winnipeg and they both lead into West Kildonan. Another objection which I have to the Winnipeg-Selkirk
May 4, 1966

seat is that the rural people should not be dominated by unrelated people from Elmwood and East Kildonan. The same holds true for the people in the town of Brooklands.
Metropolitan Winnipeg has not been given its fair share of Manitoba's 13 seats. The population of metropolitan Winnipeg, as taken in the 1961 census, is 475,989 people. As I stated earlier, there is absolutely no need to make any constituency partly rural and partly urban. Winnipeg should have been given six seats with an average population of 79,331. Upon reviewing the proposed maps for Ontario, I notice that all but one of the Toronto seats have a population between
79.000	and 80,000. In Ontario and Quebec only five out of 164 seats have a population of
80.000	or more, and in all cases they are just slightly over 80,000.
In conclusion, I would like to state that I endorse the political map of rural Manitoba which was presented at the hearings last September by Mr. J. A. MacKay. I have prepared a map displaying Winnipeg divided into six seats. This took me approximately two hours to prepare. If I have been able to prepare a map in two hours, it should be no hardship for the commission to redraw the Winnipeg constituencies. If they feel that my map is inferior to the one which they have proposed for greater Winnipeg, I challenge them to publish my map alongside theirs in the daily newspapers and give the people a chance to make their decision.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
I would ask at this time whether I might table the map of the city of Winnipeg and of rural Manitoba, which could go along with these remarks.


Mr. Dinsdale:: Including Brandon-Souris?


Eric Stefanson: As far as I am concerned, the entire map should be redrawn on a six-six-one basis; that is, six Winnipeg seats, six rural seats and one northern rural seat. My map of greater Winnipeg is an indication of what can be done.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Does the house give unanimous consent to the hon. member to table the documents referred to?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Eric Stefanson: Mr. MacKay's map of rural Manitoba is a good starting point for the commission. If the commission is not prepared to listen to our viewpoints as well as 23033-298
Redistribution
the viewpoints of the people of Manitoba, the entire redistribution has been a failure. At a very minimum, I emphasize that the commission must give Winnipeg six seats. They can then transfer the entire rural portion of the Winnipeg-Selkirk seat to Portage. The rural portions include the municipalities of Bifrost, Gimli, St. Andrews and most of St. Clements. Portage can then give up its portion of the municipalities-Assiniboia and Charleswood -along with the town of Brooklands, to Winnipeg seats. Portage can then give up everything south of the Assiniboine river to Lisgar, and Lisgar can give up the municipalities of Riverside and Turtle Mountain to Brandon-Souris. The result would be that Portage, Lisgar and Brandon-Souris would all end up with a population of 67,000, while the other rural seats, with the exception of Churchill, would have populations of around 60,000. This seems fair in that Portage, Lisgar and Brandon would have much less territory than the other rural constituencies.
In addition to giving Winnipeg six seats, the minor changes just listed would mean that the interlake would only be cut into two rather than three as presently proposed After making the above mentioned changes, a switch could be made between Churchill and Portage, dividing the interlake according to lines of communication as outlined earlier. Even though it is not the ultimate solution for the Churchill constituency, it would be an improvement.
In closing, I wish to state that I regret that the commission did not see fit to apply paragraph 13, section 3(i) and (ii) of the redistribution act which reads as follows:
(c) the commission may depart from the strict application of rules (a) and (b) in any case where
(i)	special geographic considerations, including in particular the sparsity, density or relative rate of growth 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.
The proposed Winnipeg-Selkirk riding, an urban rural riding, has the second largest population of any riding in Canada, and this proposed riding includes the city of East Kildonan, the fastest growing area in Metropolitan Winnipeg. The riding of Churchill, according to the 1961 census, had a population of 54,952, which gave it sufficient population by using the tolerance allowed under the

May 4, 1966
Redistribution
act, and therefore, it was not necessary to add any additional area. The riding of Churchill is the second largest in area in Canada, and therefore it should have been a primary concern of the commission not to increase its area size.
I trust that the commission will give serious consideration to the points and suggestions I have made, and endeavour to produce a map which will be acceptable and fair to as many people as possible.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. So that there will be no misunderstanding, may I say to the hon. member who has just spoken that previously in this debate, when documents were to be sent to the commission they were deposited with the Clerk, and he then would have them forwarded to the commission. Is this the wish of the hon. member, rather than actually tabling the documents?


Eric Stefanson: That is what I want. I want to deposit them with the Clerk.


Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: In taking part in this debate, I wish first of all to say that I am in full agreement with the system of having an independent commission in charge of the very complicated work connected with any necessary redistribution of the various electoral districts or ridings of our country, and I might add that the party I support is also in full support of an independent commission to do this particular job. In saying this, I do not agree completely with the manner in which the commission has been selected.
I wish also to pay some measure of tribute, Mr. Speaker, to the work performed by the members of the Electoral Boundaries Commission for the province of Manitoba, who I believe were confronted, as were members of other provincial commissions with an extremely difficult task.
Redistribution of electoral boundaries is a very controversial subject at any time and is one that is certain to result in protracted argument, regardless of who may be empowered to determine new boundaries. While I pay tribute to the efforts of the commission for the province of Manitoba, I do have several strong arguments against their decisions to date. I therefore strongly suggest that they be prepared to review again any suggestions put forth in this debate before any final decision is made. This procedure was followed to a small degree at the conclusion of public hearings which were held in various

parts of the province last summer, and at that time some minor changes were made in relation to the original considerations of the commission.
I would respectfully suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the commission give serious consideration to the creation of six electoral districts in the metropolitan area of Winnipeg, with these six electoral districts being entirely urban. I would then suggest that the balance of the province be divided into seven electoral districts.
I am sure that all Manitobans realize that the most northerly electoral district in the province, which in this case is the riding of Churchill, must of necessity encompass a much larger area than any of the other six ridings outside metropolitan Winnipeg, and this is purely and simply a matter of having to encompass within its boundaries sufficient population to meet at least the minimum population requirements as laid down in the terms of reference of the commission.
Now, while recognizing the fact that the electoral district of Churchill of necessity must be considerably larger than the other rural ridings, I suggest that there are a number of very valid reasons why the fullest possible consideration should be given to keeping this northern riding as compact as is humanly possible. It is my intention to present these suggestions at this time.
The first point I would like to bring to the attention of the commission is that under present redistribution plans the electoral district of Churchill will be by far the largest electoral district in Canada, within the provinces, comprising over three quarters of the entire area of the province, and this is far from necessary.
Despite the fact that we who live in the north, and that seems to include everyone who lives north of the northern extremity of Winnipeg's international airport, are quite accustomed to extensive travel, and despite the fact that if given sufficient time a person can visit every nook and cranny in the entire province if necessary, I do have many reasons for suggesting to the commission that they keep the northern electoral district as compact as they can.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
This can only be done by coming just far enough south to get into the handiest pockets of population. The boundaries which existed during the last five federal elections did just that. I wish to bring to the attention of the
May 4, 1968

