1966-04-27

Mr. J. Russell Keays (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege concerning a statement made in the house by the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Bechard). I am sorry I did not get the opportunity to do it sooner. As reported on page 4155 of Hansard for April 22, 1966, the hon. member for Bonaventure said:
In the same connection, I was here last night to answer a question and the one who raised it was not. This has happened on two occasions in the case of the member for Gaspe (Mr. Keays).
Mr. Speaker, that statement is inaccurate; instead of "on two occasions" one should read "on one occasion".
I would be very happy if the hon. member for Bonaventure would be kind enough to make the necessary correction.


Mr. Albert Bechard (Bonaventure):: Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to say that I followed in that matter the line of thought of the hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Keays) who said on two occasions: I want to discuss that question here tonight. All the members concerned were here that night to answer but he was not here himself.


James Russell Keays: Mr. Speaker, in any case, the fact is that the question was called only once.


Mr. Speaker:: I hope that the hon. members will come to an agreement about whether it was on one or two occasions.
CEnglish1



PUBLIC ACCOUNTS


[Stage Direction]
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South) presented the first and second reports of the standing committee on public accounts.
[Note: Text of the foregoing reports appears in today's Votes and Proceedings.]
Mr. Hales:: Mr. Speaker, with the consent of the house I move that the first report of the standing committee on public accounts presented this day be now concurred in.


Mr. Gregoire:: Mr. Speaker, before you read the motion we wish to make our opposition clear. We do not want to agree to the report being passed immediately, because on this side we would prefer to have a debate on it.
lEnglish']


Mr. Speaker:: If there is not unanimous consent the motion cannot be put.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Mr. Speaker, with the consent of the house I move that the second report of the standing committee on public accounts presented this day be concurred in.


Mr. Caron:: I object, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I understand there is not unanimous consent that the second motion may be moved.


Mr. Starr:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wish to ask whether the motions presented by the hon. member for Wellington South a moment ago regarding the reports of the public accounts committee are debatable.


Mr. Speaker:: The motions cannot be put without unanimous consent and, therefore, cannot be debated because they are not before the house.


Mr. Lambert:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to suggest that perhaps argument can be submitted as to why the motion should not now be put, and on the objections that are being raised. I should also like to ask whether the hon. members who are objecting were in attendance at the committee meetings.

If you were here, you could attend the sittings of the committee.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, the reason why I did not attend the sitting of the public accounts committee is that I am not on it, but I object to concurrence in this report without previous discussion, because I do not give my
April 27, 1966

Public Accounts Committee consent to a reduction of the quorum of committees. Committees are appointed with 25 members and a quorum of 13, and we believe that the quorum should not be reduced.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Then attend the sittings.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Unanimous consent must be obtained in order to present the motion, and there can be no debate because there is nothing now before the house.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. Speaking as a private member of this house, I believe there are individuals here who continually stymie the work of parliamentary committees.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Michael Starr: I cannot understand why, after asking for positions on these committees, when a committee report is presented for concurrence these members object to the suggestion that these committees sit while the house is sitting. As a private member of parliament I feel that the work of these committees should be carried out and that they should have the right to sit while the house is sitting. Any members who are not willing to do their work should get off the committees and be replaced by those who are willing to share the work.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Speaker, I protest what has just been said by the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Starr). We have rules and I always objected, in opposition, to the committees sitting while the house is in session. I have nothing against a committee sitting when there is a special reason, but I do not intend to give full powers, and I shall refuse to do so until the end of time.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Basford:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the question of privilege. I have only one question to ask of the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Caron). How many committees is he on, and how often have they met?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Alexis Pierre Caron: That is an unfair question.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. A few minutes ago the Chair expressed the opinion that there was nothing before the house and there should be no discussion, but we have managed to have one in any event. I suggest there is really no prima facie case of privilege, and I invite hon. members to continue to the next item of business.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege, which is quite genuine. The hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Starr) has accused those who objected to passing this report immediately with wanting to keep the other members of the house from doing their work.
I feel that accusation warrants a question of privilege. I must say to the hon. member for Ontario that we do not want to keep anyone from doing his duty; on the contrary, we want the work done well. Now, the work will be done well provided the majority of the committee members attend the meetings. That is not done by reducing the quorum. We are opposed to reducing the quorum and to having the committees sit while the house is sitting, unless exceptional circumstances warrant it. In my opinion, that is not preventing the members of the house from doing their work.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Set the example.



REDISTRIBUTION


Mr. J. B. Stewart (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I have been asked, in the absence of the government house leader, to report on the results of a house leaders' meeting which was held this morning. This meeting considered the objections filed with Mr. Speaker pursuant to the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act. The house leaders have agreed:
1.	That the standing orders providing for private members' hour be suspended while the motions for consideration of objections to reports by electoral boundaries commissions are before the house.
April 27. 1966

Parole Act
2.	That the motions for consideration of objections be taken up after the orders of the day have been called.
3.	That for Wednesday, April 27, the motions relating to individual constituencies in Quebec, but not the two motions proposing general changes, be taken first and be followed by the motions relating to the reports on Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, in that order.
4.	That subject to paragraph 3 all motions pertaining to the report on redistribution in a province be considered by the house at the same time.
I should like to ask that this agreement be made an order of the house.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that the suggestions made by the parliamentary secretary be made an order of the house?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It is so ordered.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)



PAROLE ACT


Mr. Auguste Choquette (Lotbiniere) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-172, to amend the Parole Act (Power to Commute a Sentence of Death).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, this bill is not any more controversial than the one I introduced on Monday. It is corollary to the one agreed to and read the first time on Monday. If Mr. Wagner has decided to renew proceedings in the cases of Marcotte and Dion, he is wasting his time, because he will not be able to send them to the gallows.
The object of this bill is to hand over to the judicial power what should, in my humble opinion, be under its jurisdiction, and not under the executive power. According to the provisions of the bill, the Court of Appeal alone could approve a commutation of a death sentence. The board would act only on the recommendation of the Court of Appeal.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[English1
Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house that the hon. member shall have leave to introduce the said bill?


An hon. Member:: No.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker:: Mr. Choquette moves that the bill be read a first time.


Mr. Prosper Boulanger (Mercier):: On a
point of order, Mr. Speaker, since the member for Lotbiniere seemed to rush through his explanation, especially when he referred to Mr. Wagner, I am not sure of the words which will appear in Hansard and I know they will be rather worthwhile. Therefore, with your permission I should like my colleague to repeat his remarks so that they will be quite clear.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The words spoken have been heard and will be duly reported in the official report.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. The gratuitous observations of this gentleman cannot pass unchallenged. It is very interesting that he now backs away from the position he previously took, and has no trust in his own administration or the cabinet of this country.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. There is obviously no question of privilege here.


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: I must ask the hon. member to kindly resume his seat.


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I thank the Leader of the Opposition for not attempting to introduce the-


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: You idiot.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Lotbiniere will no doubt let the Chair make a ruling first regarding the question of privilege which he raised. I must tell him that there is no question of privilege and that the matter may not be debated any further.

April 27, 1966
Questions


Auguste Choquette: The Leader of the Opposition, in spite of the rules of the house, has imputed motives to a member-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Is the Leader of the Opposition rising on a new question of privilege or point of order?


John George Diefenbaker: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I must say that what the hon. gentleman has said was enveloped in noise and one was not able to understand his remarks. However, I am sure that when they appear in Hansard they will be equally incoherent.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Pearson:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I could ask Your Honour to intervene to bring this contest between these two parliamentary giants to an end.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, in view of what the Prime Minister has said, I suggest it would take someone much bigger than he.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. Irvine: 1.	Were ten pages of advertising inserted by any department or branch of the government in the Toronto Daily Star on or about June 15, 1965, regarding "proposed federal electoral districts"?
2.	If so, what was the cost of such insertion?
3.	How many other papers weekly and daily were used in this program?
4.	What was the total lineage?
5.	What was the total cost for this entire program?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Secretary of State):: As was stated in reply to question No. 148 on February 2, 1966, pages 585-6 of Hansard. the commissions set up under the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act do not report to the government so that the government does not have records giving the information sought in this question. Under section 10 of the act the commissions are not agencies of Her Majesty. Reports of the commissions are made directly to the House of Commons.


ALBERTA ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES COMMISSION
Mr. Lamberl: 1.	In what places did the Electoral Boundaries commission for Alberta hold public hearings?
2.	On what date and at what hour was each such hearing held?
3.	What members of the commission attended each such hearing?
4.	What staff of the commission attended each such hearing?
5.	Was any transcript taken of the proceedings of each such hearing and, if not, what precisely was the nature of the record made of the proceedings at each such meeting and by whom was it made?
6.	By what method were members of the commission who absented themselves from any of such hearings informed of the nature of the representations made by persons appearing before the commission?
Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Secretary of State) t
As was stated in reply to question No. 148 on February 2, 1966, page 585-6 of Hansard, the commissions set up under the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act do not report to the government so that the government does not have records giving the information sought in this question. Under section 10 of the act the commissions are not agencies of Her Majesty. Reports of the commissions are-made directly to the House of Commons.


REASONS FOR ELECTORAL BOUNDARY CHANGES, ALBERTA
Mr. Lambert: Were any reasons for the changes made in the electoral boundaries of the federal constituencies of the province of Alberta compiled in either detailed form or in resume and, if so, are these available for consideration by members of the House of Commons and the public?
Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Secretary of State)?
As was stated in reply to question No. 148 on February 2, 1966, pages 585-6 of Hansard, the commissions set up under the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act do not report to the government so that the government does not have records giving the information sought in this question. Under section 10 of the act the commissions are not agencies of Her Majesty. Reports of the commissions are made directly to the House of Commons.


VICTOR SPENCER-COST OF SURVEILLANCE
Mr. Mather: What, in dollars, is the monthly cost of surveillance as applied to George Victor Spencer?


Hon. L. T. Pennell (Solicitor General):: It
is not deemed in the public interest to disclose amounts spent in security and intelligence matters.
April 27, 1966


LAND PRICES
Mr, Jorgenson: In each of the years from 1950 to 1965, what has been the average price of land in each of the following areas (a) B.C. (b) the prairies (c) Ontario (d) Quebec (e) Atlantic provinces?


Hon. Robert Winters (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: The attached table sets forth estimates of the value per acre of farm land by provinces for the years 1950 to 1965 inclusive. These values are collected each December by means of a mail questionnaire
Questions
survey of about 25,000 farmers situated all across Canada. About 60 per cent of these farmers reply to the following question: "What is the average sales value per acre of occupied farm land in your district? Include value of buildings in your calculations". Since the averages derived from these surveys tend to be above census levels, it is assumed that our respondents are better than average farmers. Consequently, the value of this series is as an indicator of change rather than as a measure of absolute level.
Average values per acre of occupied farm land in Canada
Year	P.E.I.	N.S.	N.B.	Que.	Ont.	Man.	Sask.	Alta.	B.C.1950	55	52	51	66	75	39	26	35	871951	60	55	52	74	90	42	28	37	921952	61	54	51	76	92	43	29	37	931953	61	54	54	77	98	49	30	43	991954	59	54	52	81	101	45	29	41	1021955	59	56	54	82	107	46	31	42	1071956	61	59	56	86	111	48	32	43	1091957	61	59	57	86	115	47	32	43	1151958	64	64	60	89	123	49	33	46	1201959	67	70	63	92	133	48	34	47	1291960	67	69	62	95	132	52	36	50	1331961	67	73	66	98	141	54	37	51	1351962	70	71	63	97	147	55	40	54	1381963	71	71	62	100	150	59	47	59	1401964	73	74	65	104	163	66	55	66	1451965	75	77	68	111	175	75	66	76	160


MOTOR VEHICLE PURCHASES
Mr. Harley: How many motor vehicles were purchased by the federal government in each of the past five years?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: The departments have given me the following information:
1961	1962	1963	1964	19651639	1761	1683	2132	2478


R.C.M.P. SURVEILLANCE
Mr. Mather: How many persons are under surveillance by the R.C.M.P. in Canada?


Lawrence T. Pennell: It
is not possible to state how many, if any, persons are under surveillance at any particular time. Surveillance is an ordinary police procedure which may be applied for a variety of reasons over varying periods of time.


CANADIAN EMPLOYEES OF INTERNATIONAL AGENCIES
Mr. Harley: 1.	To the knowledge of the government, how many Canadians are employed full time as direct employees of the various international agencies to which Canada is a contributing member such as NATO and SHAPRE and the various agencies of the United Nations such as the world health organization and the food and agriculture organization?
2.	What are the total number of employees of the above international bodies?
3.	Is a break-down available showing country of origin of all of the above employees?
4.	What is the total budget of the bodies listed in answer to part 1 above?
5.	In regard to part 4 above, what proportion of this budget is contributed by Canada for each of the bodies mentioned in part 1?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Stale for External Affairs: The answers to the above questions appear in the following table.
4372	COMMONS	DEBATES	April 27, 1966Questions	(1) Number of Canadians	(2) Total number	(3) Existence of breakdown by	(4) Total budget 1965	(5) Canadian contributionOrganization	employed	employed1 nationality	(US $)	%United Nations	197	8,934	*	99,757,520	3.17International Labour Organization	33	1,900	t	19,304,347	3.36World Health Organization	60	2,965	t	39,507,000	2.83International Telecommunication Union	3	406	t	4,952,894	3.26World Meteorological Organization	3	131	t	1,768,745	2.63Inter-governmental Maritime Consultative Organization	0	64	*	828,500	1.60International Atomic Energy Agency	15	603	t	7,938,000	2.87UNESCO	17	2,636	t	23,896,058	2.98International Civil Aviation Organization	240	532	t	6,429,671	4,51International Monetary Fund2	40	743	t	N/A	N/AInternational Bank2 International Development	1 >	81	1,214	t	N/A	N/AAssociation International Finance Corporation	J	9	154	t	N/A	N/AUniversal Postal Union	1	64	t	1,221,181	2.69Food and Agriculture Organization	91	4,209	*	20,797,588	4.15NATO3	7	922	*	9,829,572	5. 8
* = Yes.
t - Not published.
1	The figures cited above have been supplied by the organizations concerned and include all ranks. At the junior staff levels, particularly in the stenographic and clerical grades, a relatively large number of the employees are nationals of the country in which the relevant organizations maintain their headquarters and principal offices.
2	Canada has paid in full its subscription to the IMF, IBRD and IFC, and was not required, therefore, to make payments in 1965. As to IDA, of the commitment of $15,027,012 which represents the first instalment of Canada's supplementary contribution to IDA resources, $13,274,518 was drawn during 1965. A further sum of $2.5 million was drawn in January 1966.
3	SHAPE is an international military headquarters to which member governments assign personnel, generally from their armed forces, for tours of duty. Most of its staff are thus not employed in the same way that the above organizations employ their personnel.


EMPLOYMENT OF CONSTRUCTION FIRMS
Mr. Lind: 1.	How many times from June 30, 1963, until the present has the Department of Public Works (Ottawa branch and National Capital Commission) employed the services of the following firms (a) Pillar Construction Ltd., Ottawa (b) J. P. Statham Construction Ltd., Ottawa (c) Lanctot Construction Company, Ottawa (d) Beaver Construction Ltd., Montreal?

2.	In each case, what was the amount of their original tender on each contract?
3.	In each case, what was the final payment on each contract including all extras?


Hon. G. J. Mcllraith (Minister of Public Works):: 1. All contracts awarded since June 30, 1963 and completed prior to March 17, 1966:
April 27, 1966	COMMONS DEBATES	4373
Questions
Firm	N.C.C.	D.P.W.(a)	Pillar Construction Ltd., Ottawa	2	3(b)	J. R. Statham Construction Ltd., Ottawa	32	8(c)	Lanctot Construction Ltd., Ottawa	2	17(d)	Beaver Construction Ltd., Montreal	2	2
2 and 3. In each case the original tender extras on each contract is listed below: price and the final payment including all
Firm
(a)	Pillar Construction Ltd., Ottawa
(b)	J. R. Statham Construction Ltd., Ottawa
National Capital Department of Public Commission	Works
	Final		Final
	payment		payment
Original	including	Original	includingtender	extras	tender	extras$ 55,051.00 $ 57,105.00	$70,607.00 $ 73,385.43	413,257.00	in progress	92,300.00	138,042.257,997.00	7,985.7510,024.00	10,666.61	13,490.00	14,364.832,645.00	2,645.00	7,390.00	7,390.00295.00	295.00	8,909.00	8,030.00228.00	228.00	12,490.00	12,825.15335.00	335.00	6,000.00	6,250.00379.00	379.00	27,790.00	32,164.20271.00	271.00	9,490.00	11,679.00638.00	638.00	6,890.00	7,086.00356.00	356.00	810.00	810.00	779.00	779.00	1,179.00	1,179.00	2,695.55	2,695.55	634.00	634.00	2,319.00	2,319.00	2,319.00	2,457.00	970.00	970.00	308.00	308.00	145.00	145.00	498.00	498.00	363.00	363.00	325.00	325.00	250.00	250.00	250.00	250.00	309.00	309.00	450.00	450.00	271.00	271.00	810.00	810.00	203.00	203.00	11,000.00	in progress	12,890.00	in progress	12,389.00	in progress	4374	COMMONS
Questions
Firm- ( continued)
(c) Lanctot Construction Ltd., Ottawa
(d) Beaver Construction Ltd., Montreal


IMMIGRATION FROM WEST INDIES
Mr. Dinsdale: 1.	In what countries of the West Indies does Canada have immigration offices?
2.	How many applications from intending immigrants to Canada have been received from each country of the West Indies each year since 1960?
3.	How many immigrants have been admitted to Canada from each country of the West Indies each year since 1960?
DEBATES		April 27, 1966	
National Capital		Department of Public	
Commission		Works	
	Final		Final
	payment		payment
Original	including	Original	includingtender	extras	tender	extras66,214.00	72,217.90	22,736.00	25,092.209,735.00	9,735.00	88,023.00	93,266.4830,800.00	35,043.3510,586.00	12,819.316,732.00	7,179.0026,732.00	28,679.657,736.00	7,933.005,854.00	6,204.005,151.00	5,151.005,650.00	6,515.006,788.00	6,788.007,138.00	7,138.006,880.00	6,880.005,886.00	7,922.0158,346.00	66,596.2112,836.00	14,732.007,800.00	7,800.001,051,701.00	in progress	27,942.02	36,289.491,974,862.00	in progress	8,500.00	8,500.00


Mr. J. C. Munro (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: 1.	None. Applications submitted by prospective immigrants in the Caribbean area are processed by visiting examination teams from Canada.
2.	Not available. Such statistics are maintained, for workload purposes, only in countries where immigration offices have been established.
3.	See the following table.