commission that within the boundaries of Churchill riding as established during the last five federal elections there resided 54,952 people, according to the 1961 census. This is almost 2,500 more than the minimum requirement for any electoral district. The boundaries at that time comprised some 171,000 square miles. The newly suggested boundaries will add a further 20,000 square miles of area, while adding only 600 people to the over-all population.
Granted, there is a population switch whereby some 15,000 persons are removed from the riding, while some 15,600 were added. However, in the process an area of approximately 2,500 square miles is removed and an area of 20,000 square miles is added.
Someone might say that a considerable amount of this new territory is water. To this I would answer that when a representative charters an aircraft to visit his constituents the price is the same to fly over water as it is to fly over land, and it takes just as much time. It was not necessary, from the point of view of population or otherwise, to add this additional 20,000 square miles to Churchill riding.
Throughout the years the area removed has had a common interest with the rest of Churchill riding. On the other hand the area which has been added has always been more closely associated with the region to the south. It is known as the interlake area, and the interests of the people who live there are, as I say, associated with the area south to Winnipeg and southeast to Gimli and Selkirk. I have had friends in this area for many years and I know of their interests along these lines.
Because of the size of Churchill riding as it existed during the last five federal elections, it has been very difficult for political parties to keep their organizations functioning in a proper and interesting manner, mainly due to the difficulty of arranging meetings as often as would be desirable. People in this riding are of necessity obliged to travel 700 miles and more to attend constituency organization meetings. If the new boundaries which have been suggested are put into effect, people who may not wish to fly will be obliged at various times of the year to travel 1200 miles or even further to attend such meetings. This is not a healthy situation.
Now I come to a subject which I strongly feel is a most important one, and that is our native Indian people. Here is a group of people with whom I have been in close
Redistribution
contact for a number of years. I have had scores of meetings with them and I have spent many days visiting with them on their reservations and in their homes. I am sure anyone who knows these people will agree with me that they are very interested in writing to both their federal and their provincial representatives and in having their representatives visit them. We as Canadians must give all the attention we can to the long struggle of improving the lot of these people and this can only be done through close association with them.
During the last five federal elections in Churchill constituency there were 17 Indian bands living on widely scattered reservations with a total population of over 14,000. In the area which the commission suggests should be added to Churchill riding there are nine more Indian bands, with a total population of over 6,300 people. Surely the commission does not believe it is fair to say to these people, who so earnestly need whatever understanding we can give them: You will have one person to represent more than 20,000 of you, despite the fact that you reside on 26 reservations scattered over an area comprising three-quarters of the province of Manitoba. Incidentally, these 20,000 Indian people make up more than two-thirds of the native Indian population of Manitoba.
I do not know, Mr. Speaker, whether the commission followed closely the population figures of the 1961 census or whether they merely ignored the relative rates of population growth in any particular area. The population of the northern part of the province has been increasing rapidly. As an example I would point out that according to the 1961 census the population of the local government district of Mystery Lake is recorded as 3,449 people. This local government district is now the townsite of Thompson, Manitoba and town records show there are presently more than 10,000 people living there. So it becomes quite apparent that there was no need whatever to enlarge to such an extent an electoral district which was already the second largest in Canada within the provinces.
The north has been ignored for too long. This is just one further proof that those who do not live in the north know little or nothing about conditions there. A graph showing the relative population increase in Thompson alone would make it clear that there were 7,514 people residing there in 1963, that there were 7,807 in 1964 and over 9,000 in 1965. I might add that this was pointed out clearly to.

May 4, 1966
Redistribution
to the office of the census division of the Dominion Bureau of Statistics in 1961 by the resident administrator of the local government district of Mystery Lake. At the same time as preliminary figures for the 1961 census were showing a population for this district of 3,336, an official local census established that there were in fact more than 7,000 people living in the immediate area. This is one further example of how unreliable some of our census figures really are and it shows how little attention is paid to the needs and requirements of the people who live in the north.
I strongly suggest that the commission should study this debate. I would respectfully ask that they check very carefully the points which have been made, before reaching final decisions.


Mr. R. E. Forbes (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, my purpose in taking part in this debate is to compliment the Electoral Boundaries Commission on its good judgment in giving recognition to the community of interests of the electors of the Dauphin federal constituency, and on the proposed boundary extension to include the area known as the Swan River valley. The Dauphin federal constituency, together with the proposed extension, is one of the most highly diversified agricultural areas in Manitoba. Maybe at this time I should indicate the interest that the residents have in common.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
Within the framework of the proposed boundary alteration we have a large number of beef cattle ranchers and a number of the best dairy herds in the province. We also have fur farmers, turkey raisers, egg and poultry producers, and honey producers. We have a large fishing and lumber industry at lake Winnipegosis. In addition, we produce considerable quantities of wheat, oats, barley, flax, and during the last few years have included rape and mustard seed. Many of the farmers are specialists in the production of registered grains and forage crops. Also we have a large tourist industry that includes the whole area from McCreary to Swan River.
It is one of the most cosmopolitan areas in Manitoba. Settlement began about 1890. The first settlers were of British and French origin, emigrating from Ontario and Quebec, followed by a large number from the Ukraine, Poland, Holland, Germany, and Iceland, bringing with them their cultures
[Mr. Simpson.1
and traditions which have become part of our way of life.
The proposed constituency is well located geographically, and can be served conveniently through a network of highways and municipal roads by political organizations, chambers of commerce, churches and farm organizations that have been working together for the advancement of their community since the creation of the Dauphin constituency in 1903. To my knowledge residents of the Swan River area have indicated on numerous occasions a preference to be included in the Dauphin federal constituency.
I think I can summarize the community of interest of the residents of the proposed area as follows:
1.	The proposed alteration is within the present Dauphin judicial district which also determines the representation on the union of Manitoba municipalities.
2.	Approximately one fifth of the present Dauphin electors are included in the Swan River health, diagnostic and hospital district, and welfare services.
3.	Two local government land districts are presently administered from Swan River, which includes provincial government engineering services etc.
4.	Recently the school boundaries have been adjusted under the new school division plan for convenient administration from Swan River to part of the present Dauphin federal constituency.
5.	The proposed extension is served by radio station CKDM and television station CKOS.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that the foregoing has indicated the community of interest of the constituents of the present Dauphin constituency and those within the boundary extension as proposed by the commission, and it is my hope that the boundaries outlined by the commission will meet with the approval of all concerned.
I should like to conclude by saying a few words with respect to the two constituencies which lie adjacent to my own, Selkirk and Churchill. Certainly Churchill is much too large. As indicated by the previous speaker, it covers almost two thirds of Manitoba. What it needs is less land, not more.
The commission could reduce this area, and also give the people in the Selkirk area a greater community of interest by putting the Selkirk constituency back in its original form with respect to that area which lies between
May 4, 1966

lake Winnipeg and lake Manitoba. This could be done with very little adjustment to the tolerance allowed under the act.
I would hope the commission would give consideration to the community of interest of the people who live in that general area. There is another feature about the Churchill constituency. If one looks at a map he can see it is broadly spaced over two thirds of the province, as has been said previously. Therefore the government might well give consideration to allowing some compensation to the member who represents that area for travelling purposes in order to enable him to cover his constituency.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, like the other spokesmen for the keystone province I would like to endorse the principle of redistribution being carried out by an independent commission. Under the circumstances I feel that the commission did the best job possible. When I use that phrase "under the circumstances," I want to make the point right at the outset that the commission which served Manitoba, as was the case with the commissions in all other provinces, was faced with an almost impossible task.
The fact that protests and criticisms have been universal from all sides of the house and from all parties indicates that there is something not functioning efficiently and properly with regard to the process of redistribution as set up under the act. I would suggest that the reason for the difficulty arises from a fundamental flaw in the act itself.
It is just two years since we debated the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act in this house. At that time members of the official opposition pointed out that an amendment to the act, accepted and proposed by the government itself, was going to lead to the dilemma which now confronts all members and which has been referred to at length during this extended debate. The act, as originally introduced, recommended that the two top officials of this house, the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker), should have a role in designating at least one member for each of the provincial commissions. This was opposed.
An amendment was put forward by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). It was taken up by the government, and I recall that the debate on that point waged fast and furious over a period of
Redistribution
some two days. The reason for the government agreeing to change the legislation was because of the protest made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that redistribution should be taken out of politics.
I think what he meant to say was that it should be taken out of partisan politics because it is obvious from comments made here today, and on other days, from the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Greene)-up or down- that in attempting by that amendment to withdraw the process of redistribution from the realm of partisan politics it was withdrawn entirely from the realm of politics.
The people who are knowledgeable in this field, having been excluded by the act itself, now have to resort to this unsatisfactory indirect method of bringing their own ideas before the independent commissions. It is almost like a case of one good custom corrupting the whole world. The act was a good act as it originally stood, and I think we will not be able to resolve this dilemma until necessary amendments are made to it which will make it possible for politicians to play an integral part in the process of redistribution, rather than working outside the official process as we are doing at this moment.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
After all, politics is a noble and an honourable profession. Politics is a science, it is true. Political scientists have a role to play, and demographers have a role to play in this whole job of redistribution; but politics is also an art. I am sure hon. members will agree that in order to become an accomplished artist in any line of endeavour, whether it be in the field of music or in the field of politics, you have to have considerable experience and practice. Having made that point, which I believe is a fundamental one, I do hope that some five or six years hence-because this whole matter has been delayed to the point where we are on the eve of a new decennial census and a new redistribution-this fundamental flaw will be remedied in amendments to the act.
No amount of skill, no amount of care and concern by the commissions as presently constituted, will avoid the problem which has led to the extended debate in this House of Commons. There is another suggestion I should make in this regard. As I recall, it was the Conservative party which first put forward the proposal for an independent commission. Our original concept was that we have a single commission which, on the basis