April 27, 1966


SMELTER STUDY. HAY RIVER-PINE POINT AREA
Mr, Orange: Has the economic feasibility study to determine potentiality of a smelter in the Hay River-Pine Point area, that was announced by the government on February 25. 1966, begun and. if so (a) are any companies operating in the area sharing in the cost of the study (b) how much will the study cost (c) when will the report of the study be available (d) what are the terms of reference of this study?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: 1. Yes; (a) No; (b) A maximum of $160,000; (c) December 31, 1966. In this connection, it should be mentioned that a portion of the consultants' report will be classified as confidential because it will contain information regarding ore reserves which has been obtained from mining companies working in the Pine Point area.
(d) Terms of Reference for Pine Point Smelter Study: 1. In general, the consultant, Canadian Bechtel Limited, will carry out a study of the economic feasibility of providing smelting facilities for lead and zinc ores and concentrates in the Pine Point area, Northwest Territories.
2. In particular, the study will include the following: (a) An assessment of the reserves of lead and zinc ores in the Northwest Territories which are located sufficiently close to Pine Point, Northwest Territories, to enable such ores to be treated profitably at a lead-zinc treatment plant located at Pine Point. This assessment will include tonnages, grade, and types of ores in the measure, indicated and inferred categories and will also include an evaluation of the probability of developing additional reserves. The Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources will endeavour to obtain commitments from all mining companies who are active in the Pine Point area to provide the consultant with whatever information he may require. Periodic re-assessments of ore reserves will be made during the course of the study as more information becomes available.
(b) An assessment of the optimum size and most suitable type of smelting facility or treatment plant taking into consideration the following: (i) Capital and operating costs; (ii) Projected markets and prices for lead and zinc; (iii) Availability of power, fuel and raw materials required in the process.

April 27, 1966
Questions
(c)	An assessment of the possibility of marketing by-products from the treatment process such as sulphur or sulphuric acid.
(d)	An assessment of the economic impact of a new lead-zinc treatment plant at Pine Point on the economy of not only the Pine Point area but the Northwest Territories in general.
(e)	An assessment of subsidies which may be required if the study should indicate that a smelter located at Pine Point is not as economically feasible as a smelter at some other location.
(f)	An assessment of the effect, if any, of recent discoveries of large deposits of lead and zinc ores in the Yukon on the possible provision of new lead and zinc treatment facilities at Pine Point.
3.	In its study, the consultant will bear in mind the timing of bringing a lead and zinc treatment plant into operation at Pine Point with the bringing into production of new mines in the Pine Point area.
4.	While it is realized that the time of completion of the study will depend to a large extent on the availability of information on ore reserves, the consultant will endeavour to present his final report to the Department by December 31, 1966.
5.	The consultant's final report will be prepared in such a manner that a section of the report, which will contain essentially a broad interpretation of the study, may be made available to the public without revealing anything of a confidential nature. The remainder of the report which will contain confidential information and which will be available only to the government will contain a detailed assessment of the subject of the study with full supporting data.


INDIAN AFFAIRS PLACEMENT OFFICERS
Mr. Orlikow: How many employment placement officers does the Indian affairs branch employ In each province?


Arthur Laing: Establish- Number of ment positions filled
Prince Edward Island (Served by placement officer located at Amherst, Nova Scotia)	Nil	NilNova Scotia	2	2New Brunswick	1	1Quebec	7(2)*	2Ontario	11(1)*	9Manitoba	1	1(Negotiations under way for province to provide placement services for Indian residents) Saskatchewan	3	2Alberta	4	3British Columbia	13(8)*	3*The figure shown in	brackets	under the
establishment column denotes positions for combined duties as placement and resources officers.


COST OF INDIAN SERVICES
Mr. Orlikow: What are the costs to the federal government of Indian services for health, welfare, education, and economic development?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: In so far as the Department of National Health and Welfare is concerned: During the year 1964-65 the Department of National Health and Welfare expended a total of $19,701,230 for health services provided to the Indian population.
In so far as the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources is concerned: During the 1964-65 fiscal year, the federal government spent $16,661,499.67 in regard to Indian welfare, $35,692,976.98 in connection with Indian education and $4,113,415.23 for the economic development of the Indian people in Canada.


DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL GALLERY
Mr. McKinley: 1.	What appointments have been made to the National Gallery of Canada since January 1, 1966?
2.	Has a successor been appointed to replace Dr. C. F. Comfort and, if not, has a successor as director been determined on although not yet anounced?
3.	Has an acting director been appointed or arranged for?
Answer: 1. Asst, technician 3, Mr. Leo Cave; Technical officer 1, Mrs. H. White; Steno 3 (secretary), Mrs. O. Neveu; Steno 3 (secretary), Miss D. Girouard.
2.	No.
3.	Yes, Dr. W. S. A. Dale.


HEARING ON NATIONAL PARKS POLICY
Mr. Horner (Jasper-: Edson):
1. Did the government receive a communication from Jasper Residents Association dated March 18,
April 27, 1966

1966 and, if so (a) what was the nature of this communication (b) what was the government's reply?
2. Will the government give an opportunity for a full hearing into national parks policy, both to the members of the House of Commons and to residents of the national parks and, if so, when?


Arthur Laing: 1. Yes; (a) A reply to my letter to the association dated January 27, 1966 dealing with national parks leasehold matters; (b) An interim reply has been sent by a member of my staff informing the association that I will reply more fully when I have had an opportunity to consider the association's comments.
2. In answer to my hon. friend's question in the house on April 4, 1966 (Hansard page 3787) I indicated that the residents of Jasper and Banff will have every opportunity of placing their comments before the government prior to the introduction of legislation and that this opportunity will be given as soon as the house progresses with its work.


HOURLY PAY RATES AT H.M.C. DOCKYARD
Mr. Forreslall: By classification and trade, what are the present schedules of pay for hourly paid employees at H.M.C. Dockyard Halifax, and H.M.C. Dockyard Esquimau?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Classifications	Rates
Acetylene Burner & Cutter Class A	H.M.C. Dockyard Halifax 2.37	H.M.C. Dockyard Esquimalt N.A.Acetylene Burner & Cutter Class B	2.28	N.A.Acetylene Burner & Cutter Class C	2.13	N.A.Acetylene Generator Operator	2.24	N.A.Air Compressor Operator Grade 1	2.38	N.A.Air Compressor Operator Grade 2	2.30	N.A.Air Compressor Operator Grade 3	2.21	N.A.Armament Mechanic	N.A.	3.05Armament Fitter	2.41-2.46*	N.A.Automotive Component Mechanic 2.30	N.A.Batteryman	2.19	N.A.
Questions
Blacksmith and
Anglesmith	2.42-2.47*	3.15Blacksmith Striker	2.11	N.A.Boiler Cleaner	2.05	N.A.Boilermaker	2.44-2.49*	3.15Boilermaker and Blacksmith Helper	N.A.	2.79Bricklayer	2.51	3.25Carpenter	2.42-2.47*	3.10Caulker Ballast Tank Testing	2.48	N.A.Caulker Iron or Wood	2.39	N.A.Caulker (Iron)	N.A.	3.15Caulker (Wood)	N.A.	3.13Cement Finisher	2.17	2.77Chipper and Caulker	2.42	N.A.Coppersmith	2.58	3.10Cradleman	2.19	N.A.Crane Operator	2.39	N.A.Crane Operator (OEBI)	2.30	N.A.Crane Operator (Crawler)	N.A.	3.10Crane Operator (10 ton inside)	N.A.	2.82Crane Operator (20 ton 50 ft. swinging boom)	N.A.	3.10Derrick Fireman	N.A.	2.66Derrick Operator	N.A.	3.10Driller	N.A.	3.15Driver	2.05	2.25Driver (Heavy)	2.25	2.52Electrician Automotive	2.30	N.A.Electrician Ship or Maintenance	2.42-2.47*	3.20Engine Fitter	2.42-2.47*	N.A.First Aid Attendant A	N.A.	2.66First Aid Attendant B	N.A.	2.77First Aid Attendant C	N.A.	2.82Fitter	N.A.	3.15Hammersmith	2.40	N.A.Heater (Rivet)	N.A.	2.82Heavy Equipment Operator	2.35	2.70Hoisting Operator (non-swinging boom) N.A.	2.82Holder-on	2.28	2.91Industrial Equipment Mechanic	2.45	N.A.Instrument Repairman	2.86	3.25
Questions

April 27, 1966
Classifications	Rates	
H.M.C.		H.M.C.
Dockyard		Dockyard
Halifax		Esquimalt
Iron Workers (Ships' Plater)	N.A.	3.15Joiner	2.42-2.47*	N.A.Labourer	2.00	2.49Lagger	N.A.	3.10Light Equipment Operator	2.10	2.45Loftsman	2.64	3.25Machine Operator	2.24	N.A.Machine Repairman	2.42-2.47*	N.A.Machinist	2.42-2.47*	3.15Machinist and Fitter Helper Class 1	N.A.	2.79Machinist Specialist	N.A.	2.95Maintenance Machinist N.A.	3.15Maintenance Mechanic	2.42-2.47*	N.A.Maintenance Mechanic (Liferaft)	N.A.	3.00Maintenance Mechanic (Oil Burner)	N.A.	3.10Millwright	2.45-2.50*	N.A.Motor Mechanic	2.25	2.58Painter	2.35	3.10Painter (Brush)	2.07	N.A.Painter Finish	2.46	N.A.Painter Spray (shop)	2.05	2.58Painter Spray	2.25	3.25Panel Beater and Bodyman	2.25	2.58Pattern Maker	2.61	N.A.Pipe Coverer	2.34	N.A.Pipefitter	2.43-2.48*	3.10Plasterer	2.69	3.10Plater	2.42-2.47*	N.A.Plumber	2.43-2.48*	3.10Refrigeration Mechanic	N.A.	3.10Rigger	2.39-2.44*	3.10Riveter	2.42	3.15Sailmaker- Canvas Worker	2.21	N.A.Sand Blasting Operator 2.25	3.10Scaler-Boiler	2.05	N.A.Scaler and Cleaner	N.A.	2.39Scaler and Cleaner (When using Power Tools)	N.A.	2.82Sheet Metal Worker	2.41-2.46*	3.10Shipwright	2.42-2.47*	3.10Sign Painter	2.42	N.A.Steamfitter	2.43-2.48*	N.A.Tank Cleaner	2.04	N.A.Tile Setter	2.68	3.10Toolmaker	2.62	3.25Trades Helper	2.11	2.66Welder	2.42-2.47*	3.15Electro-Plater	2.15	2.85
*-The maximum rate in these ranges are paid to all employees with one or more years of service.


PUBLIC WORKS-EMPLOYMENT OF CASUAL LABOUR OVER 65
Mrs. Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway): Does the Department of Public Works refuse to employ for casual work anyone over the age of 65 years?


George James McIlraith: No.


HARVEST INSURANCE
Mr. Lalulippe: Have there been consultations recently between the federal government and provincial authorities on the subject of harvest insurance and, if so (a) with what provinces (b) when did the consultations take place?


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Agriculture):: (a)	and (b) Yes, a meeting to discuss crop Insurance with representatives of all provinces was held on February 17, 1966.


UN CONVENTION ON RACIAL DISCRIMINATION
Mr. Scott (Danforth): 1.	Has the government given consideration to adopting the convention of the last general assembly of the United Nations dealing with the elimination of racial discrimination?
2.	If consideration has been given, has the government made a decision to ratify this agreement and, if so, what was that decision?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of Slate for External Affairs):: (1). Yes. The Canadian government strongly supported the adoption of this convention by the United Nations and regards it as a very important document. In a statement in explanation of the vote in the third committee of the United Nations on December 15, 1965, the Canadian delegate stated that it was regarded "as another of
April 27, 1966

the great pioneering instruments by means of which the United Nations is laying the ground rules for civilized life on an ever widening scale". It is, however, a general policy that Canada does not enter into binding international treaty commitments until such time that it clearly is in a position to implement its obligations in terms of its domestic law. The subject matter of this convention is such that it appears to fall not only within those areas of domestic law which are the competence of the federal government, but also, in part, within those for which the provinces are responsible. The government is therefore presently engaged in a detailed study of the legal implications of the convention as a necessary first step to the question of signature and subsequent ratification. In so far as that should prove necessary, the Canadian government will naturally consult with the provinces with a view to obtaining their assurances that they will be prepared to implement any provisions which fall within their jurisdiction.
(2). For the reasons explained in the answer to the first question, a decision has not yet been taken on the ratification of the convention.


REFUND OF PENSION OVERPAYMENTS BY EMPLOYERS
Mr. Crouse: Has a procedure been put into effect to refund over-payments to the Canada and Quebec pension plans made by employers as workers move from one job to another?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National Revenue):: No.


MOVEMENT TO U.S. OF CANADIAN PROFESSIONAL WORKERS
Mr. Orlikow: Have any Canadian scientists, research workers, engineers, university professors, and medical doctors left Canada to work in the United States in each of the past three years and, if so, how many?


Mr. Jean-Charles Cantin (Parliamentary-Secretary to Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Immigrant aliens admitted to United States, whose country of last permanent residence was Canada:
Year ended June 30th
Occupation	1963	1964	1965Scientists:	209	238	242Agricultural scientists	9	11	10Biological scientists	18	23	20
Questions
Geologists and geophysicists	43	35	60Mathematicians	5	8	7Physicists Miscellaneous natural	27	29	30scientists	2	11	4Chemists	105	121	111Engineers	871	768	863Professors and instructors	118	126	133Physicians and surgeons	467	440	380
Note: There is no separate grouping for "research workers".
Source:	Immigration and Naturalization
Service, United States Department of Justice.


* EXPORT CONTROLS ON CATTLE HIDES
Mr. Irvine: Is it the intention of the government to establish quota controls on export of Canadian cattle hides, calf and kip skins in an endeavour to protect our export markets and prevent inflation of shoe prices in Canada?


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker, as I announced in the house on March 23, exports of hides, skins, leather and leather manufactures of foreign origin now require individual export licences. This action was taken in order to control possible diversion of United States products to off-shore destinations and to maintain Canadian access to United States supplies.
Prior to and since this announcement extensive consultation has taken place with Canadian industry concerned including the Shoe Manufacturers' Association, hides and skins dealers and brokers, meat packers, farmers' federations, agricultural associations and Canadian tanners.
The situation is being watched carefully, but present circumstances do not appear to warrant further government action.


NATIONAL BUILDING CODE
Mr. Reid: Does the government have a national building code and, if so (a) what act of parliament provides authority for this code (b) what industries fall under this code (c) what are the penalties for violations of this code (d) how many prosecutions have there been in the past 5 years (e) how many prosecutions have been successful (f) what was the total amount collected in fines for violations (g) is this code accepted by all the provinces and, if not, by how many is it not?

April 27. 1966
Questions


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: In so far as the National Research Council is concerned, the answer is as follows: (a) A national building code has been published, under the authority of the Research Council Act, as an advisory document which may be adopted legally by Canadian municipalities as their local building regulations; (b) Subject to determination by individual municipality; (c) Subject to determination by individual municipality; (d) Information not available; (e) Information not available; (f) Information not available; (g) Of a total of 1,960 Canadian municipalities surveyed in 1964, 719 located in every province are using the code in one form or another. This represents 65 per cent of the urban population of Canada.


TRAVEL BUREAU ADVERTISEMENTS IN U.S.
Mr. Coates: How much was paid during January, February, March and to date by the Canadian Government Travel Bureau to the publishers of American periodicals and newspapers for the full-page advertisement entitled: "There is more than one France. The one next door is called Canada."?


Jean-Charles Cantin: $41,284 (U.S.) was paid MacLaren Advertising Co. Ltd. who handle this campaign on behalf of the Canadian Government Travel Bureau.


CLOSING OF EMPLOYMENT SERVICE OFFICE, NORTH SYDNEY, N.S.
Mr. Muir (Cape Breton: North and Victoria):
Is consideration being given by the department concerned to the closing out of the National Employment Service office at North Sydney, Nova Scotia?


John Carr Munro: No.


Albert Béchard: Mr. Speaker, the starred question 1,363 is not on the order paper but it is in the Votes and Proceedings of the house, and if the house is agreeable, it could be answered immediately. I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
[Mr. Reid.)
[English1


CLOSING OF AUTO PARTS FIRMS
Mr. Scott (Victoria: (Onl.)):
1.	Have any firms closed down operations in Canada as a result of the Canada-United States free trade agreement on auto parts and, if so (a) how many firms have done so (b) what are their names and addresses (c) how many employees are affected by these shutdowns (d) what was the total payroll losses of those areas?
2.	Have any firms transferred their purchasing departments from Canada to the United States as a result of the Canada-United States free trade agreement on auto parts and, if so (a) how many firms (b) what are their names and their locations?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: 1. No.
2. We are aware that certain of the purchasing operations of the Ford Motor Company of Canada at Oakville have been transferred to the United States. I am not in a position to say whether this action resulted from the automotive program or whether it was planned prior to the introduction of the program.


Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might ask the consent of the house to drop question No. 931 which stands in my name on the order paper.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Albert Béchard: Mr. Speaker, notice of motion No. 118 for the production of papers is acceptable to the government, subject to the reservations about confidential applications and about the authorization of the municipal authorities concerned.
Would Your Honour call notice of motion No. 77?


BUTTER LOSS IN FIRE, SAINT-DENIS-SUR-RICHELIEU
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 118-Mr. Ricard:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all correspondence and exchanges between the Minister of Agriculture, the Minister of Forestry, the Minister without Portfolio, and any officer of the Department of Agriculture on the one hand and. on the other hand, the authorities and/or the representatives of the municipality of the village of Saint-Denis-sur-Richelieu. relating to the fire that destroyed a large quantity of butter at the Conserverie Saint-Denis on November 5, 1963.
Motion agreed to.
April 27. 1966

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 77-Mr. Bell (Carleton):
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of any Treasury Board minutes and/or letters of instructions or advice issued by any officer of Treasury Board since the 1st of September, 1965, with respect to the deduction of Canada Pension Plan contributions from the salaries or wages of members of the public service, the loan of equivalent amounts to such members of the public service, the deduction of Canada Pension Plan contributions from increases in salaries or wages paid in 1966 to public servants for periods in 1965, or otherwise dealing with the techniques proposed of integrating the Canada Pension Plan and the Public Service Superannuation Act or other superannuation acts applicable to public servants.
Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National
Revenue): Mr. Speaker, I have discussed this motion with the hon. member for Carleton. I have indicated to him that all the documents requested ordinarily would be considered privileged. I believe he will agree to withdraw this motion.
Hon. R. A. Bell (Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, the minister has convinced me that a bad precedent might be established by the passage of this motion. I want to avoid bad precedents, since I expect to be sitting on the government side of the house within a short period. Accordingly, sir, I ask leave to withdraw the motion.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. member leave to withdraw that motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.


Mr. Jack A. Irvine (London):: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should like to know through you or through the minister when I might have an answer to question No. 766, which has been on the order paper now for over 70 days. Also, when might I get an answer to question No. 48, which tomorrow will have been on the order paper for 100 days. That is a little too long, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. C. S. Smallwood (Battle River-Camrose):: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I have had a question on the order paper since January 21.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May I draw to the attention of hon. members who have just spoken that we are not now on the subject of questions, but that we have moved on to notices of motions for the production of documents.
Motions for Papers [Translation]


Albert Béchard: Mr. Speaker, I move that the other notices of motion stand.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, there is a notice of motion dated March 21 under the name of my colleague the hon. member for Compton-Frontenac (Mr. Latulippe) which has not been mentioned since March 21. I wonder whether the Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State could tell us when notice of motion No. 113 will be mentioned. Is it the intention to forget it or to reply one of these days?


Albert Béchard: Mr. Speaker, I spoke to the hon. member for Compton-Frontenac on this matter, and in view of the rather long reply involved, the hon. member informed me that he intended to wait in order to obtain complete information on the question.


Clifford Silas Smallwood: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I have had a question on the order paper since January 21, and another question on the order paper since January 28. Those are both questions directed to the Minister of Justice. I should like to draw the attention of the Prime Minister and of the Minister of Justice to this fact. It is important that I have answers to these questions. If these questions cannot be answered, the Prime Minister either ought to say so or get another Minister of Justice who would answer them.


Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey North):: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On January 20 I asked the Prime Minister a question which you ruled should be put on the order paper. That became question No. 228, and has been on the order paper since January 24. I ask the Prime Minister when I might expect an answer to this question.


Albert Béchard: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I must say that, as of Monday of this week, we had answered 89.5 per cent of the questions placed on the order paper since the beginning of this session.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: That means nothing.


Mr. J. M. Forresiall (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, while we are discussing questions-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member should not judge by appearances. We are not on questions at the moment.
April 27, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I have questions dated February 11 and February 24, being questions Nos. 607 and 824 on the order paper, to both of which I am most anxious to receive answers.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, having regard to the fact that apparently negotiations or discussions between the producers and the C.B.C. president and management have broken down, and the fact that there has been a virtual ultimatum that on Sunday at 10 p.m., unless the request of the producers has been met, there may well be a strike, I should like to ask the Prime Minister what action the government intends to take to bring about the assurance that these negotiations will continue? What representations, if any, again consistent with the legislation setting up the C.B.C., has the government made? The Prime Minister said yesterday that he was very anxious and willing to use his good offices in this.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, paraphrasing the reply to this question yesterday, I think I said that naturally the government was anxious to do what it could to help in this regard, subject to the desirability of not intervening in the affairs of the C.B.C. My right hon. friend will know the difficulty in respect of government action in a matter of this kind, as it relates to a crown corporation.
I understand, Mr. Speaker, that a committee of the house is considering this matter today. It has before it a resolution on the very point my right hon. friend referred to, and I should like to wait to see what the committee does with that resolution this afternoon before I say anything more.


John George Diefenbaker: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the Prime Minister say what that resolution is to which he made reference?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I think the resolution deals with the possibility of the government's intervening, in order to bring about a solution of this difficulty.


WINTER WORKS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the future minister of manpower.
In view of the fact that the winter works period is drawing to a close and in view of the fact that several municipalities could not complete their works due to the severe weather conditions which prevailed in several regions of this country, can the minister tell the house today whether he proposes to extend1 the winter works period in those regions where the said works could not be completed?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, it is not the intention of the department to extend the winter works period.


Gilles Grégoire: As a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, has the minister received any requests from municipalities about this extension? Does he not think there is discrimination against the regions where weather conditions are unfavourable to winter works?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's question is out of order.
[English1



PRIVILEGE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege arising out of proceedings in this house. I have just been handed the replies to questions Nos. 202 and 212, which incidentally have been on the order paper since January 24. In order to establish my point of privilege, which affects not only myself but hon. members of the house generally, may I read the answer which has come to both questions:
The commissions set up under the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act do not report to the government so that the government does not have records giving the information sought in this question. Under section 10 of the act the commissions are not agencies of Her Majesty. Reports of the commissions are made directly to the House of Commons.
I would point out, Mr. Speaker, that the questions that have been put by myself and other members of the house, particularly by the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell), have been answered in the same vein, and
April 27, 1966	COMMONS DEBATES	4383
are the only way for hon. members to seek information which affects themselves. They are not directed to any particular ministry, but the Secretary of State (Miss LaMarsh) replies for the government.
The representation commissions are emanations of this house; they are responsible to this house. Hon. members have no means of communication with the representation commissions other than through the Secretary of State, and I would put it to Your Honour, and to all hon. members, that neither the representation commissioner nor any of the representation commissions is above the legitimate demands for information from members of the house. They are not satellites that have been shot off beyond recall nor reach. I would further point out that since hon. members are now to engage in a particular debate on redistribution, it is an affront to the house to deny the legitimate information sought by hon. members whose questions have been posed in the only way they could be put, namely on the order paper and directed to the Secretary of State.
I realize that the commissions are not responsible to the government. We know this; but members on the government side are in the same position as we are, whether they be cabinet ministers or not. Therefore I would say that this is a point that affects the privileges of the members of the house. I would deem it appropriate for Your Honour to take the matter under advisement and, if necessary, that Your Honour, whose predecessor had something to do with the appointment of the representation commissions, see that they be compelled to answer.


Mr, Speaker:: Order, please. I shall have an opportunity to take these suggestions under advisement as urged by the hon. member for Edmonton West.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, having just returned from a lecture given by Dr. David, a great heart specialist, during which he advised members of parliament to practice serenity, I wish to address a philosophical problem to the Minister of Agriculture. Would the minister please inform the house how he reconciles the policy of his department with the policy of the Department of National Health and Welfare with respect to the growing and the use of tobacco?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The rules of the house do not provide for acceptance by the Chair of philosophical questions.



FAILURE OF CANADA TO OBTAIN WINTER OLYMPIC GAMES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. Has he received, or is he aware of the widespread general protest regarding the influence of the unreasonable and unpractical park policies he has instituted, and of their being a factor in Canada failing to get the winter Olympics for 1972?


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, 1 want to say at once that I and my department regret very much that we failed in our second bid for the winter games. We had done all in our power to convince those who were concerned over conditions in the national park that, in our view, there would be no permanent damage, and very little temporary damage done out of holding the games. Further, we have received the agreement of our representatives, who did their best to bring the games to Canada, that we had done our utmost. At the same time I wish to assure the house that this will have no effect whatsoever on the development of Banff as a prime area for winter sports. There is already a very large sum of money invested in it, and there will be a great deal more.


Robert Norman Thompson: As a supplementary question, would the minister not agree that the parks policies he has instituted have given the conservationists the opportunity to influence the general Olympic council?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This question is argumentative and cannot be accepted by the Chair.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Richard Albert Bell: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question of the Minister of Labour. Having regard to the manner in which he discussed the Freedman report in Winnipeg yesterday, is he now in a position
April 27, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry to answer my question of last Tuesday as to whether he is proposing a further inquiry, or whether he intends to propose implementation of the principal recommendations of that report this session?


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Labour):: I am sorry, but I am not, Mr. Speaker. The matter will be placed before my colleagues in the cabinet at a very early date, however.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence, and in view of the fact that I did not have time to give him notice, perhaps he may take this as notice. When the fishing trawler Karen B recently caught fire about 100 miles east of Halifax and was abandoned by her crew, why did H.M.C.S. Gatineau leave the burned out Karen B before arrival of the Halifax based tug Foundation Vigilant?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Chair has taken notice of the question and suggests that it be put on the order paper.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, the fact that this ship was left abandoned on the high seas has resulted in the hull being claimed by a foreign country for salvage against the insurance company, the agents and owners. The fact that the Canadian destroyer abandoned this ship has resulted in this situation. I believe this is a most urgent and important question because we could have another burned out hull on the ocean tonight, and we do not want to see this practice followed in future.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has referred specifically in his question to an incident which has already occurred and about which I assume not very much can be done at this time. The second part of his question, if I interpet it correctly in the way he poses it, now becomes hypothetical.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I directed a question

to the Prime Minister in the absence of the Minister of National Defence and the Associate Minister of National Defence. Today I shall direct it to the Minister of National Defence. Is it a fact that there is under consideration a further 10 per cent reduction in the effective strength of Canada's defence forces so as to keep up with the present rate of recruitment, and in view of the forces being under strength?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: No, Mr. Speaker; but I suggest it is obvious, even to my hon. friend, that if escalation of wages and emoluments in Canada continues at the present rate, and the defence budget remains stable as has been planned, it will be necessary in the years ahead to reduce the number of people and increase their productivity in order to provide adequate compensation for the work being performed.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: As a supplementary question, from the nature of the answer I take it the minister will agree that such a reduction is under contemplation, or is being considered?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I do not think that is a fair interpretation, Mr. Speaker. I think some reduction may take place, but whatever reduction there is, it will be through normal attrition because, as my hon. friend knows, during the next three or four years a large number of world war II veterans will be leaving the forces, and it will be difficult to maintain fully adequate strength to perform all tasks without planning on a reduction.


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: As a supplementary question, based on the minister's statement which he made just a minute ago, do I understand a ceiling has been placed on the amount of money which will be expended for defence purposes, and that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) will not give the Minister of National Defence some leeway in protecting the security of this country and fulfilling our obligations to NATO?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The amount for the current year is stated in the estimates, Mr. Speaker.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Royal: As
a further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Minister of National Defence how one measures the productivity of a member of the armed forces.
April 27, 1966



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Labour. In view of the promise the minister gave to the Canad an Labour Congress convention yesterday, to the effect that the Canada labour safety code would be introduced at this session, can he say when notice of this legislation will be placed on the order paper?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: It will not likely be put on the order paper for another few weeks. Progress has been made in the preparation of a draft bill, but it involves consultation with the provinces because of the enforcement angle. It will be placed on the order paper as soon as we can get it there. We are making good progress.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question. Will it be put on by the end of May?



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour in connection with Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Is it a fact that Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation now has stopped lending even on pre-sold houses and thereby has dried up the last source of mortgage loans for residential purposes? Will the minister say now, for the benefit of expectant householders and builders across Canada, that there is going to be some alleviation of the serious situation which has been created as a result of the virtual stopping of any additional amounts by way of mortgage loans.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I regret I cannot give that assurance. The situation is serious, but I am happy to say, as a result of studies I personally have made in conjunction with senior officials of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, that while it is more serious in a few areas than in most others, it is not as serious as one would be led to believe by the telegrams and messages coming to members of this house. Further reports are coming in 23033-278
Inquiries of the Ministry daily and it might be a matter of another few days before I can give the hon. gentleman the assurance he has asked for. However, I can say that an announcement will be made in a matter of days.


John George Diefenbaker: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In that connection would the minister say whether it is a fact that in the housing construction field this year there will be some 35,000 fewer homes built than last year.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, even if things proceed as they now are, and even with the conditions which now prevail, the situation is not as bad as the right hon. gentleman would indicate. Last year for the fourth consecutive year we had an increase in house building. We reached a record figure of 166,000 odd houses. We are not likely to reach that figure this year, but certainly we do not anticipate that it will be down by anything like the figure the right hon. gentleman has suggested. It may be down 10 or 15 per cent from last year, however, largely because of the actions of private investors.


John George Diefenbaker: Does the minister not agree with Mr. Herbert Hignett, the president of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, who predicted that as many as 35,000 fewer homes will be built this year as compared to last year? Does he not agree with what the president of the corporation said?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the right hon. gentleman that the question to some extent is argumentative. In any event it has been answered in a general way by the minister to whom it was posed in the first instance.


Mr. G. L. Chatterfon (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. The minister has indicated the situation is critical in certain areas. Is the government giving consideration to the providing of perhaps more direct loans in those critical areas.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: That aspect of the matter will be included in the announcement which can be expected within the next few days. In order that there may be no misunderstanding, I think I should say that the statement attributed to the president of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation is taken out of context, it is predicated on the expectation that there might be no additional speculative loans made this fall. If no such loans were made during the fall months, as has been the case in the last three years, this forecast by
April 27. 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry Mr. Hignett will be so; but it is not anticipated that such will be the situation.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, in view of the explanation given by the minister, does he agree that the president of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation did predict that as many as 35,000 fewer homes would be built this year?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest to the right hon. Leader of the Opposition that in the way in which the question is put now-whether the minister agrees that the statement was made-is not in a form which might be acceptable.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question in respect of the Industrial Development Bank which I should like to direct to the Minister of Finance. Have instructions gone forward from the government to dry up loans from the Industrial Development Bank, thereby affecting somewhat a possible expansion in Canadian construction?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: No, Mr. Speaker.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Would the Prime Minister consider giving the required notice of motion in this house so that the standing committees would be granted the power to sit while the house is sitting until consideration of all estimates referred to these committees have been considered.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to think about that question before giving a definite reply.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question? In such a case, would the Prime Minister suggest attending a committee session or a sitting of the house?


Mr. Speaker:: No, I do not think the question of the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) can be entertained, since it is based on the possibility or the contingency that the proposition will be accepted. It is, then, a hypothetical question and, consequently, cannot be entertained.


Gilles Grégoire: In that case I shall put a supplementary but not hypothetical question. If the right hon. Prime Minister is called on for a decision, could he state his views to the hon. members as to whether the sittings of the house or the committee sessions should be attended.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question errs in the same manner as the preceeding one put by the hon. member. It is also unacceptable.
IEnglish]



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe East):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of National Health and Welfare, I shouuld like to address a question to his parliamentary secretary, to whom I have sent notice of my question. This is a supplementary question arising out of the minister's partial answer to my question of March 24. Have checks now been completed concerning the importer of dangerously mislabelled drugs, and has the importer, the Lucas Company, been de-listed as an authorized supplier of drugs to Canada's armed forces.


Mrs. Margaret Rideout (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for giving me notice of his question. I will be pleased to bring it to the attention of the minister.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Industry. Can the minister say whether the Lucas Company, referred to by the hon. member for Simcoe East is the same company to which his Department of Industry gave tax concessions, if they would locate in the former depressed area of Windsor?


Mr. Speaker:: Order; I do not think that question is acceptable. Perhaps it should be placed on the order paper.
April 27, 1966



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. R. Sherman (Winnipeg South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration whether he will investigate reports that a Canadian immigration department film, currently being shown to capacity audiences of prospective immigrants in the United Kingdom, presents a somewhat technicoloured picture of life in Canada which is misleading and which may lead to discontentment on the part of the immigrants when they arrive in this country.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure the matter raised by the hon. member will be taken under consideration by the minister. If the hon. member wishes, he might place his question on the order paper.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Industry. Has the minister received a telegram from the president of the union at Enamel and Heating Products Limited of Amherst with regard to impending lay-offs through a reduced work load, with a request for action from his department to prevent these lay-offs? What action does he plan to take?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I have not received any telegram.


Robert Carman Coates: I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Industry. I understand that telegrams have gone forward to officials of the government regarding the pending lay-off. I wonder whether he will make a check in this regard and indicate what his department anticipates it might do to alleviate this pending situation.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, as I said before I do not have a telegram, but I will check to see whether any has been received. I do know that for some time in the past efforts have been made to maintain a sufficient work load at Enamel and Heating to enable them to continue to compete for U.S. contracts. We are continuing to do as much as possible to maintain this business, and enable the company to engage in export trade.
Inquiries of the Ministry [Translation]



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Martial Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Justice I shall put my question to the Prime Minister.
It is reported that the acting sheriff of Dade county, Miami, implied yesterday that the Canadian government had failed to apply for the extradition of Georges Lemay when he was arrested by the U.S. police. Did the government make such a request?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This question is not so urgent that the member could not put it on the order paper.