May 4, 1966
Redistribution
of broad experience would be able to apply this experience to every province. As I have listened to the discussions of the representatives from other provinces, I am sure this idea also has merit, because the arguments and the complaints have been the same; the criticisms have been the same, and I feel that the original idea of one single commission has considerable merit.
Coming to the specific problems of Manitoba, I think that these have been outlined in the earlier speeches in a very reasonable and responsible manner. The cynical attitude is to suggest that members of parliament are complaining because of selfish vested interests, and that we are concerned with this matter of redistribution for the sake of self-preservation.
I think it has been demonstrated by the speakers who have already taken part in this discussion that this is the furthest thought from their minds What concerns Manitobans, as it concerns members from other provinces, is the failure of the commission to make maximum use of the provisions of section 13 of the present act, which makes it possible to take into consideration what one might call the intangibles which can be understood and appreciated only by the political practitioners themselves.
I do not need to repeat the arguments. I support what has been said by the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Stefanson) and the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Simpson). Speaking on behalf of my own constituency of Brandon-Souris, I may say that we seized the opportunity to make representations before the commission. In order to ensure that there would be no personal interest or selfish or vested interest involved, I refrained from making the presentation myself. We had a distinguished member of the legal profession, Mr. James Doak, appear before the commission on behalf of the Brandon-Souris constituency. He spoke entirely from the standpoint of the geographical considerations, and the considerations of economic and social cohesion, which ingredients are necessary to the sense of community, which of course must exist if we are going to have a reasonable basis for redistribution. In making this point pertaining to the constituency of Brandon-Souris he also took into consideration, and made the point to the commissioners, that any change in the boundaries contemplated for Brandon-Souris which he recommended were designed to deal with the fundamental problem of Manitoba, that is 
ease the geographic problem that has been mentioned by the hon. member for Churchill this afternoon.
In Manitoba we have a population imbalance to which I shall refer in just a moment. The particular anomaly in my constituency to which I should like to refer is the elimination of the eastern end of the present Brandon-Souris constituency involving communities such as Killarney, Ninette, Donrea, Hilton, and Holmfield. Here is a part of southwestern Manitoba which over the years economically, geographically, legally, and in all sociological respects has regarded itself as a part of the southwestern Manitoba community. With the boundaries which have been proposed by the commission, this part of southwestern Manitoba now will become part of what we refer to as south central Manitoba. With this area it has no community of interest whatsoever.
I just wish to bring a few points before the house this afternoon, and by this means bring them once again to the attention of the commissioners who will be reviewing this debate. I feel these commissioners are responsible men who did the best job possible within the limitations of the act. As the hon. member for Selkirk intimated, they were all drawn from the city of Winnipeg, and that very fact alone would be a handicap, because with all due respect to the city of Winnipeg I do not think commissioners or representatives from that area really can appreciate the fundamental problems which exist in the rural part of Manitoba.
These are the points then which once again I should like to bring to the attention of the house and these gentlemen. The market area for southwestern Manitoba includes these communities which are going to be eliminated in the redistribution process. The centre of the market area is Brandon. Brandon is the only other substantial urban area outside the city of Winnipeg, and over the years it has become known as the wheat city of the west; in other words, it is an agricultural community. But more than being an agricultural community, as a result of recent economic changes and advances it now has become the centre for industrial development in the southwestern corner of the province. In the last four or five years the government of the province of Manitoba has sponsored the regional development concept of economic development, and the regional area covered by this concept embraces the part of the
May 4, 1966

Brandon-Souris constituency which now is being removed by this rather drastic redistribution surgical process.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
As a matter of fact, at this very moment an important body is in the process of being organized, to be known as the Westman Development Corporation, which will draw together all towns and rural municipalities in this area to co-ordinate an effort to encourage the development and diversification of industry.
I am sure the commissioners, as dedicated to the task as they were, had no knowledge of these economic developments that are taking place in that area. They were given the power under section 13 of this act to take these important factors into consideration, but I do not believe they did to a sufficient extent.
Communication is obviously basic to any sense of community, and I point out again that the city of Brandon is the communications centre for this whole area. The Brandon Sun is the daily paper which is read by the citizens of this area. It is interesting to note that the one newspaper which raised the strongest protests about redistribution as it has been proposed by the commissioners was a weekly newspaper in this area, the Kil-larney Guide.
During the period when the commission travelled throughout the province hearing representations and suggestions about possible changes, the Killarney Guide published several editorials which indicated that the people of this area were not happy with the commission's contemplated changes.
The mass media of radio and television covering this area is also concentrated in the city of Brandon. The entire road pattern in the area is designed to bring southwestern Manitoba together. I cannot refer to rail transportation, because it has almost been eliminated, but the bus pattern is certainly designed with the idea that this area is a separate community.
At the present time there is an economic upsurge in southwestern Manitoba. New industry has been encouraged by the area development plan of this government to locate there. All these things are vital to the fundamental community concept. Next fall, for example, a $30 million fertilizer plant will be opened in Brandon which will have a dynamic impact throughout the whole area.
Redistribution
It is vital for the community progress of southwestern Manitoba that the present constituency boundaries be maintained and, to go one step further, be enlarged. This brings me to the crux of the matter so far as the problem raised by the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Simpson) is concerned. It is beyond understanding why the population base for the new constituency of Brandon-Souris has been reduced to 62,000. At the present time it stands at 69,000. This is the only other urban area in the province of Manitoba, aside from Winnipeg, which can serve as a counterbalance to one of our major demographic difficulties. That is, the concentration of one half of our population in one huge urban centre, the city of Winnipeg. Instead of recognizing this important sociological factor, and instead of recognizing that the Brandon-Souris area is another urban centre which is developing rapidly and which should be placed in a population category as an urban centre with broadened bounds, the commission has reduced the population to 62,000, only 4,000 greater than the population of the constituency of Churchill.
The constituency of Lisgar is strictly a rural constituency, but it will have a larger population than the riding of Brandon-Souris. That indicates that the powers given the commission under section 13 were not taken into consideration by the commissioners.
The population of the Brandon-Souris riding should be stabilized at 70,000 in view of the current economic development trends which I have outlined briefly. By the time another redistribution takes place, some five or six years hence, the population will have increased tremendously. In order to maintain a proper balance in population the Brandon-Souris constituency should include Killarney and Ninette, and the other areas to which I referred, and at the same time should retain the new area on the northern boundary. This will make it possible for the commissioners to come to grips with the dilemma presented by the huge geographic expanse of the constituency of Churchill. The constituency of Churchill should be given the maximum benefit of the 25 per cent tolerance. There is no logical reason why its population should be as large as the population of the Brandon-Souris riding.
I conclude as I commenced by saying the commission has done an excellent job within its terms of reference. I hope that by the time another redistribution takes place, it will be

May 4, 1966
Redistribution
possible for politicians who have intimate knowledge of the problems, to become directly involved in this process, obviating the necessity of absorbing the time of parliament in an attempt to deal with them in an indirect manner. If the officials of the House of Commons such as the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Official Opposition could, as was the original intention, assist in the function of redistribution, I believe this would be a big improvement on the provisions, of the act as they now exist.