Martial Asselin: Mr. Speaker, he is Canada's most wanted criminal and he was found by means of "Early Bird". The Canadian people must know what action was taken by the government and the Minister of Justice, when Georges Lemay was found, to have him extradited to Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: The member will know in due time.
[English I



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour. I believe it is very urgent and is one I have asked several times in recent weeks. In view of the growing threat of a rail strike and the crisis this would precipitate in national transportation and communications, is the government planning any action to avert such a crisis, and has any plan been made to provide emergency services should this breakdown take place?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, as was made clear, I believe, in the house by an announcement some time ago, two conciliation boards have been set up to deal with the matters in dispute. They are to be chaired by a very able gentleman who is the unanimous choice of both the railways and the unions concerned. The first sitting of the conciliation board is to commence on May 31. The situation is serious, but perhaps
April 27, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry not as serious as might be indicated by the wording of the question put to me by the hon. member. I think it would be unwise, in my view, to anticipate the findings of these conciliation boards, where the chairman of which has been agreed upon by both sides.



DEFENCE PRODUCTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, at this time I should like to answer a question asked by the hon. member for Saint John-Albert (Mr. Bell) as to when an announcement would be made regarding the awarding of the contract for the refitting of the Bonaventure. That announcement has been made today.
A contract has been awarded to the value of $4,913,541 to Davie Shipbuilding Ltd. at Lauzon, Que. I should point out, lest there be any misunderstanding, that there are three elements of cost in the overhaul of the Bonaventure. One involves a firm price contract in the amount of some $4,900,000 for the work, for which specifications have been prepared in advance. There is another element of work on which competitive bids were submitted on a unit price basis for unknown work which will arise in the course of the inspection which is being carried out. This amount of work has been estimated to cost approximately $855,000, and I want to make it clear that that is only an estimate.
The third element of cost relates to stores and equipment in the nature of radar, electronic gear, air conditioning equipment, evaporators, oil purifiers, mechanical stores and related items to be purchased by the Department of Defence Production on behalf of the navy, to be furnished directly to the shipyards for installation. The amount of these purchases is estimated at approximately $2,230,000.
The sum of these individual items amounts to a total estimated cost for refitting the Bonaventure of something in the order of $8 million-and not $4,900,000 as announced as the firm price contract to Davie Shipbuilding Ltd.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Do any of these contracts have any contingency clauses such as those often contained in building contracts, as a result of


which padding can take place often to the extent of 10 per cent? If so, to what percentage do they exist?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, these contracts to not contain contingency clauses.



FAILURE TO LIST MEMBERS IN NEW TELEPHONE DIRECTORY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. A. MacLean (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a brief question to the Secretary of State, asking the hon. lady why it was deemed necessary or advisable to drop the names of all hon. members of this house, except those who are heads of departments or parliamentary secretaries, from the alphabetical section of the new government telephone book just issued?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, I have not had occasion recently to use a telephone book; therefore I am not in a position to give my hon. friend an answer. I realize that hon. members want to have their names and numbers available for constituents, at least, and I would be happy to obtain an answer for the hon. member.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)



REDISTRIBUTION


Mr. Speaker:: On January 24 last a notice of objection in the form of a motion was filed with me in the following terms, namely:
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)	Historical connotation of the present name of the constituency of Quebec East.
(2)	Possible confusion with the boundaries of a provincial constituency and city limits.
[Translation1


Mr. Valade:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
I should like an explanation about the procedure referred to earlier this afternoon, namely whether the specific points included in a general notice of objection can be discussed during this afternoon's debate, whether you have to hear motions from members
April 27. 1966

concerning their respective constituencies or whether specific notices will also be debated this afternoon.


Mr. Speaker:: Will the hon. member as well all hon. members kindly note that the 16 notices of objection concerning the province of Quebec will be heard seriatim, according to the order in which they were filed with the Chair. The remaining two, of a general nature, will be examined later on, after consideration of the motions concerning Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.
May I point out that there were not 16 but 14 particular objections.


Gilles Grégoire: There are 16, Mr. Speaker.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I merely wish to ask you to check, in future, the notices of objections submitted by some of the Quebec ridings. There are several of these notices of which one comprises four cases.
I therefore ask the Chair to study the objections in those special cases separately, and not to include them in the general objections.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member will surely understand that it is impossible for the Chair to start a discussion with the hon. member or any other member of the house. The Chair will call the objections submitted to it in their chronological order.
The first notice submitted to the Chair is that of the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Duquet).
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)	Historical connotation of the present name of the constituency of Quebec East.
(2)	Possible confusion with the boundaries of a provincial constituency and city limits.


Mr. Gerard Duquet (Quebec East):: I am
happy to speak for the first time in the house, all the more so because I take the floor to justify the notice of objection now before the house which is to keep to the riding of Quebec East, which I represent, the name it
Redistribution
now bears. It has been decided to change it and we feel that such a decision is unwarranted.
Mr. Speaker, on November 20, 1964, Statute 13, Elizabeth II, Chapter 31, was sanctioned under the title: Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act. That legislation authorized the establishment of commissions to revise the electoral boundaries throughout the country.
In the case of the province of Quebec, that commission was presided by judge Paul Langlois, of Montreal, and was made up of Mr. Francois Drouin, lawyer, chief electoral officer for the province of Quebec; Mr. Nelson Castonguay, representation commissioner, in Ottawa, and Mr. Yves Caron, notary and professor of law, acting as secretary.
I would like to point out at the start, Mr. Speaker, that I do not question the competence of any of those distinguished people.
I wish to point out here that, through my notice of objection, I am not objecting in any way to the change made by the commissioners in the geographic boundaries of Quebec East but only to the new name of Limoilou.
To justify my objection, I give the five reasons that follow:
First, the geographic location of the riding; second, the possibility of confusion with the provincial riding; third, the fact that a double name cannot be considered a valid objection; fourth, the unanimous opposition against the proposed change and, fifth, the history of Quebec East.
With regard to the geographic location, Mr. Speaker, if you examine the map of the city of Quebec, you will see that the riding of Quebec East, as made up by the commissioners in their report, is bound on the east by the city of Giffard, located at the eastern end of the city of Quebec. It means that, taking into account the geographic limits of the city of Quebec, most of the riding occupies all the eastern section of the city, and geographically the name of Quebec East corresponds perfectly to the geographic reality of the place and, therefore, there is no reason why it should not be kept.
You will also note that, although the city of Quebec West was added to the riding, as suggested by the commissioners, this addition represents only about a fifth of the present area of the riding of Quebec East and the difference, that is four fifths of it, still remains in the eastern section of the city of Quebec.
43S0

April 27, 1966
Redistribution
In my opinion, this fact alone would be reason enough to prompt the commissioners to consider our objection to the proposed change in name and to maintain the designation of Quebec East.
The new electoral map of the province of Quebec now includes a new riding also called Limoilou. The geographical boundaries do not square at all with those of the federal riding. The population in the new constituency proposed by the commission and to be called Limoilou is not the same as in the provincial riding. This is a further reason for maintaining the name of Quebec East. Any possible confusion would thus be avoided between the provincial riding and the federal riding which bear the same name while having different geographical boundaries.
I am also told that in preparing their report, the commissioners sought to suppress double names. Even in such circumstances, Mr. Speaker, I respectfully submit that, in the particular case of Quebec East, it would be possible to overlook this consideration.
In spite of all their good will, the Quebec commissioners were unable to follow this rule, and, in several cases, they maintained some of those hyphenated names such as Cote-Nord, Lac-Saint-Jean, Notre-Dame-de-Grace, Mont-Royal, Louis-Hebert. These are hyphenated names and, in addition, the name of Trois-Rivieres was kept. Now, if the name of the Trois-Rivieres riding has been strictly maintained on account of the city of that name, I wonder why the name of Quebec East should be changed, a name designating the oldest constituency in Quebec city and, moreover, identifying it with this historic city, the capital city of the province of Quebec.
Besides, in the other provinces, the commissioners were not so parsimonious in this connection. In the province of Newfoundland are found the names of Bonavista-Twil-lingate, Trinity-Conception, Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador, Humber-St. George's. In Ontario, what is there to say about the names of these seven York ridings ending with East, West, South, Centre, North, etc. In Nova Scotia, you have the names of An-tigonish-Guysborough, Cape Breton North and Victoria and many others. The same holds true in Alberta.
All the hyphenated names I have referred to are much more difficult to spell and pronounce than Quebec East. The elimination of hyphenated names therefore cannot justify the elimination of Quebec East.

Mr. Speaker, my fourth objection is that the people of Quebec East riding object. The people of Quebec East are insistent upon the maintenance of the name of the riding. I should like to call attention to the intervention of hundreds of constituents who have indicated to me their satisfaction with, and approval of, my objection. Indeed, I have received a multitude of representations on this question. Furthermore, at a meeting held in the constituency on January 31, those present unanimously asked that I oppose the change. I take this opportunity to thank my constituents and to congratulate them on their position on this question, which is indicative of their regard for the illustrious figures by whom Quebec East has been represented in the past.
I hope, Mr. Speaker, that the members of the commission will not remain indifferent to the opinion of a population of 50,000 voters.
As a last argument, I would like to bring forward the historical fact. In order to justify this motion, could I make a brief historical account of the riding of Quebec East.
On March 30, 1860, the riding of Quebec East was established by an act ratified on April 23, 1860, under the government of the hon. Cartier. My riding is thus 106 years old.
The first election in the riding took place on May 14, 1860. Notary Gabriel Huot became its first member, serving in the federal as well as the provincial government until July 21, 1867, under the government of Sir John A. Macdonald.
Notary Huot gave up his provincial mandate and was elected by acclamation, becoming the first federal member for Quebec East; he gave up this office in 1870 to become Postmaster of Quebec city.
There had to be a by-election and on July 14 and 15, 1870, Notary Tourangeau became the second federal member for Quebec East. Notary Tourangeau was re-elected by acclamation in the general election of July 29, 1872.
Mr. Speaker, I must also point out the presence of Mr. Pelletier as provincial member for Quebec East during the same period, from May 1873 to January 1874. Mr. Pelletier was representing at the same time the riding of Kamouraska in the federal government.
Mr. Pelletier had a brilliant career. Senator in 1877, he was also a minister in Mr. Mackenzie's cabinet, speaker of the Senate in 1896 and, in 1908, lieutenant-governor of the province of Quebec until his death in 1911.
April 27, 1966

In 1874, after the Canadian Pacific scandal, Sir John A. Macdonald resigned and Mr. Mackenzie took over the direction of the government. Following the dissolution of the houses, elections were set for January 1874.
Hon. Isidore Thibaudeau was then chosen as candidate against notary A. G. Touran-geau, the latter withdrawing as a candidate on January 18. On the 22nd, during the nomination, hon. Isidore Thibaudeau was elected by acclamation and became the third federal member for Quebec East.
Hon. Thibaudeau was a distinguished personality. He had been a member of the Brown-Dorion cabinet and after that of the J. Sanfield-Macdonald-Dorion cabinet.
In 1877, hon. Mr. Thibaudeau resigned as the member for Quebec East to enable right hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier, who had just been defeated in Drummond-Arthabaska, to seek election in Quebec East, thus facilitating Laurier's return to the Mackenzie cabinet, to which he had been appointed in October, 1877.
Thus, on November 28,	1877, Laurier
became the fourth member for Quebec East. Mr. Speaker, it turned out that he retained that seat for 42 years, until his death in 1919. For 32 years, he was leader of the Liberal party and for 15 years, prime minister of Canada. In the course of his brilliant career he won 11 consecutive elections in Quebec East.
On June 20, 1882, and March 5, 1891, in spite of overwhelming Conservative victories-
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)


Gilles Grégoire: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
I wonder whether all this discussion is in order. The hon. member has been talking for 16 minutes and we have now reached 1882, having started at 1860. If all hon. members insist on reviewing the history of their riding-in such detail, the house will not be able to discuss the exact matter under consideration, that is the electoral redistribution. Since we have only 6 days for the 265 constituencies of the country, and that, after 16 minutes, we are only in 1882 as far as the constituency of Quebec East is concerned, I do not see how we will be able to consider all constituencies.
I would suggest that the hon. member be called to order so that those with real redistribution problems be given an opportunity to discuss them in these six days.
Redistribution


Gérard Duquet: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order I will tell the hon. member for Lapointe that if he were the member for Quebec East and if his riding were as historical as Quebec East, he would talk for 40 minutes instead of 16.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Gérard Duquet: I have only five or six minutes
left, Mr. Speaker, and I should like to continue my speech.


Mr. Speaker:: I still wish to point out to the hon. member for Quebec East, however, that I partly agree with the objection just made by the hon. member for Lapointe.
In my opinion, the question now is to determine whether the name of his riding should be changed or not. I doubt that it is in order for him to recount the whole history of his riding, and I would ask him to pass on as quickly as possible to the specific point we have to consider.


Gérard Duquet: Mr. Speaker, I ask your indulgence for a reason I gave earlier: it is not hon. members of the house whom I wish to convince that the name of Quebec East should be kept but the members of the commission who made the report.
I feel that my present speech may convince them of the importance of keeping the name of Quebec East and I ask your permission to continue, Mr. Speaker, as I only need about ten minutes more.
Mr. Speaker, to describe the whole career-


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member needs another ten minutes this means half an hour per speaker and there are 16 to come. We will never finish tonight.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member said he would need another five minutes. I hope he will soon come to the point and be able to condense somewhat his remarks.


Martial Asselin: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member for Lapointe should allow the hon. member for Quebec East to continue. It is the maiden speech of the former in the house and I think he should be allowed to go on with his historical account. In our opinion, this would seem quite feasible.


Gérard Duquet: I thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It would be superfluous to relate the whole career of Sir Wilfrid Laurier; after all, he has only been dead for 47 years and we still

April 27. 1966
Redistribution
retain a clear memory of that great Canadian.
Nevertheless, I would like to mention one small thing. During the election held on February 22, 1887, Sir Wilfrid Laurier's opponent in Quebec East constituency was lawyer F. X. Droum. Later, in 1917, Laurier's opponent in the same Quebec East county was Mr. F. O. Drouin, son of the former.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the candidate of 1887, lawyer F. I. Drouin, and the candidate of 1917, lawyer F. O. Drouin, were respectively the grandfather and the father of lawyer Francois Drouin who is now the general electoral officer for the province of Quebec and a member of the readjustment commission.
I hope, Mr. Speaker, that this historical fact will prompt lawyer Frangois Drouin to try and retain the name of this constituency.
I would not want to give an historical account of Quebec East without recalling the leadership of Right Hon. Ernest Lapointe in that county.
In August 1919, Mr. Mackenzie King became leader of the liberal party, and in the fall of that year, another great Canadian figure appeared on the political scene, Mr. Ernest Lapointe, elected member for Quebec East, at a by-election.
Re-elected at the federal election of December 1921, he entered the federal cabinet of which he remained a member until his death, in 1941, that is during nearly for 21 years.
In my opinion we have no right to minimize the significance of such a political career. Lapointe is a name which is linked to the constituency of Quebec East; it is another of those national glories to which as French Canadians we must remain deeply attached.
Ernest Lapointe was the true champion of Canadian unity. He advocated continuously the unity of Canada, denouncing in very strong terms any attempt to break up that unity.
I should like to quote what Mr. Mackenzie King said after the death of Ernest Lapointe.
I like to think that we shared Laurier's succession. Upon me was bestowed the great honour of succeeding Mr. Laurier as head of the party, he (Lapointe) had the honour of succeeding Mr. Laurier as representative of the historic constituency of Quebec East and the distinction of becoming his people's spokesman to the rest of Canada.
I trust that Mr. Ernest Lapointe's value was so noteworthy that the name of the constituency he represented so valorously for 22 years in this house, will not disappear from the electoral map.
[Mr. Duquet.l
I suggest that that is an excellent opportunity to pay tribute to his illustrious son, his Excellency Mr. Hugues Lapointe, present lieutenant-governor of the province of Quebec.
In concluding, I should like to recall a period very much closer to us, no doubt, and quite significant, I admit, but how rewarding for all Canadians: that of Mr. Louis St. Laurent, who was elected on February 9, 1942 and who also remained the hon. member for Quebec East for 15 years.
To recall here the highlights of the career of the Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent would, I am sure, offend the modesty of this great Canadian who, fortunately, is still among us.
Yet he is another prominent figure of Canadian politics who, in particularly difficult times, showed the outstanding qualities of a statesman and succeeded in leading the country with unequalled dignity.
Therefore, it is easy to understand that Mr. St. Laurent still enjoys great prestige.
Quebec East will always remember Louis St-Laurent with fervent devotion.
Feelings of admiration for Mr. Louis St-Laurent have so often been warmly expressed throughout the world, in Canada and especially in Quebec East, that to add to them would be overdoing it; possibly because he is so much closer to us, we should keep the name of Quebec East closely knit with the career of that great statesman, the Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent.
Mr. Speaker, if you will allow me, I should like to read a letter Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent sent me on February 16 last. I quote:
Dear Mr. Duquet,
I congratulate you for endeavouring to prevent the name of the Quebec East riding from being changed to that of Limoilou.
As you know, that riding has always been called Quebec East, ever since the first elections after Confederation. Only three members have represented it from November 28. 1877 to the general elections of March 31. 1958. This is probably a record of electoral stability over 81 years. Sir Wilfrid Laurier was the member for Quebec East until his death in 1919, having been elected in two by-elections and nine general elections. He was replaced by Hon. Ernest Lapointe who was also elected in two by-elections and six general elections.
After the death of Hon. Ernest Lapointe, in November 1941, 1 was asked to replace him as Minister of Justice and I was elected to the House of Commons in a by-election, on February 9. 1942, and re-elected in four general elections.
I was very proud to have had as predecessors Sir Wilfrid Laurier and Hon. Ernest Lapointe and I am convinced that you are yourself prouder
April 27, 1966

to be the member for Quebec East than you would be to represent another riding.
I trust that the Electoral Boundaries Commission will not persist in its project to remove that historical name from the list of electoral constituencies in our province and I sincerely hope that you will succeed in your endeavour.
I know that you have the support of our friend hon. senator Dessureault, who helped me with such dedication in all my campaigns, as he had done for my immediate predecessor Mr. Lapointe.
Kindly accept, my dear Mr. Duquet, the assurance of my best wishes for your own career. I remain as always.
Yours very truly.
Louis St. Laurent.
I have, Mr. Speaker, another letter from Hon. Dessureault which I add to the file and which is written practically along the same lines.
I will therefore conclude my remarks, Mr. Speaker, with the argument that the illustrious men who presided over the destiny of Quebec East are men whose names we must remember. I think the removal of the name of Quebec East from the electoral map would be an insult to the memory of those illustrious men who, for more than 100 years, represented so well in this house the riding of Quebec East.
It will appear to some that I indulged in sentimentality, Mr. Speaker. It may have looked that way but duty overrides sentimentality. We must know how to go back to the spiritual values which can often inspire us. We must not forget our origins. We must keep and honour the memory of those who, before us, through their efforts and sacrifices, built the beautiful country in which we live.
Laurier, Lapointe, St. Laurent were among those and it is our duty, Mr. Speaker, as representatives of the people, as members of Parliament, to see to it that the memory of those dominating figures of our great Canada is kept alive. Failing to do that, would be to disregard history.
I conclude my remarks with the conviction that I have done my duty, that I have expressed the views of my constituents as well as those of all enlightened people in our country and in the province of Quebec.
In the province of Quebec in particular, taking the only stand I could to remain true to the spirit and the letter of our province's motto, which wants us to remain devoted to tradition and which, on behalf of all, I am happy to state in this house "I remember".


Martial Asselin: Would the hon. member for Quebec East allow me to ask him a question?
Redistribution
Since several parishes of the previous Quebec East constituency are to disappear to be included in the new constituency of Limoilou, as the commissioners want, and in view of the encomium bestowed on the Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent by the hon. member, if the commissioners refuse to keep the names of Quebec East and Limoilou, would it not be better to suggest to the hon. member that the name of the constituency of Limoilou be replaced by that of St. Laurent?


Gérard Duquet: Mr. Speaker, may I thank the hon. member for his suggestion. I believe it is excellent, ant it could very well be submitted to the commission members; in fact, I would like to see it included in the report to be made to the commission after my speech.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I should also like to direct a question to the hon. member.
Since there is already a constituency which bears the name of "St. Laurent" that of St. Lawrence-St. George, considering there is also a riding called Laurier, and in view of the fact that I have moved that the name of Lapointe be changed for that of Jonquiere, would the hon. member be ready to accept the name of Lapointe instead of Limoilou for his constituency? That would maintain the name of Lapointe in Quebec East. Would the hon. member be ready to accept this suggestion rather than that of "St. Laurent" since a riding already bears that name?


Gérard Duquet: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the question asked by the hon. member for Lapointe, I believe that, following the speech I have just made, the letter from Mr. St. Laurent, I have put on the record, and with the plain common sense which they must necessarily show, the commissioners will understand that those names are related to the constituency of Quebec East and not to the ridings of Limoilou, "St. Laurent", or Lapointe.
Besides, I would be happy to rid the hon. member for Lapointe of the name of his constituency, but I would rather keep Quebec East, which is really an historical name, since I believe the Lapointe constituency will never become an historical name under the present member of the house.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Does this complete the consideration of Objection No. 1?

April 27, 1966
Redistribution


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.
The house will now proceed to consideration of Objection No. 2 on the list given to the house. This is listed in the pamphlet as Objection No. 3.
On February 4 last a notice of objection in the form of a motion was filed with Mr. Speaker in the following terms, namely:
Proposed Electoral District of Trois-Rividres:
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, on the grounds set forth hereafter: Objections to the new boundaries of the constituency of Trois-Rivieres:
The petition is filed in order that the town of Trois-Rivieres-Ouest may continue to be a part of the federal constituency of Trois-Rivieres for the following reasons:
(a)	the town of Trois-Rivieres-Ouest is a part of the physical and demographic entity of greater Trois-Rivieres;
(b)	its problems at all levels are, for all practical purposes, identical with those of Trois-Rivieres;
(c)	pursuant to the policy of the provincial Department of Municipal Affairs, Trois-Rivieres-Ouest will soon have to merge with the city of Trois-Rivieres;
(d)	the municipal council of Trois-Rivieres-Ouest has filed a formal petition for the purpose of remaining within the federal constituency of Trois-Rivieres.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, may I ask that this objection stand in the absence of the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Mongrain)?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed that in the absence of the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Mongrain) this objection stands?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I should like to ask for how long the objection will stand. As you know, our time is limited to six days, and not full days at that. The house leaders have agreed that certain times should be allotted to these debates. I do not know whether I would

agree that it stand. If the hon. gentleman is not here we should proceed without standing this particular objection.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Starr) whether he would agree that this motion stand, and if there is time left at the end it can be discussed, without any obligation being entered into by the house? As the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Mongrain) is an independent member he would have no house leader, and perhaps was not aware of the conventions established between the house leaders of the various parties. That may be the reason he is not here.


Michael Starr: With the understanding that they will be discussed if sufficient time is left after all these objections have been dealt with, then I would be agreeable.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I think the Chair would like to be very clear about what we are doing here. Does the hon. member for Ontario mean that all of the objections have to be completed before those which are stood are taken up, or all of the objections for the province of Quebec?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I could make this suggestion, that the motion you have just put be called as the last motion from the province of Quebec.


Michael Starr: No. I understood the hon. member who spoke last to say that this should be discussed as the last motion from the province of Quebec. That is not what I have agreed to. If all motions have been disposed of from all provinces and there is sufficient time left to deal with this one, then and only then do I agree it should be discussed.


Gilles Grégoire: Very well.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Do I take it that the house agrees that if some objections are stood these will be taken up after all other objections have been considered, if time permits?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Objection No. 3 stands.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: We will proceed, therefore to objection No. 3 on the list given the Chair, which is listed as No. 4 in the pamphlet.
April 27, 1966

Redistribution
On February 9 last a notice of objection in the form of a motion was filed with Mr. Speaker in the following terms, namely: Proposed Electoral District of Lapointe:
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, on the grounds set forth hereafter:
Changing the name of the "Comte de Lapointe" into "Comte de Jonquiere".


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, my speech will be brief. The purpose of my motion is to have the name of the Lapointe constituency changed to that of Jonquiere.
In order to shorten the debate, I should request that the speech I made on December 4, 1964 and which is recorded on page 10865 of Hansard be tabled and printed in the official report as having been delivered today, and expressing the remarks I intended to make on this subject. If the members are agreeable this would save the time of the house and leave room for many other speakers.
I request unanimous consent of the house to have this speech inserted in the record.


Mr. Laflamme:: The hon. gentleman could give a summary.


Gilles Grégoire: I might sum up my main arguments, but this will require several minutes.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Auguste Choquette: I remember the speech made at the time. There was some heckling. Does the hon. member wish to include the heckling that occurred?


Gilles Grégoire: I have read it over. There was one intervention, a question from the former minister without portfolio the former member for Saint-Jean-Iberville-Napierville, who asked whether the other towns in the constituency agreed. To which I answered: Yes.
If the hon. members of the house give their unanimous consent to have this speech printed in Hansard-
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
[English1


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I think that the request the hon. member for Lapointe is making is one that we should look at carefully. As I understand it, he is asking that a speech he made on a previous occasion be printed in Hansard without his having to make the speech again. Obviously that would require unanimous consent. I think this would be a most unwise practice. What could flow from this is really tremendous.
I would think that it would be sufficient for the hon. member in the speech he is now making, which after all is directed to the Electoral Boundaries Commission, to ask the members of that commission to look at his previous speech. He could give them the date it was made, and the pages in Hansard in which it appears. Otherwise, if all those who have objections have their former speeches included in Hansard, it will result in an awful situation. Today's volume of Hansard would be tremendously thick.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I think it would be a wrong precedent for an hon. member to be allowed to have included in Hansard a speech he has not made in this house. Perhaps we could go one step farther than the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has suggested. Perhaps the house would give consent for Mr. Speaker to include this former speech with the documents which are sent back to that commission.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I think the responsibilities of the Chair in this matter are, under section 20 of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, to refer to the Boundaries Commission the consideration which is being given to the objections at this particular time. I believe that to refer to any speeches which have been previously made would not now be appropriate. I would think that if Mr. Speaker would refer to the commission what is being said today, he would thereby have fulfilled his duty as far as the redistribution act is concerned.


Gilles Grégoire: If I understood correctly, you will supply them with a copy of Hansard for that day.
My intention was to save time and thus enable others to bring their objections forward. I will summarize what I have said:
I ask that the name of the constituency of Lapointe be changed to that of Jonquiere.

April 27, 1966
Redistribution
Such is the hope and wish of the entire population of the riding. Jonquiere is the major city in the riding, the seat of the constituency. The Chamber of Commerce, the municipalities, the school boards have been asking for such a change for years. The previous members of the riding have also requested it.
In such circumstances, since it is the unanimous wish of the constituency, the commission should not object to change the name of the constituency in order to give it a more appropriate geographical name, that is the constituency of Jonquiere.
It is the constituency's name at the provincial level. At the federal level the constituency would be called Jonquiere. In addition to being the wish and the desire of all my constituents, it would also be an advantage for the population, both from the standpoints of tourism and of knowledge of the constituency.
[English1


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does this complete the consideration of Objection No. 2?


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 the house back to the commission for consideration thereof.


Mr. Ricard:: Was that No. 3?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. May I for clarity, suggest to the house that when referring to the objections in the order given to the Speaker, that I refer to the number on the Speaker's list and also to the number on the list in the pamphlet.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: That is the best way.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: We shall now take objection listed as No. 4 on the Speaker's list and as No. 6 in the pamphlet.
On February 11 last a notice of objection in the form of a motion was filed with Mr. Speaker in the following terms, namely:
tTranslation]
Proposed Electoral District of Stanstead:
That, pursuant to section 20 of the Electoral Boundaries Readiustment 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, on the grounds set forth hereafter:
We have made representations before the commission in Sherbrooke, on July 13, 1965, in order that Compton be allowed to keep its name, since 75 per cent of the parishes are located in Compton. These representations have been made to prevent Compton from being replaced by Stanstead.


Mr. Henri Latulippe (Compton-Fronlenac):: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the constituency which I represent, we have received from many municipalities protests against the deletion of the name Compton. The name Compton had been replaced by Stanstead. The Compton parishes account for more than 75 per cent of the area. However, it was proposed to call it Stanstead.
I have here several resolutions of municipalities opposed to this change of name. The constituency of Compton-Frontenac comprises three quarters of the future constituency of Stanstead. I hope that the name of the area which will be entrusted to us will be Compton because that name is our best asset during election time, and the people of the constituency have always voted at Compton; therefore, I protest against calling it Stanstead.
Several aldermen and mayors suggest that the name of Compton be kept. Furthermore, it is asked that the size of the riding be reduced. The hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Grafftey) told me he did not object to keeping in his county the following municipalities: Stanstead, Rock Island, Dix-ville, Barnston, Barnston West, Ogden, Ayers Cliff and Beebe Plain.
The reason for this request is to meet all the needs expressed by the voters and economic and agricultural interests. Highways 9 and 50 separate the counties of Compton and Brome-Missisquoi.
Mr. Speaker, we ask the Commission to revise its decision so that the parishes I have just listed remain in the riding of Brome-Missisquoi and all further divisions be determined by highways 9 and 50 which separate the counties of Compton and Brome-Missisquoi. There would be no highway to cross in going to a parish, which could represent a fair distance and create difficulties for many people. It would be better to leave these parishes in Brome-Missisquoi than to include them in the county of Compton.
Thus, once more, let us keep the name of Compton and of the parishes I have already
April 27, 1966

mentioned. These parishes should remain in the constituency of Brome-Missisquoi.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does this complete consideration of Objection No. 4 on the Speaker's list?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The house having considered this objection, it will be the duty of the 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 the house, back to the commission for consideration thereof.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
The house will now proceed to Objection No. 5 on the Speaker's list, No. 8 on the pamphlet. The text of the objection will be found on page 18 of the pamphlet.
On February 14 last a notice of an objection in the form of a motion was filed with Mr. Speaker in the following terms, namely:
Proposed Electoral District of Cote Nord:
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 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.
(1)	Meaning of the present name of the electoral district of Saguenay. It is a misleading name, which may be confused with the area of Chicoutimi and Lake St. Jean.
(2)	Recommendation is made that the name C6te Nord proposed by the commission be replaced by that of Manicouagan.


John B. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, may I suggest that this motion of objection be treated in the same way as the motion concerning Trois-Rivieres.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the hon. member wish this motion to stand?


John B. Stewart: That is correct.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the house give unanimous consent to stand the motion?


Michael Starr: With the same reservation as applied to the previous one.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is this agreed?
Redistribution


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Objection No. 8 stands.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: We will now proceed to Objection No. 6 on the Speaker's list, No. 12 on the pamphlet. The text of the objection will be found at page 23 of the pamphlet.
On February 15 a notice of Objection in the form of a motion was filed with Mr. Speaker in the following terms, namely:
Provosed Electoral District of Abitibi:
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 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.
Objections to the new boundaries of Abitibi County:
Petition is made in order that the following townships: Quevillon, Comtois, Franquet, Fraser, Desjardins, Bruneau, be removed from the proposed constituency of Abitibi and replaced by the following ones: La Motte, Lacorne, Landrienne, Duvernay, Castagnier and Coigny.


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, my remarks will be very brief for the time being. I have raised an objection to the boundaries of the proposed constituency of Abitibi, because the commission or who devised these electoral boundaries has taken no account of its geography. It seems its only concern was the population.
So, when we consider these boundaries, the member of the proposed constituency of Abitibi will have to travel 65 or 70 miles in the next constituency which will be called Villeneuve, to visit certain areas of his constituency. So, Mr. Speaker, you will understand, and I hope the commission will also understand, that this is an impossible situation.
So here is the suggestion I have sent to them: that the following counties: Quevillon, Comtois, Franquet, Fraser, Desjardins, Bruneau, which are located north of the boundary set for the proposed constituency of Villeneuve, and which belong to the proposed constituency of Abitibi, be transferred to the proposed constituency of Villeneuve.
All those townships are now included in the Villeneuve riding. Replacing the single town of Quevillon which belongs to that township, is part of the town of Senneterre for commercial and business purposes and is much closer than many others would cause no inconvenience.

April 27. 1986
Redistribution
I suggest that the townships located west of the proposed Villeneuve riding and adjacent to the proposed Abitibi riding, near the town of Amos, namely the La Motte, Lacorne, Landrienne, Duvernay, Castagnier and Coigny townships be withdrawn from the proposed Villeneuve riding and transferred to the proposed Abitibi riding, so that the change of population would be roughly the same. This would not change the population of the neighbouring riding very much. The towns of Castagnier, St. Maurice and Landrienne, located in the commercial centre of the town of Amos, would be transferred to the proposed Abitibi riding.
Mr. Speaker, if the commission is willing to study my proposal, I think it will be seen as geographically preferable to the one which is now recommended; it would also meet with the wishes of the population which is requesting the change.
It would also facilitate the work, not only of the present member for Chapleau, but also for those who-I hope it will not be too soon-eventually, will replace him. Besides, it would also prevent confusion.
I therefore ask the commission to study my proposal, and I feel confident it will understand the situation.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: I believe the remarks of the hon. member bring to a close considerations concerning Objection No. 12.
The house having considered this objection, it is my duty, pursuant to section 20 of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, to refer the report to the Boundaries Commission, together with a copy of the objection and also a copy of the debates of the house back to the commission for consideration thereof.
We will now take up Objection No. 19 which is recorded at page 34 of the pamphlet you have before you:
On February 17, 1966, notice of objection-


An hon. Member:: Dispense.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: The
motion before the house deals with the constituency of Dorchester.