Edward Richard Schreyer: Mr. Speaker, because the house will have to sit beyond the normal adjournment hour I will try to be brief. I begin by saying that I accept the premise that this parliament took a step forward toward electoral reform when it passed legislation at the last session setting up an independent Electoral Boundaries Commission. The work of that commission across Canada has been the subject of criticism. That is to be expected because the adjustment or redrawing of constituency boundaries is bound to cause some amount of dislocation in past patterns of thinking in respect of political organization. In past years whenever redistribution of a political nature was carried out by committees of this house, there was anguish and screams of protest to an even greater extent than has been evidenced in the house in the past three days.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
Therefore, while I endorse the concept and the legislation setting up these independent boundaries commissions, I had hoped the Electoral Boundaries Commission in Manitoba would have done a somewhat better job, at least in certain particulars. I wish to refer to some of these particulars with regard to which I feel the commission did not take into sufficient account what seem to me to be certain of the regional entities or patterns of trade, if you like, and so on.
It seems to me that the boundaries commission should have taken into greater account the following two factors, one of which has already been mentioned by the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Stefanson). This is that the interlake of Manitoba is and ought to be considered as a regional unit and, as was also said by the hon. member for Selkirk, in view of the fact that there is at present operating in the interlake an ARDA program covering most of this area, it is indeed unfortunate that this program will now come within the [Mr. Dinsdale.l
interest of two and possibly even three members of parliament. It would have been much better had the area been allowed to remain one constituency.
The second factor of which I had hoped the commission would take greater account is that the area of eastern Manitoba, that area lying east of the Red river and east of lake Winnipeg, should be regarded as comprising two rather distinct regions. One region east and north of the city of Winnipeg is made up of several rural, farming municipalities, the Whiteshell area and the Winnipeg river area, and the other area south and east of the city of Winnipeg centres on the town of Stein-bach. I hesitate to say too much in this regard, Mr. Speaker, because it might be said I was indulging in some political self-seeking, because it is a fact that the commission has deemed it necessary or desirable that both regions to which I have referred should be fused together into the political constituency of Provencher. Because of this recommendation of the commission, the constituency of Springfield, which I have the honour to represent at the present time, is the one constituency in the province of Manitoba that is slated to disappear not only in name but in fact.
I leave this point simply by saying that I would have hoped the commission would have seen fit to provide for the continued existence of both these constituencies, Provencher and Springfield, and if necessary in order to meet population quotas and the population tolerances laid down by the legislation, in my opinion it would have been possible for the commission to have brought the area of St. Boniface into the Provencher area, and Transcona into the Springfield area. It seems to me this would have satisfied the population requirement. However, Mr. Speaker, at this point I am under no illusion that the commission will see fit to make such a drastic rearrangement of the map which it has recommended to parliament.
With regard to the new constituency of Winnipeg-Selkirk I would point out that the boundaries of the constituency were further revised subsequent to the initial recommendations of the commission. As a result of the second revision, the proposed riding of Winnipeg-Selkirk, which will be a semiurban and semi-rural riding, will also be the most populous of all ridings in the province of Manitoba. It is to have a population, as I understand it, in excess of 86,000 people. It strikes me as strange that a semi-rural riding
May 4, 1966

should also have the largest population of all ridings in the province. If it is desirable, as I believe it is, to keep rural ridings within as reasonable a range of size as possible, then the commission should have arranged the boundaries so that the most populous riding would have been urban rather than semirural.
It is difficult to know whether at this stage the commission will be in a position to take cognizance of all the suggestions put forward by various speakers today, but I would hope, against hope, that the commission would still be able to rearrange these boundaries so as to leave the interlake and the area surrounding it as one unit politically, as it is one unit in other respects, and proceed from there to look at the possibility of leaving two constituencies in eastern Manitoba east of the Red river, so that the work of representing, serving and servicing the area of eastern Manitoba will be more manageable. I consider it will be a very difficult task for a member of parliament to represent the proposed constituency of Provencher, for example, inasmuch as it will extend for 400 miles from north to south and over 100 miles from east to west, and even the relatively densely populated parts of that constituency will comprise an area extending about 200 miles from the south to the northernmost part of the populated area of the riding.
In my opinion it would have made much more sense to have provided for two constituencies remaining in that part of the province. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I wish to mention the interest and work put into an analysis of the commission's recommendation by Mr. Armour MacKay who has already been mentioned today. He provided several members from Manitoba with copies of maps, summaries of population analyses, reports, etc. In my opinion this gentleman has a very intimate knowledge of the province of Manitoba, particularly of the rural parts of the province, and has an understanding of the regional divisions that make up our province. I think it is a pity that the commission was not able to make more use of some of the suggestions he advanced during the course of the hearings.
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)
I feel there is much more that I could say, Mr. Speaker, but in view of the time factor I will conclude now. Before doing so however I want to make one more point. If one has to choose between ridings that are partly urban and partly rural on the one hand and ridings that are exclusively rural on the other hand 23033-299
Redistribution
but which, because of that, are excessively large in size, I would opt for the former. I think that in these days a representative of the people should be qualified or should make himself qualified to represent people of both urban and rural occupational interests. It is really asking too much to expect members to represent rural constituencies that are thousands of square miles in area. It would be much better if urban areas were included in order to satisfy population requirements and thereby allowing for smaller constituency areas.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Everyone who has spoken has attempted to restrict his remarks because of the time of day and the nature of the debate. I will endeavour to do the same. I hope that this is not an exercise in futility. We realize we are not speaking to the House of Commons, but we are speaking to the three members of the commission for Manitoba, including the representation commissioner himself, who makes the fourth member. Our remarks are, of course, directed to these people.
I feel it is a rather odd situation into which we have got ourselves by way of the act that was passed by this parliament, and that this method has to be used in order to draw to the attention of the commission the objections that practising politicians may see. It is obvious from other things that have happened in the course of redistribution that the act should be amended, but I do not have the time to go into that matter at the moment.
I want to ask for your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, and that you turn a deaf ear for a minute and a half while I diverge from the exact point which is in front of us. I realize, as all do, that six years from now another redistribution will take place based on another census. I want to view with alarm for the benefit of the people in Manitoba and Saskatchewan the situation that has developed now and which will be worse in 1971. The point that I made on April 16, 1964, passed unnoticed, I think because there was certain other business in front of the public at that time. I want to make yet another attempt to emphasize this point and I realize you can only do this by repetition. I want to draw to the attention of the people of Manitoba and Saskatchewan the position into which they are being forced through redistribution, and which is going to get worse.
I want to repeat something I said on April 16, 1964, as found at page 2249 of Hansard. I

May 4, 1966
Redistribution
was talking about the discrepancy that was developing with regard to certain areas of our country. I was making an argument which I thought was very sound with regard to area representation in addition to representation by population. I do not know what effect it had. However, I went on to say this:
Here is a major discrepancy which I think we can avoid if we give serious attention to the bill before us and make a proper amendment. Under the census of 1961 the combined population of the four Atlantic provinces was given as 1,897,425.
Now under the distribution of seats to which they are entitled at the present moment they will have a combined total of 32 which gives them a quotient of 59,294. Set that against Manitoba and Saskatchewan. The combined population of those two prairie provinces is 1,846,867 according to the 1961 census-only 30,000 fewer than the population of the four Atlantic provinces. The seats to which they will be entitled under the redistribution now contemplated will be 26 and the quotient per constituency will be 71,033 which is, incidentally, higher than the quotient which has already been estimated for Canada as a whole. Here, with our eyes open, we are establishing a discrepancy between two very important areas of this country. I suggest we should guard against doing so, because why should the Atlantic provinces have 32 seats in this house while the prairie provinces of Manitoba and Saskatchewan with a population almost the same have only 26? Immediately one finds a variation of six seats as between two of the great areas of Canada. This situation is one which should be examined.
Then, as has been pointed out, we have a somewhat nebulous protection, which I think has been mentioned, for the provinces out there in the absence of a senatorial floor. So by 1971 it is conceivable that Manitoba and Saskatchewan representation could drop from 26 seats to 20 and that the Atlantic provinces would then have 31.
Instead of having a discrepancy of just six seats there will be a discrepancy of 11. That is only one instance where the act has to be reviewed and amended for the future in order that we may not get too far out of line between the various areas of our great country.


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


Gordon Minto Churchill: Yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Naturally I have followed with interest his point today, as I did a year ago, but may I put to him this question. Is it not the British North America Act which would have to be amended to meet this point, and might it not be worth his while to press for such an amendment fairly soon?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Yes, thank you; I should have said the British North America Act.