John B. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, may I make in this case the same request that I made in reference to the previous instance of Cote
[Mr. Laprise.l
Nord, that is, that this stand following the precedent in the case of the constituency of Trois-Rivieres.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Does the house agree to follow, with respect to this objection, the same procedure as for the others?
Objection No. 19 stands.
We shall now carry on with the consideration of objection No. 21, on page 35 in your pamphlet, which was filed on February 17, 1966 with respect to the electoral district of Temiscouata.
I am given to understand that the hon. members of the house could accept the suggestions made by the Parliamentary Secretary (Mr. Stewart) to the effect that we should proceed in the same way as we have done as regards the objections not considered as such at this stage by the hon. members of the house.
Objection No. 21 stands.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Could I simply ask that the government delegation be present in the house? They are only a small group of six or seven and almost all of them have representations to make. They knew very well what would be the procedure this afternoon; let them come to the house. After all, other members based themselves on the procedure that was to be followed and are doing their work. The procedure was established and there are other members who are not in their seats.
I call on the indulgence and the devotion of the government whip for him to gather government members so that each of them make his own representations.
It is very unfair to others, as we say.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfrel):: The
house will now consider objection No. 8, on page 35 of the pamphlet, with respect to the electoral constituency of Temiscouata.
I apologize to hon. members; we must now consider the objection dealing with the electoral district of St. Henri.
Pro-posed Electoral District of St. Henri:
That, pursuant to Section 20 of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act (Chapter 31, Statutes of Canada 1964-65) and for the reasons hereinafter
April 27. 1966

specified, consideration be given by this house to the matter of an ob.iection 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.
(a)	By changing the name of the constituency in its last report, the commission has created a certain amount of dissension in the midst of the population. Some would like to keep the name of St. Anne, others would like that of St. Henri.
In order to cure this feeling of uneasiness, I suggest that the constituency be given the name of "Marguerite Bourgeois". On her arrival in Canada in 1662, Mother Marguerite Bourgeois devoted herself to the education of the children of our first settlers. She founded the first school in 1668-the same school where the daughters of the settlers received their education until 1881. This historical monument, erected in 1668, still exists and the Congregation of Notre Dame has just converted it into a museum. I am pleased that the constituency includes within its boundaries this testimony to our history; that is why, after conducting an investigation among the electors. I am making this proposal on their behalf.
(b)	In the report, on page 30. section 57. at line 22, let the following words be stricken out "from there to the south-west up to LaMontagne Street", and also the words "and the east" on the following line. Here are the reasons:
I request that the line of Windsor Street at the Notre Dame intersection be continued up to the southern boundary (Wellington intersection). This will have the result of increasing the size of the population by giving it 600 other electors. This sector was always a part of the constituency, the more so as in the east up to St. Lawrence Street there are no electors. Furthermore, this sector is the most important part of the parish of St. Anne, which is situated on the other side of La Mon-tagne Street; this places its residents in a constituency other than the one in which the church which is opposite their door is located.
The representative of St. James constituency thinks that my proposal is quite logical.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Temiscouata is stood.


Mr. Gerard Loiselle (St. Ann):: Mr. Speaker, I have only a few words to say to set out the reasons for my objection to the new name proposed in the second report of the commission, that of Saint-Henri.
All citizens of the constituency were more than satisfied with the first report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission, which kept the name of St. Ann.
This constituency was established in 1892, and we were satisfied with that report. From a small Montreal riding, St. Ann became the second largest in the province of Quebec.
In the second report of the commission, however, the name of Saint-Henri is proposed. I have nothing against that name; I was born myself in Saint-Henri, in Montreal.
Redistribution
However, Saint-Henri which is to be in the new riding, does not constitute the major part of the latter. The riding of Saint-Henri was established under the redistribution act of 1924, whereas, as I said earlier, St. Ann exists since 1892. Before that, it was called Montreal Centre, the greater part of which became St. Ann. But since 1892, the riding has always been called St. Ann.
I object to the new designation of Saint-Henri. A petition was started after the time limit expired for the public hearings to be held by the commission in Montreal. We were unable, therefore, to submit a request to be heard and to present an objection.
As I was saying earlier, I have nothing against the name of Saint-Henri; it is a distinguished name. The riding is called "St. Ann" in the first report and "Saint-Henri" in the second. This makes me a bit uneasy, because some of the people want to keep the name of St. Ann, while others prefer the name of Saint-Henri.
To reconciliate everyone, I thought of proposing a third name, that of Marguerite Bourgeoys. Here is why. Everybody is familiar with the life of Marguerite Bourgeoys who came to Montreal in 1662. She happened to take her first steps on Canadian soil in St. Charles, in the riding of St. Ann.
In 1668, Marguerite Bourgeoys built a school to educate the daughters of the colonists. Consequently, from 1668 to 1681, this same school, built by Marguerite Bourgeoys, was used to educate the daughters of our colonists. This same school is still in existence today and was designated as a historic monument. This building is a few steps from my home and the members of the order of Notre Dame who are the followers of Marguerite Bourgeoys have made it into a museum, after recently modernizing it.
To my mind, it would be a fine thing if the riding were given the name of Marguerite Bourgeoys.
When I saw that I would have to oppose the name, I took the opportunity of asking for a minor correction to the boundary.
As I said a few minutes ago, with the new boundaries St. Ann's will become the second largest riding in Quebec, population-wise. I ask that the boundaries be slightly extended, since only a correction is involved. On the plan, the boundary of this riding is, on the east, Windsor street; St. Catherine street on the north; St. Remi street on the west and the St. Lawrence river on the south. The correction would occur starting from the

April 27, 1966
Redistribution
northeast, that is to say from St. Catherine and Windsor streets southward; instead of turning west as the map now indicates, I would like to request that the boundary on Windsor steet be extended from the north southward so as to connect with Wellington street. With the fork the map-makers designed on the map, the majority of the parishioners of St. Ann's are eliminated and this is one of the oldest churches in Montreal.
On the west side of Mountain street, we see St. Ann's church, while the residents on the east side of the same street are included in another constituency. This is why I request that the Windsor street line from north to south be drawn as far as Wellington street instead of Notre Dame street.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Order. At the present time, we are completing the remarks on an objection concerning the Saint-Henri constituency.
The house having considered this objection, it is the Speaker's duty, 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 the house back to the commission for consideration thereof.
We must now proceed with consideration of objection No. 22 appearing on page 37 of the pamphlet concerning the electoral constituency of Maisonneuve.
Proposed Electoral District of Maisonneuve:
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 commission proposed boundaries which will give rise to administrative problems due to all these detours, thus making it more difficult to contact constituents located near the said boundaries.
2.	That it is possible to have straighter limits while abiding by the criterion of 25 per cent, more or less.
3.	That the 1961 census showed for Maisonneuve a population of 76,479 and for Hochelaga, adjacent constituency to the west, 76.765.
4.	That, in spite of this slight difference for Hochelaga, this constituency had only 222 polls (about 46,000 electors), while Maisonneuve had 305 (1965 Election) for 66,100 electors.
5.	That consideration be given by the commission or by the house to the minor suggestion that the limits between the constituencies of Maisonneuve, Hochelaga, Lafontaine, St-Michel and Gamelin may be made straighter while adhering to prescribed standards.

6.	That any other objection of the undersigned members may be considered valid under the provisions of the said Act.
Dated this 18th day of February in the year of the Lord 1966, at the House of Commons, Ottawa, Canada.


Mr. Antonio Thomas (Maisonneuve-Rose-moni):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 20 of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, I registered an objection to the report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission for the riding of Maisonneuve-Rosemont.
This objection is neither against the necessity of new constituencies nor against the population quotient established in order to proceed to a readjustment of boundaries. On the contrary, I realize the merits of this project. Its main object is to ensure more equitable representation of urban ridings.
However, in the light of my experience of more than 35 years as an organizer of electoral compaigns, I want to point out certain topographic anomalies. These may have very little importance for the layman but they give rise to serious problems for the electoral officers as well as for the voters.
The points on which I formulated an objection take into account the homogeneity of the population with regard to its needs, as well as the urban character of that same population with regard to the boundaries of the neighbouring municipalities.
I noticed that the proposed new boundaries for my riding are made of turns and curves which complicate needlessly the electoral organization and the identification of the riding by the elector. And when I speak of curves, Mr. Speaker, I am not thinking of the feminine curves which caused such a stir in the house not so long ago.
It seems to me that the main consideration which presided over the redistribution of the ridings is the population figure at the time of the 1961 census. Well, that is not a valid criteria because the above mentioned census gave for the riding of Hochelaga, the riding next to mine on the west, 76,765 people in 1961, including 46,000 electors divided in 222 polls at the time of the last elections, whereas in my riding it was set at 76,479 people in 1961 including 66,100 electors in 1965 divided in 305 polls.
Therefore, Hochelaga had 286 people more but 20,000 electors less in 1965. If I submit that the population criteria is not valid it is because the percentage of electors in proportion to the population is not the same, as I have just shown with regard to two neighbouring ridings.
April 27, 1966

Allow me, Mr. Speaker, to give you the most important factors I noted when the bill which concerns us at this time was considered.
First, the number of electors by riding, which I just gave as an example proving that it is inaccurate.
Second, an abnormal situation which already existed and was not corrected. As a matter of fact, at the north end of my riding, according to the new boundaries, there are some 250 families along the limits of the city of Montreal. Well, the proposed riding of St. Michel includes only the populations of the cities of St. Michel and of St. Leonard, excluding those along the limits of the city of Montreal, between the middle of Belanger street and the southern boundaries of the cities of St. Michel and St. Leonard.
There are about 250 families living in that area, that is in my riding, separated from their fellow citizens; they have the same demographic and geographic problems as in the rest of my riding, although they are isolated in a riding made up of two great identical entities. I would have thought that such discrepancies would have been corrected through setting of the present boundaries.
A third and last point to which I want to call your attention is that the new boundaries, are highly fanciful; their weird shapes, their scallops, could easily compete with the eccentric creations of fashion designers. It is hard enough already to organize an election, as much for the electoral officers as the political parties, without complicating it by boundaries which have no practical value. To the two groups I have just mentioned can be added also the electors for whom we make it enormously complicated to identify their riding.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
I will spare you, Mr. Speaker the details of a new readjustment. However, I have read the bill submitted to the house and I think it can be amended according to the basis I have indicated; in short, it would provide
(a)	a better identification of the number of voters
(b)	a redistribution according to population, taking into account the 25 per cent tolerance factor and
(c)	a less fantastic geographic boundary.
In conclusion, I would like to say that I am not asking for any special favour which would help me to get re-elected, but for boundaries which would help me to serve better.
Redistribution


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfrei):: The remarks of the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont (Mr. Thomas) bring to a close the debate on objection No. 22. The house will now consider the following recommendation:
That, the house having considered this objection, it is my duty, 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 the house back to the Commission for consideration thereof.
The house will now resume consideration of objection No. 26-


An hon. Member:: No. 25.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfrei):: No. 25,
on pages 41, 42, 43 and 44 of the document-


An hon. Member:: On page 40.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfrei):: 
Gérard Duquet: As mover of this objection, in view of the absence of the member of Rimouski (Mr. LeBlanc), I should like to give the necessary explanations to justify this objection.
To those who are familiar with the Lower St. Lawrence, there are two main regions or rather, three main regions:	the Gaspe-
Peninsula, Rimouski and Riviere-du-Loup.
Now, since new boundaries have been suggested by the members of the Commission, it

April 27, 1966
Redistribution
is obvious that the proposed riding, as now set up, will remove from the Rimouski riding many parishes which should remain in it. In the Lower St. Lawrence and Rimouski region, the people have grown used to moving, economically and socially, depending on where they live, toward the towns of Ri-viere-du-Loup or Rimouski.
All the parishes, as well as the town of Trois-Pistoles, mentioned in the objection filed by the member for Rimouski, do business directly with the Rimouski area. Their removal from the area and the Rimouski riding, to join them with another riding would upset completely the topography of the area. This could be detrimental to its particular activities and this is why this objection has been filed by the persons concerned so that the parishes mentioned in the notice of objection remain in the Rimouski area and riding.
I trust that the commissioners will take into consideration the special situation and circumstances prevailing in this area and that this objection will be given the consideration it deserves.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfrel):: The hon. member's remarks conclude the consideration of objection No. 25, concerning the electoral riding of Rimouski. Now that the house has studied the objection, it is my duty according to the act, to send back the report to the elections boundary commission with a copy of the objection and a copy of the debates of the house, so that it may reconsider the matter. We will now continue our consideration of objection No. 26 appearing on pages 41, 42, 43 and 44 of the pamphlet.
Proposed Electoral Districts of Beauharnois, Chambly, Laprairie, Lonqueuil and St. Jean:
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 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.
Whereas the town of St. Lambert of the riding of Longueuil has filed an objection before the commission to being included in the proposed constituency of Laprairie, because it shares a larger community of interests with the constituency of Longueuil.
Whereas the cities of Chateauguay, Chateauguay Center and Chateauguay Heights of the riding of Beauharnois-Salaberry have filed an objection before the commission to being included in the proposed constituency of Laprairie, because it shares a larger community of interests with the constituency of Beauharnois.

Whereas the municipalities of St. Philomene, St. Urbain, St. Clothilde, St. Chrysostome, County of Chateauguay; the townships of Havelock and Hem-mingford, the village of Hemmingford, county of Huntingdon; the village of Lacolle, Notre-Dame-du-Mont-Carmel, county of St. Jean, have filed an objection before the commission to being included in the proposed constituency of St. Jean, because they share a larger community of interests with the other municipalities of the counties of Chateauguay, Huntingdon and Laprairie.
Whereas the municipalities of St. Martine, St-Paul-de-Chateauguay, Howick, Tres-St-Sacrement de Howick, Ormstown, St. Malachie d'Ormstown, St. Antoine Abbe, county of Chateauguay; the townships of Elgin, Franklin, Hinchinbrook, God-manchester, the town of Huntingdon, Huntingdon county, have filed an objection before the commission to being included in the proposed constituency of Beauharnois, because they share a greater community of interests with the other municipalities of the counties of Chateauguay, Huntingdon and Laprairie.
Whereas the geographical factor of the five proposed ridings of Beauharnois, Chambly, Laprairie, Longueuil and St. Jean, situated between the St. Lawrence river, the Richelieu river and the United States border, allows a distribution of the electoral district boundaries without prejudice to the interests of the other ridings.
Whereas the population standards, established by the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act (13- Elizabeth II-chapter 31) allows a slight change to be made in the boundaries of the ridings of Beauharnois-Salaberry, Chateauguay-Huntingdon-Laprai-rie, Chambly-Rouville, Longueuil, St.Jean-Iberville-Napierville.
Whereas the commission has not taken into account the objections, suggestions and the alternative plan proposed by the above-mentioned municipalities.
Whereas the readjustment of the boundaries of the ridings of Beauharnois, Chambly, Laprairie, Longueuil and St. Jean, as proposed by the commission, is, according to the representations of the 25 above-mentioned municipalities, against the interests of the population of the area.
And whereas the municipalities in the present electoral districts of Chateauguay-Huntingdon-La-prairie and of Beauharnois-Salaberry have objected to the disappearance of the historical names of Salaberry, Chateauguay and Huntingdon.
It is proposed:
(a)	that the commission should take into consideration the arguments and suggestions of the above-mentioned municipalities and carry on its mandate according to section 13, paragraph C (i) and (ii) of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act.
(b)	that the boundary readjustment of the proposed electoral district of Beauharnois be revised in accordance with the present boundary of the electoral district of Beauharnois-Salaberry, and that the proposed name of Beauharnois be changed to that of Beauharnois-Salaberry. (See annex A).
(c)	that the boundaries of the proposed electoral district of Laprairie be revised to conform to the present boundaries of the existing district of Cha-teauguay-Huntingdon-Laprairie, that is to say, by including all the municipalities of ChSteauguay-Huntingdon-Laprairie and by excluding the towns of Chateauguay, Chateauguay Centre, Chateauguay Heights, Lemoyne, Lery and St-Lambert from the proposed riding of Laprairie, and by adding to the
April 27, 1966

existing district of Chateauguay-Hun tingdon-La-prairie the towns of Greenfield Park and Preville, and that the proposed name of Laprairie be replaced by that of ChSteauguay-Huntingdon-La-prairie. (See annex B).
(d)	that the boundaries of the proposed district of Chambly be revised by excluding, in Laprairie county, the municipality of Notre-Dame-du-Sacr6-Coeur; in Chambly county, the city of Chambly and the municipality of the parish of St-Joseph-de-Chambly; in Rouville county, the municipality of the village of Richelieu, the municipalities of the parishes of Notre-Dame-de-Bon-Secours and St-Mathias; and by adding the towns of Lemoyne and Laflfeche. (See annex C).
(e)	that the boundaries of the proposed district of Longueuil be revised by excluding the town of Lafleche and by adding the town of St-Lambert. (See annex D).
(f)	that the boundaries of the proposed district of St-Jean be revised by excluding, in Chateauguay county, the town of Ste-Philomdne, the municipality of the village of St. Chrysostome and the municipalities of the parishes of St-Urbain, Ste-Clothilde, St-Jean-Chrysostome; in Huntingdon county, the municipality of the village of Hemmingford and the municipalities of the townships of Hemmingford and Havelock; in St-Jean county, the municipality of the village of Lacolle and the municipalities of the parishes of Notre-Dame-du-Mont-Carmel (Cantic), St-Bernard-de-Lacolle; in Laprairie county, the municipalities of the parishes of St-Isidore, St-Philippe, St-Mathieu; and by adding, in Chambly county, the city of Chambly and the municipality of the parish of Chambly; in Rouville county, the municipality of the village of Richelieu and the municipalities of the parishes of Notre-Dame-de-Bon-Secours and St-Mathias. (See annex E).
(g)	that the commission give consideration to the human factors involved and to the varied communities of interests, as detailed in the memorandum submitted to the commission by the said municipalities at the public hearings;
(h)	that no valid reasons justify drastic changes in the boundaries of the existing districts, and, in order that changes be reduced to a minimum, that the commission should accept the suggestions contained in the said alternative proposals submitted to it, or in the modified proposals hereby submitted.