Manitoba members will perhaps join together, along with Saskatchewan members, to see that this is done.
I do not think it is necessary for any of us to say that we are in general agreement with the principle of independent commissioners. We said all that two years ago and are still of the same opinion. We objected then to the method. We objected to certain aspects of the bill. We had a good debate in April of 1964, and then later on in October and November, and we should have taken a little more time, but were under quite a bit of pressure in that year.
I respectfully draw to the attention of the commission that although they called the meetings in Manitoba for the month of September, and did so properly by advising us in the month of July that the meetings to hear representations would be held in September, it is rather odd that when the election was unexpectedly called in that month the commission did not deem it wise to postpone their hearings, especially in view of a matter as important as the redistribution of seats, which affects elections. In the midst of the election campaign in the month of September, I for one had no time to make representations to the commission; I had no time to study the problem and present a proper case, so I did not appear.
[DOT] (6:10 p.m.)
The commission held its hearings and then continued with its findings. If this occurs in another period when redistribution commissions are sitting, and an election is unexpectedly called, provision should be made for a postponement of those hearings so that people who are actively engaged in political matters might have their voice heard. Therefore, I regretfully raise that objection.
I notice in the commission report that they are careful to say that although certain maps were put before them by the representation commissioner, they found those helpful as a guide but did not use any of them, as suggested, in the preparation of the proposals of the commission. They were used as a guide, and it was a bad guide. I saw those maps in 1964, or earlier, for Winnipeg South Centre, the area I represent. I raised an immediate objection then because the representation commissioner with his staff had cut off one-third of that constituency. Everything had been worked out on a representation by population basis. I pointed out at that time that of all the constituencies in Canada I thought
May 4, 1966

Winnipeg South Centre was the one which met the quotient before the interesting exercise with regard to redistribution commenced. I said: "Why take a constituency which already meets the quotient? Why lop one third off it?" I saw that map in the early stages, yet, the commission map follows it very closely. Although they perhaps did not use the maps presented to them by the representation commissioner, they certainly used them as a guide. I raise that as another objection.
Representation by population was a theme of our debate in 1964; but we hedged it around with tolerances. We said: You do not have to go entirely on the basis of representation by population. You must make allowances for a community of interest, boundaries, rivers, lakes, and so on. Yet, the commission for Manitoba has got out a neat little summary, which I have here, showing the urban constituencies to be all about the same. They seem to show that they have been made on the basis of representation by population, which concept has been followed as closely as they could follow it. St. Boniface, Winnipeg North, Winnipeg North Centre, Winnipeg-Selkirk, Winnipeg South and Winnipeg South Centre are all in the neighbourhood of, say, 82,000. That looks very neat on paper. But, in order to achieve that, they had to carve up old, established constituencies.
Winnipeg South Centre was established in 1924, and for 42 years has managed to get along. Winnipeg South has a much longer history than that. I would have thought that the commission would have retained the central portion of these old established constituencies, and made their modifications out in suburban areas of the city where the growth has been very rapid. Why cut the central core out of a constituency that has been in existence for 40, 50 or 60 years? Why not start from the known and move to the unknown? I said that in April, 1964, as reported at page 2271 of Hansard. I entertained the fond hope then that the representation commissioner and the provincial commissions would read what was said in the debates in this house that year. I wondered why they did not weigh some of the factors that had been raised. They may have done that, but if they did, they have rejected them.
I am going to read what I said at page 2271 of Hansard, for April, 1964. I quote:
Perhaps there is another approach. I do not know what it is in the mind of the commissioner who is going to be the co-ordinator. I think the approach should be from the known to the related unknown; that is, to take the constituencies as 23033-2991
Redistribution
they are, you see how closely they come to the quotient that is set and you leave unchanged just as many as you can because of the historic association with so many of our constituencies. Then, you gradually work your way to the point where you approach the quotient for your province, but at the same time taking into account whatever tolerance is permitted. Of course, my view of that is that there should be a wide discretion in the hands of the commission.
That is the suggestion I made then, and I think it should have been applicable right across Canada: You retain the older portions of a constituency and make your modifications where new development has been going on. There was plenty of leeway allowed to the commission on the tolerance and on the increase in population following the 1961 census.
I have been told-and this is secondhand -that some of the commissions have ignored the steady increase in population since the 1961 census and have said: We are bound by the act, which tells us to go by the 1961 census. Well, we did not have time to write into the act all the modifications which, perhaps, we should have done. But when we were debating the issue, time and time again we raised the question: What about increases in population following the 1961 census? On page 2248 of Hansard hon. members will find that when I was talking about this matter I said:
This is a one-shot effort by the commissioner. We are not making provision for a review of the constituencies in two or three years time, yet all of us realize how quickly suburban developments can be put up in this country, and how quickly thousands of people will move into a certain area.
A first class example of this was given today by my hon. friend from Churchill (Mr. Simpson) who talked about Mystery Lake, now known as the city of Thompson, which the census showed as having a population of only a few thousand, though the population today is now in the region of 10,000. This should not be ignored by the commission.
After I had made the statement I have just quoted, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill), the member of the government who was piloting this bill through the house, had this to say:
Would the hon. gentleman permit a question? On June 1 each year the Dominion Bureau of Statistics publishes estimates of population. Does he think that a commission, in working out the tolerance, should take into account the growth which has taken place since 1961?
I replied:
I think that matter should be seriously considered bv the committee In view of the fact that the

May 4, 1966
Redistribution
findings will be made four years after the last census.
The Minister then commented:
I merely asked the question because that is what I thought the hon. gentleman was driving at, and I agree with it.
I underline-and I wish I could underline in Hansard-that last phrase "I agree with it". That, sir, was the government spokesman, speaking on behalf of the government of this country and agreeing with the proposition I was putting forward, that the commission should take account of increases in population subsequent to the 1961 census.
It does not appear to us that this has been done. Everyone who lives in a city knows those areas which are increasing rapidly in population. I am told that at the western end of the constituency of Winnipeg South Centre, bordering on St. James, Assiniboia had a population of 6,000 at the time of the last census, but that the figure is now rapidly approaching 20,000. Has the commission taken any account of this?
These are the questions which I think should be seriously considered by the commissions. We appreciate the difficulty of their work. We also appreciate the fact that what they do now may stand for two or three elections, possibly longer. For this reason their work should be done with the greatest of care. In addition, I believe close attention should be paid to what active, practising politicians have to say about this subject.
[DOT] (6:20 p.m.)
None of us here has been talking from a partisan point of view. Mercifully we have been saved from that. But we are thinking in terms of the people in the areas we represent, their community of interest, and the methods of communication with those areas. We are speaking on behalf of the people, the electors.
May I conclude by saying I do not think for one minute that it is necessary for the commission to come up in greater Winnipeg with five or six constituencies, all beautifully the same size, so that there is only a matter of a thousand population to divide one from the other. It has never been that way at election time. There has always been a variation, possibly 5,000 or 10,000. It does not matter so long as it does not get too great. All these years I have never heard any complaints in greater Winnipeg about that factor, although there has been a difference in the populations of the constituencies.
I do not see why the commission could not have applied a tolerance within the city in

order to make allowance for community of interest and old historical considerations. There could have been a tolerance of 5,000 to 10,000 with regard to population among the constituencies. Anyway we are going to have that discrepancy because the census of 1961, on which the commission relied, is out of date. One cannot control that situation. One cannot get constituencies that are exactly equal one to the other. I hope the commission will take another look at the city of Winnipeg and see if it cannot retain more clearly the old historical boundaries of its constituencies, and make provision, through alterations in population, for the increases which have to be applied to some of the constituencies.


Mr. L. R. Sherman (Winnipeg South):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to add my voice to those that have already been raised across the province of Manitoba, and indeed across this land, with unassailable justification, in protest against the new boundaries for our federal electoral divisions proposed by the Electoral Boundaries Commissions.
Naturally enough, my own particular dissatisfaction is with respect to the changes that have been proposed by the Manitoba commission for my own constituency, that of Winnipeg South, a historic constituency date dating back to the redistribution act of 1914, more than half a century ago, when it was created.
Under the proposals of the Electoral Boundaries Commission for Manitoba, if they are implemented, my constituency of Winnipeg South stands to lose upwards of 25,000 people in municipalities and neighbourhoods whose outlook has been the outlook of Winnipeg South ever since the area was settled, and whose federal political ties have been with Winnipeg South ever since their fathers and their grandfathers began to vote.
Under the proposals of the commission, links and ties of a half century's standing are to be severed in Winnipeg South, and not merely on the political level. The ties that will be cut, if the commission's recommendations are adopted, are ties of a cultural, social and economic nature, and they are ties that run like the intertwined roots of stately trees.
I have no hesitation in suggesting that in its proposals the boundaries commission has, in Winnipeg South, defied the logic of social homogeneity, regional compatability and community of interest, flouting in some cases natural geographic lines, flouting in others natural social and economic interests. In fact, the commission's revision of the boundaries
May 4, 1966

of Winnipeg South is nothing less than a dismemberment of a body social, and it is the type of dismemberment that invites one to describe it as a hatchet job. Moreover, it is the type of job that leads one to believe it was done for one purpose and one purpose only, that of slashing the total population of the constituency, and that as far as the commission is concerned that end justified whatever crude and clumsy means it was deemed practical to employ.
How else can one explain the proposal under which the city of St. Vital will be removed from Winnipeg South, and its cultural involvement with same, and stitched on to the predominantly French speaking constituency of St. Boniface? How else can one explain the removal of the town of Tuxedo out of its natural orbit with River Heights on the south side of the Assiniboine river, and the transportation of it across that river into the constituency of Winnipeg South Centre, in direct contravention of obvious lines of social and economic interest? And how else can one explain the operation that is perhaps the most illogical of them all-the amputation of the entire northwest corner of the district of River Heights from the rest of River Heights?
In this last violation the commission would cut away a whole corner of a homogeneous residential area of Winnipeg which, in its homogeneity, constitutes the Manitoba provincial constituency of River Heights, and declare that for federal purpose it must not be allowed to be whole. The commission then takes the corner which lies, as does all of River Heights, on the south side of the Assiniboine river, and with a devastating defiance of logic adds it on to a constituency on the north side of the river. It thus tears out a chunk of a specific established neighbourhood which, at the provincial political level, is recognized as one unified community, and buries it in a constituency on the other side of the river with which it shares no semblance of a neighbourhood tie.
Anyone with any passing knowledge of the greater Winnipeg area knows that the two rivers, the Red and the Assiniboine, play a vital role in the life of that metropolitan community, and that they constitute natural dividing lines between many of the different municipalities which make up the metropolitan Winnipeg area as a whole-the Red river running north and south, and the Assiniboine running east and west.
Redistribution
One does not need to be an expert in sociology and the rest of the social sciences to appreciate that a river can, and usually does, constitute a fairly considerable social border. Neighbourhoods in residential areas, both urban and rural, tend to unite in a community of interest with the neighbourhoods which share with them the same side of a natural dividing line, like a ravine, a range of hills, or a river. The natural flow of social interest generally is along the same side of that natural barrier, and not across it to a community on the other side.
This is the situation, generally speaking in metropolitan Winnipeg. Although all of us are Winnipegers and Manitobans, there is no denying that social and neighbourhood alliances have crystallized-and it is natural that they should-in relation to the respective sides of the respective rivers. It is the height of illogic and absurdity in metropolitan Winnipeg for the Electoral Boundaries Commission to ignore, in fact defy, those natural dividing lines, break up neighbourhoods and forcibly transfer parts of homogeneous residential areas from one side of a river to another, as they have done in the case of Tuxedo and part of River Heights in Winnipeg South.
Critics of my stand at this point will say that I cannot then justify the relation of St. Vital in Winnipeg South, because it is across the Red river from the remainder of Winnipeg South, and therefore properly belongs on the east side of the Red river where the commission has put it, with the city of St. Boniface. But here I submit that another consideration is operative; and that is the consideration of culture and language. St. Vital may be on the same side of the Red river as St. Boniface, but St. Vital is predominantly an English speaking city, and St. Boniface, French. Moreover, St. Vital lies in the southern ambit of metropolitan Winnipeg; its historic social affiliations are with Winnipeg South and its interests are the interests of Winnipeg, not St. Boniface.
For these reasons I have no hesitation in protesting most strenuously the proposals of the commission with respect to Winnipeg South and have no hesitation in appealing to that commission to re-examine its decision. As strongly as I can I would urge that in its re-examination the commission take cognizance of those social, cultural, economic and geographic ties that are being flouted in its present proposals, and flouted without regard for logic, reason, community of interest, or


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in this discussion for a few minutes I must say at the outset that I feel I do so with two strikes against me. In the first place, I have been such a strong advocate for many years of the principle of redistribution by an independent body, someone might say it is inconsistent with that position to make suggestions to an independent body once it has done its job. However, the legislation as we passed it in this House of Commons provides this opportunity for us to make

suggestions, if we wish to do so. I rise therefore to make just one suggestion.
The second strike against me, and I feel I had better put it on the record before someone else draws it to my attention, is this. The one small change which I should like to suggest involves an area which, over the years, has been voting overwhelmingly for the present member for Winnipeg North Centre, and it would seem, therefore, that I might have something less than complete objectivity regarding this area.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Never, Stanley.


Gordon Minto Churchill: We would be the last ones to suspect that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We are hearing interjections from members of this house, all of whom have protested their objectivity. I suppose that is why they are prepared to accord me the same degree of disinterest.
Before I reach the one point I wish to make I should like to pay my tribute to the work that has been done by the Manitoba commission. Indeed, I go back one step and say that I was pleased at the appointment of the members who make up that commission. It seems to me the positions they hold make this commission some kind of a model.
The chairman is Mr. Justice Guy of the court of appeal of Manitoba. The deputy chairman is Dr. Hugh Saunderson, president of the University of Manitoba, and the third member is Mr. Charland Prud'homme, clerk of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba and the deputy provincial secretary. The fourth member, of course, is the representation commissioner, Mr. Nelson Castonguay. I might point out that the first three are also members of the redistribution commission for the province of Manitoba, although Mr. Justice Guy has replaced one of the other judges of the court of appeal on that commission.
I believe these men did a good job, and I do not subscribe to the suggestions I have heard from some quarters that the first three were pushed around by Mr. Castonguay. That could hardly apply to Mr. Justice Guy, Dr. Saunderson or Mr. Prud'homme. I recognize the right of members to feel dissatisfied with some of the boundaries that have been drawn, and I think if I were drawing the map I could produce one which, to my satisfaction, might be better. But generally speaking, bearing in mind that they had to provide for the loss of one seat in Manitoba and had to take into account the representation by
May 1. 1966

population ideal, I think the commissioners did a pretty fair job. I believe they will pay attention to the points made in this debate, and when they have done this and brought back to us their final map, I am sure all of us from Manitoba will accept it as being one arrived at after the due processes that we provided in the legislation.
Now, Mr. Speaker, may I come to the one point I should like to make. As I say, I am hesitant to do so for the reasons that I gave, but I feel I must, out of loyalty to the people of the town of Brooklands. Let me put it this way. I realize, as others do, that I am speaking not to those who are in this "crowded" House of Commons, but rather to the members of the commission. The town of Brooklands, through its council, made an official presentation to the commission when it met in Winnipeg last September I would simply ask the commission to take another look at the point made by the town of Brooklands. The town to which I refer occupies one square mile. I hesitate to talk about one square mile after listening to the speeches of the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Forbes), and the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Simpson), and others who talked about many thousands of square miles. At any rate, this one square mile is right at the west end of the city of Winnipeg and adjoins a community known as Weston. It just so happens that the people of Brooklands and the people of Weston have interests which are very much together. They work in the same places, the C.P.R. Weston shops, Dominion Bridge and plants of that sort. Their interests are common. They attend the same churches. The fact that the legion in that area is known as the Brooklands and Weston branch of the Canadian Legion emphasizes the fact that it is an area of common interest.
This one square mile has been in a Winnipeg constituency from the beginning, as it were, and to take it out of that urban area, put it into the riding of Portage and make it part of a large rural riding in which it will become lost, is something that the town council of Brooklands felt it had a right to complain about. May I get over the difficulty that I felt about speaking in a way that might not seem objective by pointing out that the town council of Brooklands, when it made its representations to the commission did not say, "Leave us in Winnipeg North Centre." I wish they had and I should like them to stay in Winnipeg North Centre. The
Redistribution
town council said, "Leave Brooklands in an urban constituency." This square mile adjoins Winnipeg North, Winnipeg North Centre and Winnipeg South Centre. I have no hesitation in going all the way with the town council of Brooklands and saying, at it did, that it really does not matter, in terms of objectivity, which of these city ridings the town of Brooklands is put into. But I do agree with the town of Brooklands and its town council that it ought to be in one of these urban areas.
If perchance it is put into the riding of Winnipeg North Centre as newly drawn, that will of course add a population of about 4,000 or 4,500 to the proposed new Winnipeg North Centre. That is all that is involved, a population of between 4,000 and 5,000. At the moment Winnipeg North Centre has the largest population of any of the ridings in Winnipeg proper. The new Winnipeg-Selkirk would be larger, but Winnipeg North Centre has the largest population of any of the four ridings in Winnipeg itself.
[DOT] (6:40 p.m.)
I point out that the constituency of Winnipeg North Centre does not have land area in which growth is likely to take place, as is the case in Winnipeg North, Winnipeg South and Winnipeg South Centre. I suggest that if Winnipeg North Centre is made a little larger by putting Brooklands in it, this will be overcome probably at the next census. Then, instead of Winnipeg North Centre being the largest of the Winnipeg seats, it will probably be the smallest. I welcome the nodding of the head by my friend and next door neighbour, the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill).
However, if the commissioners do not wish to have that large a discrepancy in the city of Winnipeg, even for a short time, some other area could be taken out and put in Winnipeg South Centre, or perhaps there could be an adjustment in favour of Churchill. The commissioners are more aware of the adjustments that are possible than I am, and they can make easily the change if they accept the point-which of course I leave to them.