ANNEX A

[Stage Direction]
Municipalities included in the revised constituency of Beauharnois-Salaberry.
Beauharnois-Salaberry:
(a)	The cities of Beauharnois and Salaberry-de-Valleyfield.
(b)	The towns of Maple Grove, Chateauguay, Chateauguay Centre, Chateauguay Heights and Lery.
(c)	Beauharnois county.
(d)	The municipalities of the parishes of Sainte-Barbe and Saint-Anicet in Huntingdon county. POPULATION: 70,191

[Stage Direction]
Municipalities included in the revised constituency of Chateauguay-Huntingdon-Laprairie.
Ch&teauauay -Huntinfjdon-Laprairie:
(a)	The townships of Huntingdon, Brossard, Can-diac, Delson, Laprairie, Greenfield Park and Pr6-ville.
Redistribution
(b)	Chateauguay county.
(c)	In Huntingdon county: municipalities of the parishes of Dundee. Elgin, Franklin, Godmanchester, Havelock, Hemmingford, Hinchinbrook; the municipality of the village of Hemmingford and the St-Regis Indian reservation;
(d)	In Laprairie county: municipalities of the parishes of Ste-Catherine d'Alexandrie-de-Laprairie, St. Constant, St-Isidore, St. Mathieu, St-Philippe and the Caughnawaga Indian reservation. No. 14;
(e)	In St. Jean county: municipalities of the parishes of Notre-Dame-du-Mont-Carmel and St. Bernard-de-Lacolle and the municipality of the village of Lacolle.
POPULATION: 70,537

[Stage Direction]
Municipalities included in the revised district of Chambly.
Chambly:
(a)	The towns of Beloeil, Boucherville, Lafldche, Lemoyne, St-Bruno-de-Montarville and St-Hubert;
(b)	the county of Verchferes;
(c)	in the county of Richelieu: the municipality of Saint-Roch de Richelieu parish;
(d)	in the county of Chambly: the municipalities of Ste-Famille-de-Boucherville and St-Basile-le-Grand parishes.
POPULATION: 72,058

[Stage Direction]
Municipalities included in the revised district of Longueuil.
Lonaueuil:
(a)	The city of Jacques-Cartier;
(b)	the towns of St-Lambert, Longueuil and the area in the town of Preville which is surrounded to the north, south and west by the city of St-Lambert and to the west by the town of Greenfield Park.
POPULATION: 79,469

[Stage Direction]
Municipalities included in the revised district of S-Jean.
St-Jean:
(a)	The cities of St-Jean and Chambly:
(b)	the town of Iberville;
(c)	in the county of St-Jean:_ the municipalities of Lacadie, S_t-Blaise, St. Jean-l'Evangeliste, St-Luc, St-Paul-de-l'Ile-aux-Noix and St. Valentin parishes;
(d)	the county of Napierville;
(e)	in the county of Rouville: the municipality of Richelieu village and the municipalities of Notre-Dame-de-Bon-Secours and St. Mathias parishes;
(f)	in the county of Chambly: the municipality of St-Joseph-de-Chambly parish;
(g)	in the county of Laprairie: the municipality of St. Jacques-ie-Mineur parish.
POPULATION: 66,297
Mr. Paul Beaulieu (St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville):: As member for the riding
of Saint-Jean, I make the following objections from the riding of Saint-Jean and from the representatives of municipalities, of

April 27, 1366
Redistribution
school boards and all parishes in the riding of Saint-Jean-Iberville-Napierville, which comprised the former riding which becomes the riding of Saint-Jean. All object to the withdrawal of all the parishes of the riding of Iberville, except the town of Iberville.
We have no objection, and all those who met to consider this boundary readjustment do not object to the addition of all centres: Napierville, Chateauguay and Laprairie.
However, we have serious objection to the fact that in the riding of Iberville, only the town of Iberville will be included in the riding of Saint-Jean.
There are there six parishes, the farthest being merely 10 miles from the town of Saint-Jean, and there is added to the constituency of Saint-Jean some parishes that are as far away as 40 to 45 miles.
Under these circumstances, we respectfully request that the commission give consideration to maintaining within the boundaries of Saint-Jean constituency, all the parishes that it contains at the present time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: The remarks of the hon. member conclude consideration of objection No. 26 concerning the municipalities of Beauharnois, Chambly, Laprairie, Longueuil and Saint-Jean.
Now that the house has discussed the objection, it is my duty, according to the act, to send back the report to the elections boundary commission, with a copy of the objection and a copy of the House of Commons Debates, so that it may reconsider the matter.
We have concluded consideration of the objections that have been submitted in respect of the boundaries of some constituencies in the Province of Quebec and we shall proceed with consideration of objections dealing with Prince Edward Island's constituencies.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I wish to offer a suggestion to which I think the house might give unanimous consent. We have a speaker to the objection formulated in respect of the constituency of Trois-Rivieres. While it was agreed that this objection should stand until the end of the proceedings, perhaps we might reconsider that decision and as there is in the chamber a speaker to the objection in relation to Trois-Rivieres he might be allowed to speak now.


Michael Starr: We have no objection to that, Mr. Speaker, if he is here now. With regard 
to any of the objections that were stood, if the hon. members are here now I think we should hear them.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Does the house agree to hear the hon. member in respect of the objection in relation to the constituency of Trois-Rivieres?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Objection No. 3 concerning the constituency of Trois-Rivieres.
Proposed Electoral District of Trois-Rivieres:
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, on the grounds set forth hereafter:
Objections to the new boundaries of the constituency of Trois-Rivieres:
The petition is filed in order that the town of Trois-Rivieres-Ouest may continue to be a part of the federal constituency of Trois-Rivieres for the following reasons:
(a)	the town of Trois-Riviferes-Ouest is a part of the physical and demographic entity of greater Trois-Rivieres;
(b)	its problems at all levels are, for all practical purposes, identical with those of Trois-Rivieres;
(c)	pursuant to the policy of the provincial Department of Municipal Affairs, Trois-Riviferes-Ouest will soon have to merge with the city of Trois-Rivieres;
(d)	the municipal council of Trois-Rivi&res-Ouest has filed a formal petition for the purpose of remaining within the federal constituency of Trois-Rivieres.


Gérard Duquet: Mr. Speaker, with regard to this objection, I think the member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Mongrain) would like certain explanations to be given.
It is simply a question of making the members of the Commission understand that the part of Trois-Rivieres called Trois-Rivieres-Ouest, which the new boundaries readjustment has removed from the riding of Trois-Rivieres, should for major reasons remain in that riding, since Trois-Rivieres-Ouest is to be annexed by the Quebec government to the city of Trois-Rivieres itself.
Practically speaking, the problems of Trois-Rivieres-Ouest are the same as those of Trois-Rivieres. Trois-Rivieres-Ouest is soon to be made part of the city of Trois-Rivieres. The municipal council of Trois-Rivieres-Ouest has even formally requested to remain in the riding of Trois-Rivieres-Ouest remain in the riding of situation if tomorrow Trois-Ri-
April 27, 196B

vieres-Ouest were outside of the Town of Trois-Rivieres even while annexed to it and, likewise, if Trois-Rivieres-Ouest were outside of the territorial boundaries of the city of Trois-Rivieres.
I believe these objections should be submitted to the Electoral Boundaries Commission and I think consideration will be given to the request of the member for Trois-Rivieres that Trois-Rivieres-Ouest remain in the riding of Trois-Rivieres as suggested by the members of the municipal commission.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfrei):: The
comments of the hon. member close the study of objection no. 3 concerning the electoral riding of Trois-Rivieres.
The house having considered this objection, it is my duty, in accordance with the Act to refer the report of the Boundaries Commission together with a copy of the objection and also a copy of the debates of the house back to the commission for reconsideration thereof.
I am informed that the hon. member for Saguenay (Mr. Blouin) wishes to raise at this time against objection No. 8 which appears on page 18 of your booklet.
Proposed Electoral District Cote Nord:
That, pursuant to section 20 of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act (Chapter 31, Statutes of Canada 1964- 1965 and for the reasons hereinafter specified, 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.
(1)	Meaning of the present name of the Electoral District of Saguenay. It is a misleading name, which may be confused with the area of Chicoutimi and Lake St. Jean.
(2)	Recommendation is made that the name Cote Nord proposed by the commission be replaced by that of Manicouagan.


Mr. Gustave Blouin (Saguenay):: Mr. Speaker, on February 11, I submitted objections when the Electoral Boundaries Commission suggested to replace the name of Cote Nord by that of Saguenay.
I suggested later that the present name of Saguenay is confusing, in that the Saguenay area is often referred to at the same time as Chicoutimi and Lake St. John. For instance, people talk about the development of the Saguenay, the Saguenay area. I know my hon. friend, the member for Lapointe- he is not at his seat right now-takes pleasure in referring to the Saguenay area and there is always confusion as between that and the riding of Saguenay I have the honour to represent.
Redistribution
Therefore, following several resolutions from Chambers of commerce, municipal councils and other public organizations in my constituency, I had suggested the name of Manicouagan. The suggestion I am making at this time to the commission concerning the name Manicouagan, to replace that of Cote-Nord as proposed, is a lot more up to date. The name Manicouagan is known all over the world and is famous for the tremendous work now being carried out there.
I believe Manicouagan is the right name for the new constituency instead of Saguenay. While expressing the opinion of the Chambers of Commerce, municipal councils and other bodies in my constituency, once more, Mr. Speaker, I put forward the name of Manicouagan.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfrei):: The
remarks of the hon. member for Saguenay close consideration of objection No. 8, and I should report accordingly.
The house having considered this objection, it is my duty, 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 Hansard, for further consideration.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)

This terminates the objections related to the constituencies of the province of Quebec for today. It was understood earlier that if some time remains after the objections have been heard, the remaining objections will be submitted at that time. We will now proceed to the question ...


Georges-J. Valade: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

I should like to clear up a situation, Mr. Speaker, to the effect that consideration of all the objections dealing with the province of Quebec is not necessarily concluded, for there remain two general objections in the order of filing of objections Nos. 18 and 21 which must be considered later.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfrei):: The hon. member for Sainte-Marie is right. We have considered the specific cases and we will later take up general considerations.

We will now proceed to a consideration of Objection No. 5 concerning Prince Edward

April 27, 1966
Redistribution
Island. You will find this on page 6 of your pamphlet. On February 10, last, a notice of objection in the form of a motion was filed with Mr. Speaker in the following terms, namely:
Proposed Electoral District of the Province of Prince Edward Island:
That, pursuant to section 20 of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act (chapter 31, S.C. 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 Prince Edward Island, laid before the house by Mr. Speaker on Wednesday, January 19th, 1966.
The objections to the provisions of the said Report are as follows:
1.	In dividing the province of Prince Edward Island into four constituencies, to which it is entitled, the commission obviously failed to give consideration to the relative rate of growth of the population of the Said Districts.
2.	The commission failed to take into consideration that the boundaries of the electoral districts as they existed prior to redistribution were in accordance with the common interests of the people living therein, and thereby made it possible to have adequate representaation in the parliament of Canada.
3.	In assigning names to the districts, the commission failed to select names with sufficient significant application to the areas which they are intended to designate.
4.	That in failing to retain the dual riding of Queens the commission aggravated the "relative rate of growth" problem and disrupted a long established and quite satisfactory pattern of representation.
5.	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.


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, in speaking on behalf of myself and my colleagues who filed objections	to the
proposed electoral districts for the province of Prince Edward Island, I wish to explain briefly, and as clearly as I can, for the benefit of the commission and the members of the house, the basis of our objections. Our first objection is as follows: that in dividing the province of Prince Edward Island into four constituencies, to which it is entitled, the commission obviously failed to give consideration to the relative rate of growth of the population of the said districts.
I should like to point out, Mr. Speaker, that Prince Edward Island is almost unique as compared with other provinces, with the exception of New Brunswick, with regard to redistribution because, as a result of amendments to the British North America Act in 1915, we are permitted a minimum of four
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret).]
members. For this reason the electoral quota for Prince Edward Island is much lower than that of most provinces. Since it is highly unlikely that the increase in population in Prince Edward Island will ever be rapid enough to entitle the province to more than four seats, it follows that the problem of adding to or subtracting from the present number of seats will almost certainly never arise in the foreseeable future.
The problem of the Prince Edward Island commission was obviously one of dividing the present population into the four constituencies taking into account, of course, the probable shifts of population concentration within the province in the near future. There will be no question of having to add additional seats or subtract seats in future redistributions, so that this problem does not arise. Since the tolerances allowed in the act were not great enough to allow the county boundaries to be retained as constituency boundaries, it would then appear obvious that the objective of the commission should be to have four constituencies as close to the electoral quota as is practical or if there were to be a variation in the population of the constituencies it should have been in such a way that the constituencies with the greatest growth should have been smaller than the electoral quota, and those with a relative shrinking population should have been above the electoral quota so that the passage of time would cause the population of the constituencies to approach the quota rather than diverge from it.
Surely the objective of the commission should have been a redistribution which would satisfy the requirements of the act for as long a period as possible, without the necessity of additional redistributions after every census. But what is the situation we find in the proposed electoral districts? There are two main centres of growth in Prince Edward Island, namely Charlottetown and suburbs, and Summerside and the surrounding districts. Prince Edward Island is not immune from the national trend of the diminution of the rural population and an increase in the urban population. However, we find the proposed constituency of Hillsborough, with a population in 1961 of only about 2,600 below the maximum allowable, is the constituency which contains the growing city of Charlottetown and practically all its suburbs. I would venture to guess that the population of this proposed constituency is now very close to, if not over, the maximum allowable. Almost certainly it will have to be
April 27, 1966

reduced in size at an early redistribution, probably after the next census.
The same situation occurs in the proposed constituency of Egmont, which is about 3,000 below the maximum allowable and contains the rapidly growing town of Summerside. It follows, of course, that the proposed constituencies of Cardigan and Malpeque are well below the electoral quota for the province. We contend that in order for this redistribution to last for a reasonable period of years, the population of the constituencies should be as close to the electoral quota as possible. If they depart from it, then those constituencies with the greatest growth potential should be below the quota.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
Our second objection was that the commission failed to take into consideration the fact that the boundaries of the electoral districts as they existed prior to redistribution were in accordance with the common interests of the people living therein, thereby making it possible to have adequate representation in the parliament of Canada.
I should like to point out, Mr. Speaker, that ever since confederation the constituency boundaries of Prince Edward Island have coincided with the county boundaries, with the exception of a short period around the turn of the century. Much of the administration of the activities of the federal government in Prince Edward Island is organized by counties. The National Employment Service and the federal Department of Public Works are two examples, and I am sure there are many others. There are many governmental organizations, and non-governmental organizations as well, that are organized by counties and thereby coincide with the boundaries of federal constituencies.
On examining the proposed federal electoral districts I am at a loss to think of a single community of interest that coincides with the boundaries of any of them. The community of interest criterion has little or no application to the proposed districts. While it is recognized that county boundaries could not be retained under the terms of the act, it is believed that some partial satisfaction of the community of interest principle could have been achieved.
Our third objection was that in assigning names to the districts the commission failed to select names with sufficient significant application to the areas which they are intended to designate. The names appear to
Redistribution
have been taken from four bays along the shoreline of Prince Edward Island. None of them has any general application to the districts to which they are attached. As a matter of fact, the greater part of Malpeque bay lies in the proposed district of Egmont, whilst Hillsborough bay is surrounded, not by the proposed constituency of Hillsborough, but by the constituencies of Cardigan and Malpeque.
In a brief presented to the commission other carefully thought out suggestions have been made, and I should like to cite some of them. It was suggested that historical Indian names might have a more apt application to the proposed new constituencies. It was formally proposed to the commission that the names they suggest be replaced by four Indian names-Malpeque, Bedeque, Tracadie and Pisquid.
It was further suggested that the names should be those of personages who have had a very special claim to fame in the history of our province, and the names suggested, reading from east to west, were those of Whelan, who was one of the Fathers of Confederation, MacDonald, Holland and Gallant. I am not going to go into the reasons cited for claiming that these would be more suitable names. In any case none of these suggestions found sufficient favour with the commissioners for them to change their original suggestions.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, under the circumstances I would strongly recommend that the commission reconsider the naming of the constituencies and revert to variations of the present names, which have been used continuously since confederation. I should mention the exception, that when Prince Edward Island had five seats there were slight variations in these names of Kings, Queens and Prince, used to designate those five ridings. I believe that this could again be done.
Our fourth objection, Mr. Speaker, was that in failing to retain the dual riding of Queens the commission aggravated the relative rate of growth problem and disrupted the long-established and quite satisfactory pattern of representation. I feel that the commissioners, or the ones who are natives of Prince Edward Island, would probably have had some considerable hesitation departing from this old historic custom of having the dual constituency of Queens. They may have been overawed by the bureaucratic administrative mind which looks upon people as so many ciphers to be put into neat bundles, with even less regard for the traditions and