Gordon Minto Churchill: May I ask a question?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Certainly.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I ask the question in order to support the hon. member in the argument he is making. Does he agree with what I said earlier that, so far as the people of Winnipeg are concerned, they have not been unduly

May 4, 1966
Redistribution
alarmed over the fact that in years gone by, and at present, there has been a substantial discrepancy as between our constituencies, and would not be too much concerned if the constituency of Winnipeg North Centre were larger for the time being than the other constituencies?


Stanley Howard Knowles: In answer to the question, I may say I think that is true. There would not be great concern over a discrepancy a little wider than is now the case, or of the extent of which my friend and I have been speaking. In view of the fact that we in this house argued rather strongly in favour of representation as closely as possible to population, I do not think any discrepancy should be large. However, the kind of discrepancy about which the hon. member and I are talking is not a very large one.
I wondered when my friend got up whether he was going to refer to some of the areas that we have been trading back and forth. There is one little triangular area that used to be in Winnipeg North Centre, and when it was I carried it handily. It was moved into Winnipeg South Centre some years ago, and to my surprise my friend carried it handily. Now, I am to get it back and I just hope the plate will again be reversed.
There is no point in carrying on this discussion any farther. I hope I have overcome, as I say, the charge that I might be personally concerned in this by supporting the proposition the town council of Brooklands made to the commissioners, that the commissioners consider putting that square mile, not into a far-flung rural riding where the people feel they would be lost, but rather into one of the city ridings to which it is adjacent. I join with those who have already spoken in the tribute that has been paid to the work done by the Manitoba commissioners. I hope when the Manitoba map comes back, what is already a good map might be just a little better.


Mr. W. H. Jorgenson (Provencher):: I certainly do not want to impose on the generosity of the house to any extent, nor do I want to cover the territory that has been covered by many members who have spoken before me. I simply want to add my voice to the protests that have already been made. So far as the riding of Provencher is concerned, it is going to take a great deal more than even the clumsy effort of the commission to destroy the historic name and riding of Provencher. This was the earliest riding in the province of

Manitoba and was first represented, although the representative did not sit in this house, by the very famous Canadian, Louis Riel. His name does appear on the scroll in the Clerk's chamber, even though he was not able to take his seat in the House of Commons.
I should like to sum up my remarks very briefly by saying that, so far as redistribution is concerned, I would much rather be carved up very cleanly and deliberately by a political opponent who knew what he was doing, and I knew what he was doing, than the clumsy, hacking to death that has taken place at the hands of this commission. I do hope they will listen to some of the representations that have been made by members from Manitoba and other parts of the country, and take into consideration some of the cultural, economic and communication lines that exist within the various areas. We think a much better job can be done and we hope that they will attempt to give consideration to the arguments that have been put forward today.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does this complete discussion on the redistribution of seats in Manitoba?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The house having considered this objection it will be the duty of Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 20 of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, to refer the report of the boundaries commission, together with a copy of the objection and also a copy of the debates of this house, back to the commission for reconsideration thereof.
On Wednesday, April 27, when the house was discussing redistribution, two objections were brought up for the proposed electoral district of Dorchester and the proposed electoral district of Temiscouata. At that time it was agreed that these two objections should stand and be taken when all other objections had been completed.
The house will now consider objection No. 19, the text of which is to be found at page 34 of the pamphlet.
On February 17 last a notice of objection in the form of a motion was filed with Mr. Speaker in the following terms, namely:
Proposed Electoral District oj Dorchester:
That, pursuant to section 20 of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act (Chapter 31, Statutes of Canada 1964-65), consideration be given by this House to the matter of an objection to the provisions of the Report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission for the Province of Quebec, laid before this
May 4, 196S

House by Mr. Speaker on Wednesday, January 19, 1966, for the reasons hereinafter specified:
I wish to suggest the following changes to the new distribution of federal counties: That the following parishes be included in the county of Dorchester, totalling a population of 53,559: Saint-Anges, Ste-Aurelie, St-Zacharie, Louis-Joliet, St-Anselme, St-Benjamin, St-Bernard, Ste-Claire, St-Cyprien, St-Edouard de Frampton, Ste-Germaine, Ste-Henedine, St-Isidore, Ste-Justine, St-Leon de Standon, St-Louis, St-Malachie, Ste-Marguerite, St-Maxime, St-Nazaire, St-Odilon, St-Prosper, Ste-Rose, Taschereau-Fortier, Lac Etchemin, St-Anselme, St-Bernard, St-Isidore, Francoeur, St-Agapit, Ste-Agathe, St-Patrice, St-Sylvestre, St-Apollinaire, St-Gilles, St-Narcisse, St-Henri, St-Luc.


Mr. Ian Waison (Chaleauguay-Hunl-ingdon-Laprairie):: Mr. Speaker, the member for Dorchester (Mr. Cote), who was taken ill this afternoon, asked me to inform the house of his objection to the boundaries proposed for the constituency of Dorchester. Unfortunately, I was prevented from doing so until now.

I do not think, Mr. Speaker, there will be any further comment on the objection for Dorchester, but what happened in the case of Temiscouata and Dorchester last Wednesday afternoon was that a number of members with objections were outside the house. I was in my office and was telephoned by the party whip in connection with my specific objection at approximately five minutes to five. I gathered my papers together, came over to the house, but by the time I arrived I was too late; the house had moved from the province of Quebec to another province.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I can have the consent of the house to place on record a few comments on the subject of my specific objection, which relates to the proposed districts of Beauharnois, Chambly, Laprairie, Longueuil and Saint-Jean which was filed with Mr. Speaker on February 18, 1966. 1 realize that I am asking a favour of the house but I will not take any more than about three minutes.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[DOT] (6:50 p.m.)


Mr. Watson (Chaleauguay-Huniingdon-Laprairie):: For the record, Mr. Speaker, I should like the commissioners, when they read the comments of the members from each of the provinces who have taken part in this debate, to take cognizance of the objections which were made by ten members of parliament, including three of the members of
Redistribution
parliament concerned in the five counties mentioned in this objection, namely the hon. member for Chateguay-Huntingdon-Laprairie, the hon. member for Beauhar-nois-Salaberry (Mr. Laniel) and the hon. member for Saint-Jean-Iberville-Napierville (Mr. Beaulieu). At least three members signed the objection, and I think I can state, Mr. Speaker, that a fourth, had he not been a member of the Privy Council, would also have signed the objection. In this area, the people of St. Lambert through their town council objected to the commission's plan. The peoples of Chateauguay; that is of Chateauguay Centre and of Chateauguay Heights, through their town councils, properly made clear their objections before the commission, which held public hearings. Also, approximately 20 municipalities in the present constituency of Chateauguay-Hunting-don-Laprairie made clear their objections to the electoral divisions proposed by the commission. Of the 20 municipalities that objected, approximately 15 did so correctly from the legal point of view, and appeared before the commission at its public hearings in Montreal, after having given proper notice. I would simply ask the commissioners when they are reconsidering, as I hope they will, all objections placed before them, that they read carefully this objection which deals with the five constituencies between the United States border, the St. Lawrence river and Richelieu.
The alternative plan as presented by the various municipalities at the public hearings last September has been revised somewhat in this objection. Nevertheless, I submit that the objection as suggested contains an alternative to the commission's plan which is more realistic, and which sticks closer to the population norm required for the province than the proposal. The most important feature of the objection is that if adopted it assures the population of this entire area of a more democratic and more equitable representation in this federal parliament.
When I went into the general objection, which was placed before Mr. Speaker on February 18, I talked of some of the general reasons for the necessity of the commission's taking into account community of interest factors, and so on. There is no need for me to go over this again tonight. I think if the commissioners read through copies of Hansard for the last six days, if they study them as parliament most certainly expects

May 4, 1966
Redistribution
them to, if they study each of the objections taken before them, take those into consideration, and act upon them, we shall be satisfied.
I am not sure that this is the point at which to raise this particular matter, but on Friday last I brought forth a motion, seconded by the hon. member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Winkler), in which we asked the commissioners to reconsider the reports and the objections legally made to the respective commissions in the light of section 13(c) subsections 1 and 2 of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act. Last Friday I withdrew the motion made at the end of the proceedings because there was some doubt whether there was unanimity of permission to introduce it on the order paper. I then gave notice of motion under private members' notices of motions and members of the House of Commons have had three days notice thereof.
I should like to state for the benefit of the commissioners that in speaking with members of all parties of the house about this motion I found, with one exception, a complete unanimity of opinion on the motion.


Mr. Barnett:: Would the hon. member permit a question? I should like to ask him this: With how many members of the house did he discuss this matter?


Lawrence E. Watson: I spoke with a representative of each party in the house. As to the number of members, perhaps it was no more than 15 to 20. But I spoke to the house leaders of each of the parties and I received an indication from them that this motion would not be objected to. On this basis I assumed they represented something near unanimity of opinion in the house on this motion.
I should like to read the wording of this motion.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I should like to point out to the hon. member that there is already before the house a notice of an objection in the form of a motion. Maybe in a few minutes the hon. member will find a more appropriate occasion on which to continue.
Does this complete the discussion on the proposed electoral district of Dorchester?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The house having considered this objection it would be the duty of Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 20 of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, to [Mr. Watson (ChSteauguay-Huntingdon-Laprairie) .1
refer the report of the Boundaries Commission together with a copy of objection and also a copy of the debates of the house back to the commission for consideration thereof.
The house will now proceed to objection no. 20, text to be found on page 35 of the pamphlet. On February 17, last, a notice of objection in the form of a motion was filed with Mr. Speaker in the following terms:
Proposed Electoral District of Temiscouata:
That, pursuant to section 20 of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act (Chapter 31, Statutes of Canada, 1964-65), consideration be given by this House to the matter of an objection to the provisions of the Report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission for the Province of Quebec, laid before this House by Mr. Speaker on Wednesday, January 19, 1966, for the reasons hereinafter specified:
1.	That the following municipalities which share the same social and economic interests be part of the constituency of Riviere-du-Loup-Temiscouata:
Temiscouata:	Saint Joseph-de-la-Riviere-Bleue,
(village) Saint Benoit-Abbe, Saint Eusebe, Saint Joseph-de-la-Riviere-Bleue (municipality), Saint Marc-du-Lae-Long, Saint Pierre d'Estcourt, Saint Elzear and Saint Jean-de-la-Lande (Saint David d'Estcourt); part of the townships of Botsford, Cabano and Packington being without any local municipal organization.
Riviere-du-Loup:	Notre-Dame-du-Portage and
Saint Antonin.
2.	That, for historical and geographical reasons the designation of Riviere-du-Loup-Temiscouata be retained.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Can the Chair assume that consideration of this objection has been completed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The house having considered this objection, it will be the duty of Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 20 of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, to refer the report of the boundaries commission together with a copy of objection and also a copy of the debates of the house back to the commission for consideration thereof.
This completes the objections on the electoral boundaries.
Mr. Watson (Chaleauguay-Huniingdon-
Laprairie):	As I mentioned a few moments ago, last Friday I placed on the order paper a motion under the heading Private Members' Notices of Motions for discussion on Wednesday of this week, expecting we would be having a private members' hour today.
The motion is worded as follows:
That, in the opinion of this house, the representation commissioner and the members of the commissions in each of the several provinces, while they are reconsidering the reports and noting the
May 4. 1966

objections made in the house should further consider all objections legally made to the respective commissions in the light of section 13 (c) (1) and (ii) of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act (13 Eliz. II, Cap. 31).
[DOT] (7:00 p.m.)
The purpose of my putting this notice of motion on the order paper was simply to impress upon the commissioners the feeling of the house that, in their deliberations, they should take into account the population growth factors and the community of interest factors which are a feature of section 13(c)(i) and (ii).
As I said when I spoke on the general objection last week, the reason the house incorporated this section into the act was to give the commissioners the right to look into these absolutely essential factors, if an equitable redistribution were to be the result of their investigations and hearings. By accepting this motion I feel the house would underline its understanding of section 13, and underline its feeling that the commissioners, when going over the objections as they are legally obliged to do, should give further consideration to them in the light of section 13.
I realize that to move this motion this afternoon would require unanimous consent, and if hon. members are prepared to indicate unanimous consent I shall move it. Otherwise, I feel we should simply allow my words to stand on the record as an indication of what I know is an almost unanimous opinion in the house. Could I have an indication that such a motion would be unanimously supported?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order please. I think the hon. member should recognize that when discussion was going on regarding the objections to redistribution, hon. members did make some reference to the fact that they were talking to the commissions. The Chair at this time is not prepared to ask for unanimous consent.


Mr. Winkler:: Mr. Speaker, as the seconder of the motion I would respectfully request that you place the question before the house and see if a determination might be made.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: To avoid any further consideration by Your Honour of any question of order, so far as I am concerned I cannot see that, since it is six minutes after seven o'clock, it would be appropriate to give
Canadian Livestock Feed Board unanimous consent to revert to private members' hour and have an hour's discussion on this motion even though, again so far as I am concerned, I would have no objection to giving unanimous consent to placing the motion on the top of the order paper.
In view of the latitude allowed in respect of certain earlier remarks on this question, perhaps I might be permitted to add that I feel certain, if the motion as proposed were to come up for discussion and proper debate, there would not be anything like unanimous consent to its passage.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There is no unanimous consent.


Eric Alfred Winkler: A very regrettable state of affairs.


CANADIAN LIVESTOCK FEED BOARD
George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, before indicating
the business of the house for tomorrow, I should like to ask the house to deal with item No. 48 on the order paper, which is a resolution asking for leave to introduce a measure to establish a corporation to be known as the Canadian Livestock Feed Board. Due to inadvertence the resolution lacks one phrase which we now are advised should be in it, if it is to be effective to proceed to a bill.
I therefore wish to ask that this order be discharged and replaced by a new order, which His Excellency has recommended for the consideration of the house. Perhaps I should add, before asking for consent, that the new order is in identical language except that it adds at the end thereof the words "plus any amount advanced to the board as authorized by the governor in council pursuant to the said measure".
If I have unanimous consent, Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the present item No. 48 be withdrawn and the new item substituted therefor.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Due to the fact that the house agreed to sit after six o'clock for a certain purpose, I wonder whether I might ask the hon. Minister of Public Works whether it might be convenient for him to move his motion and ask for unanimous consent tomorrow.


George James McIlraith: Yes, Mr. Speaker; I would be glad to do that, because now notice will appear in Hansard of what is proposed.

May 4, 1966
Business of the House BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE Mr. Mcllrailh: I should like now to announce the business of the house for tomorrow. Tomorrow we propose to call item No. 54 on today's order paper, second reading of a bill to amend an act to amend the Combines Investigation Act and the Criminal Code; then item No. 4 on today's order paper, second reading of a bill to amend the Research Council Act; then item No. 3 on today's order paper, a resolution asking that the Houses of Parliament do approve the
agreement concerning automotive products between the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States of America; then item No. 7, house in committee of the whole on a bill to amend the Bretton Woods Agreements Act. Then we would proceed with the estimates of the Department of National Revenue and the Department of Labour. That would be the business for tomorrow and Friday.


[Stage Direction]
It being eleven minutes after seven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, May 5, 1966