April 27, 1966
Redistribution
feelings of these people than the sorter would have in the average stockyard for sheep.
This is an old tradition. There has been a dual constituency in Prince Edward Island ever since confederation, with the exception of this same short period at the turn of the century when there were five single ridings in the province. Dual ridings in the maritimes have a special application. In the maritime province of Prince Edward Island all of the provincial constituencies represented in the provincial legislature are dual constituencies. People are accustomed to voting for two members. The same is true with variations in both Nova Scotia and in New Brunswick.
I do not see any great difficulty in retaining the dual riding, but I do see a number of advantages in so doing. By retaining the dual riding, and making the proposed constituencies of Malpeque and Hillsborough one, you would retain not only the dual riding but the historic constituency of Queens. The boundaries would not coincide with the county boundaries precisely, but they would approximately, and the constituency would still contain the city of Charlottetown, which has been historically the centre of that dual constituency.
At the same time, it would also automatically solve the problem of the variation in the population of the constituencies about which I have spoken under the title of an earlier objection. It would go a long way toward solving that problem anyway. There would still perhaps be some other adjustments which would have to be made, but it would solve the greatest problem. It would also partially solve the problem of names, because if the dual riding were retained the name of Queens would be the most acceptable, it being the present name.
I am in a slightly difficult position, Mr. Speaker. I have made suggestions which would meet the objections which we have made, but I have no means of knowing whether any or all of them, or none of them, will be acceptable to the commission. Therefore I have to hedge a bit by suggesting alternative improvements if the improvements I have already enumerated are not accepted.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
I turn now to the fifth paragraph under our general objection, which refers to other objections that the undersigned members may have. I object, Mr. Speaker, to the approach of the commission in dividing the eastern half

of Prince Edward Island into two constituencies. My objection is to the way that the division was made. While it is true that here you are just west of the city of Charlottetown, and that the division would divide the population of Charlottetown approximately equally into two halves, it does not follow that the methods used by the commission in dividing this eastern half of the population into two constituencies is the most logical one. It would appear that the commission attempted to make a predominantly urban riding and a predominantly rural one. However, they did not succeed in their attempt, because the urban area by itself was not sufficient to constitute a constituency. Therefore, some rural area was added to it.
I should like to point out that the city of Charlottetown is not an urban area in the sense that we think of an urban area, or of an urban constituency which is in the heart of some large highly industrialized metropolitan area which has a community of interest entirely disconnected with that of the surrounding countryside. I should be the first to agree that there is a minimum community of interest between the people of downtown Toronto and those living 40 or 50 miles away in the countryside.
That is not so in the city of Charlottetown. Our province is one whose industries are all primary. Our main industries are agriculture, fishing, and of course the tourist industry. Charlottetown is the administrative and servicing centre, and is also the social and cultural centre for a large rural area. Although it is an urban area, it has a close community of interest with the surrounding countryside this area being chiefly composed of Queens county and Kings county.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that a more logical division of the eastern part of Prince Edward Island which has been divided into the constituencies of Cardigan and Hillsborough, could have been made. It could have been divided in a different way. That is one possible solution. It should be remembered that the city of Charlottetown has recently been divided into two provincial ridings, one of them being the eastern part of Charlottetown and suburbs, the other the western half and suburbs. I believe it would have been far more logical to have taken one of these provincial constituencies. What could have been taken is the western part of the city, and that part of Queens county lying south of the Hillsborough river, plus the required number of census divisions which, in Prince
April 27. 1966

Edward Island, are the lots, in the southern part of Kings county. One constituency could have been made of that.
All those persons in the areas I have mentioned have a community of interest radiating from the service centre, which is the city of Charlottetown. The remainder of Kings county and the remainder of what is now suggested should be the constituency of Hillsborough would of course be in another constituency. With the division I have suggested, I think the community of interest principle would be satisfied to a much greater extent than under the present designations.
Before I sit down, may I make one final point, Mr. Speaker. From a practical point of view, to encourage the interest of the public in the government of its country, both federally and provincially, I think it is desirable that unnecessary complications should not be introduced into the electoral system. With the exception of something what happened at the turn of the century, during the last 60 years there has been no instance in Prince Edward Island where a provincial constituency lay partly in one federal constituency and partly in another.
No attention apparently has been paid, in this redistribution, to where the boundaries of federal constituencies are relative to the boundaries of the provincial constituencies. In several cases, proposed federal boundaries go smack through the middle of a provincial constituency, there being no relationship at all between them.
This is something that I think ought to be considered. In several cases which have already been presented to the commission, by making a very minor change and following the division line between provincial constituencies a more logical division between proposed federal constituencies would have been arrived at. Then we would have had constituencies with a population nearer the desired quota than we have in the present suggestion.
Having summarized these things as briefly as I can, Mr. Speaker, I conclude my remarks.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)


Mr. David MacDonald (Prince):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to speak in support of my colleague the hon. member for Queens (Mr. MacLean), and make some additional comments in support of the many which he has already made about redistribution as it affects Prince Edward Island. In doing so I should first of all like to deal with something
Redistribution
that is not actually in the report but which pertains I think to the whole spirit, shall I call it, and problem of redistribution.
It is interesting to note on this occasion that when redistribution was brought before us and made an issue in this house, it was decided that that redistribution should be carried out by an independent commission. In many ways I think this was a good concept, although I am not competent to deal in detail with the many supplementary issues. One of the disturbing things about the many reports that will come before us during the next few days will be the fact that, in general, the commission in many instances failed to take into account the particular communities of interest that existed in many different parts of the country.
This most assuredly is true when it pertains to Prince Edward Island because I think, in light of the suggested boundaries being drawn in that tiny province, it is an indication of recognizing only certain factors, almost all of which are tied to population, and not looking closely at other factors that relate to communities, and community of interest, which are of great importance to the people of P.E.I.
This can be readily realized in the fact that for many, many years it has been the custom of the people of P.E.I. to accept the fact of a dual riding for Queens, and a single riding for Prince and Kings. With the disruption of a dual riding it has fixed the commission with trying to establish a new community of interest, and in an agrarian area like P.E.I. this is a most difficult task to achieve. I remember from my own church experience, when we were trying to amalgamate congregations into larger groups, it was always difficult to evaluate all the factors that come into play in establishing a closely knit community.
The commission was not overly aided by the interest and concern of the people of P.E.I. because, according to the report, only three private briefs were presented to it. Why should this be? Surely redistribution is an important matter. But I think in the minds of many people in P.E.I. they saw this as something affecting the rest of Canada and not their province. After all, we have had redistribution come and go in the rest of the country, but it has left inviolate the constituencies of Prince, Queens and Kings.
Now, for the first time in 50 years, we have seen a disruption of this principle, and I think if the commission were to meet again

April 27. 1966
Redistribution
in P.E.I. to call for reaction to the proposals it has presented, and conduct its hearings so that many people could take part in them, it would discover there was great reaction against arbitrarily establishing four ridings which in no way bear relationship to the three now in existence.
Just to give one example that to my mind seems to run contrary to a community of interest, it is that under the proposed redistribution part of the suburban territory directly west of Summerside is now in the eastern riding, and in effect the representative who will come from the western Egmont riding will be hopping over the other riding which intervenes. It certainly does not establish any kind of homogeneity and community of interest.
Another fact which has disturbed me is one already mentioned by my colleague, that now we are to have two large constituencies, Egmont with a population of 29,672 and Hillsborough with a population of 30,050, while Cardigan will have a population of 23,081, and Malpeque a population of 21,826. I would suggest there is greater discrepancy in the population of these constituencies than has existed previously because in the present situation we have two ridings that are somewhat similar in size, and a third smaller one.
What is even more disturbing, to me at least, is the realization that the proposed new two larger constituencies are the main centres of growth and, if the discrepancy is great according to the figures now before us in 1966, what will it look like for a future federal election, whether it comes in 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970 or 1971? I can but say that I think if there was need to create any constituencies, which in the case of P.E.I. I very much doubt, it should have been done on a much more equitable basis than we have before us in this report.
Then there is the matter of names. I suppose a name is about as subjective a thing as anyone can put forward. We all have certain ideas about what names should be, and I know there is certain geographical validity, although it can be argued both ways, that the names suggested-Cardigan, Egmont, Hillsborough and Malpeque-are significant for these new constituencies. But, considering the history and, may I say, the great men who have represented these ridings-and I would exclude myself from that reference-surely to lose the names of Queens, Prince and Kings would be somewhat tragic not only to the people of P.E.I. but to Canadians generally.
[Mr. Macdonald (Prince) .1
If we must institute new names I suggest we consider maintaining the three we have at present, and adding an additional fourth in line with the same sense as these names, such as Royalty, or something like that. But if we are to abandon the traditional names, could we not have names significantly related to the history of P.E.I.? Obviously there are significant events and people connected with P.E.I. Why should they not be enshrined in the names of these new constituencies, as has been done at other times and in other places?
Then there is the matter of redistribution itself. We are told that according to the B.N.A. Act every ten years, after the census is taken, there should be an examination and a redistribution. We are now approaching very close to 1967. We are well over half way through from the time of the last census. In the light of the fact that things are changing so rapidly in this country one wonders whether we have achieved what we wanted to achieve by this particular redistribution, and why in effect in many cases if there was to be a wholesale abandonment of present constituencies of long standing, it might not have been done after much consultation and after an examination of other factors that come into play.
I quote from R. MacGregor Dawson, one of the great political scientists of our country, who many years ago wrote the following:
Two important principles have been generally accepted in Canada as justifying a departure from the general rule of the approximate equality of the constituencies. First, municipal and county boundaries should be followed when at all possible. It is considered far wiser to over or underrepresent an area than to dismember districts which have established traditions, long history, and strong local pride and character.
All of this suggests to me that there are other factors that are more important to people than mere numbers. There is the sense of a representative really being theirs, in order that they may have a dialogue that goes on not only between themselves and their member of parliament but with each other. If this is to happen, a constituency must be some kind of homogeneous unit, and I fail to find much homogeneity in the new constituencies outlined to us.
I would hope, Mr. Speaker, we will be flexible enough to realize that while there may be certain problems for the chief returning officer of the country with regard to dual ridings, surely in a case as unique as P.E.I.- and I think it is unique alone in the fact that we have only four representatives, apart from everything else-we should have the courage
April 27, 1966

and adventurous spirit to be able to develop in these circumstances which make it necessary-yes, important and valid- a method to continue the concept of the dual riding. This in many ways has contributed in no small measure to the uniqueness and the value of the representation of the province in parliament.
These are my comments with regard to the matter of redistribution, and I would hope they and other comments, which I am sure have been submitted by the people of P.E.I., will be taken into account by the commission when it makes its final analysis of the problem of redistribution in P.E.I.


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to present arguments along the lines of those presented by my two colleagues, not that I have less interest than they but that I have great confidence in and complete support for the arguments they have advanced. They are cogent, intelligent, reasonable and appropriately applied to the question. I therefore support them wholeheartedly. We have discussed this matter on more than one occasion. I am happy they have spoken so well, and I hope the commission will afford the proper attention which such good arguments deserve.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Order. This terminates the consideration of Objection No. 5 in respect of Prince Edward Island province. The house having considered the objection, it will be my duty, pursuant to section 20 of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, to refer the report to the Boundaries Commission with a copy of objection, and also a copy of the debates of the house, for reconsideration thereof.
We now shall proceed with the considerations and objections concerning the province of Nova Scotia, Objection No. 15 found on page 26 of the pamphlet. On February 16 last a notice of objection in the form of a motion was filed with Mr. Speaker in the following terms:
Provosed Electoral Districts of Halifax, Halifax-East Hants and Dartmouth-Halifax East:
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 Nova Scotia, laid before this house by Mr. Speaker on Wednesday, January 19, 1966, on the grounds set forth hereafter: Objections to the new boundaries of the constituencies of Halifax, Halifax-East Hants and Dart-mouth-Halifax East.
Redistribution
The petition is filed in order that the boundary lines of the three constituencies may conform more to recognized municipal divisions in the area concerned, for the following reasons:
(a)	that Dartmouth-Halifax East be extended to the Guysborough County line because the residents of Halifax East, now left outside, by custom, tradition, economic and business interests, and transportation are part of the physical and demographic entity proposed to be established in Darmouth-Halifax East.
(b)	that the boundary in the city of Halifax between Halifax and Halifax-East Hants follow the boundaries of the present ward 7 to prevent political confusion.
(c)	that if change (a) is agreed upon, that the area west of Bedford Basin proposed to be included in Dartmouth Halifax-East be placed in Halifax-East Hants because by custom, tradition, economic and business interests and transportation, that area is part of the physical and demographic entity proposed to be established in Halifax-East Hants.
(d)	that the boundaries of Halifax-East Hants run to the western boundary of Halifax County because the inhabitants along the eastern shore of St. Margaret's Bay have stronger commercial, political and business ties with the area immediately east than the area to their west.
(e)	that Halifax-East Hants be named Uniacke for historical reasons, and to prevent confusion with the name of the riding of Halifax.


J. Michael Forrestall: First of all, Mr. Speaker, before I proceed with my few remarks which I should like to make about the six changes which we in Halifax at least feel should be pursued with, perhaps I should read these into the record:
(a)	that Dartmouth-Halifax East be extended to the Guysborough County line because the residents of Halifax East, now left outside, by custom, tradition, economic and business interests, and transportation are part of the physical and demographic entity proposed to be established in Dartmouth-Halifax East.
(b)	that the boundary in the city of Halifax between Halifax and Halifax-East Hants follow the boundaries of the present Ward 7 to prevent political confusion.
(c)	that if change (a) is agreed upon, that the area West of Bedford Basin-
Known as Bedford.
-proposed to be included in Dartmouth Halifax-East be placed in Halifax-East Hants because by custom, tradition, economic and business interests and transportation, that area is part of the physical and demographic entity proposed to be established in Halifax-East Hants.
(d)	That the boundaries of Halifax-East Hants run to the Western boundary of Halifax County because the inhabitants along the Eastern shore of St. Margaret's Bay have stronger commercial political and business ties with the area immediately East than the area to their West.
(e)	That Halifax-East Hants be named Uniacke for historical reasons-
Which I will touch on in a moment.
-and to prevent confusion with the name of the riding of Halifax.

April 27, 1966
Redistribution
Mr. Speaker, I should like to pay some tribute to Mr. Justice Pottier and his commission, including Mr. Muggah, Mr. Grant, and their secretary Mr. Donald D. Anderson. Their job was a very difficult one I know, because I have been through much of the work they have done, for other purposes and on other occasions. During the course of the hearings in Halifax there were 11 presentations to the commission made up substantially of the political interests as they now exist. These representations were in some general accord. There were no sharp divisions of opinion and they centered around largely, as has been pointed out here earlier this afternoon, the necessity of maintaining identity and common purpose. When you are taken away and removed from those areas whose traditional motivation is in one direction, it is a little difficult to remove them, as in the case of Bedford Basin, from the natural Halifax orientation to the Dartmouth orientation. There is no logical or geographical reason, nor has there been any historic reason.
Mr. Speaker, the time is getting on today and I know that my colleague from Halifax (Mr. McCleave) will deal in depth with many of these points I have raised. In the few remaining moments left I wish to deal with the suggestion that the Halifax-East Hants riding as proposed by the commission be renamed and that it be renamed in honour of a great Nova Scotian, one of the untiring champions of constitutional rights in the province of Nova Scotia and perhaps truly one of the fathers of responsible government in Canada. I refer to that famous attorney general of the province, Mr. Uniacke.
Mr. Uniacke's whole history, his whole life in Nova Scotia, was one of merit and reward, both to himself personally and to the people with whom he worked and lived in his time, as well as the people who have followed in that great province since then. Mr. Uniacke was an Irishman born in Cork in 1753. He came to Canada in 1774, was admitted to the Nova Scotia bar on April 3, 1781, and in 1782 was appointed solicitor general of that province. In 1783 there ensued a period of 25 years of devotion and service as a member of the house of assembly. Mr. Uniacke was first elected to represent the township of Sack-ville. While that is not immediately in the riding, the latter years of his life were spent in the heart of what, if the changes are to go through, will be known as Halifax-East Hants.

Not only because of his 25 years of service as a member of the legislative assembly, but also because of the many other warm human traits that he brought to light in our province in those years, the dying years of the 1700's, we wish to give him recognition in this manner. He spent the last 15 years of his life at Uniacke House, and the area subsequently has been named Mount Uniacke. We find historical reference to him in many ways and in many centres within the new riding and within the adjoining area of the city of Halifax.
If the commission could consider the changing of the name from Halifax-East Hants to that of Uniacke, I am sure they would encourage the good will of the many thousands of residents in the suburban areas surrounding Halifax and through the area of Hants East.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, I have one other brief thought I should like to put forth this afternoon regarding this question of redistribution of the boundaries in Halifax, and it involves in a very minor way the absolute numbers or quotas that would be affected by two of the changes that have been mentioned, particularly with regard to Halifax-East Hants.
In reference to the change of the Dartmouth riding from the area known as Bedford, back to the western riding, which I hope will come to be known very favourably as "Uniacke", in all a total of 2,100 voters will be involved. This falls well within the allowable percentage of deviation above or below the quota and should impose no difficulty from that point of view.
On the other side of the ledger, the removal of this number of people from the Dartmouth riding will in no way impair it. In fact, the growth on the Dartmouth side of the harbour is such that the removal of 2,100 votes will not make much difference, because during the five year period since these figures were accumulated I am sure the growth has been such as to bring it within the allowable limits.
Out in the extreme western end of this new riding to the Hubbards and St. Margarets bay area, along the shore line of St. Margarets bay to Peggy's Cove, we find people whose natural orientation and business pursuits are best accommodated in Halifax. As I say, their natural orientation is in this direction, and it would be useful to these people and the maintenance of order in the new constituency
April 27. 1966

if the boundary could be left as it now exists in the present dual constituency.
I should like to make one final point before I conclude my remarks. Like the dual constituency in Prince Edward Island, Halifax has enjoyed representation by two members, elected by the people of Halifax, since the time of confederation. As evidence of the good representation of that city, one can point to the fact that not less than three prime ministers of this country at some point in their lives pursued their careers in that city, sought election there or served in the house of assembly. I would be remiss, as the last new member from that constituency, if I did not pay tribute not only to those men who rose to heights in the parliament of Canada but to the many who came and gave of their time and devotion, serving to the best of their ability. When the constituency disappears we will have seen the last of the constituency in which responsible government in Canada was born, fostered and nurtured.
Viewpoints raised by myself and my colleague are considered to represent the tripar-tison views of the existing political interests in Halifax. There is no major conflict involved. Indeed they are shared by municipal, provincial, business and social interests. To cross over these lines and disarrange them to the extent proposed, I suggest will create some undue difficulty in federal, provincial and municipal efforts and interest, and it is not our intention to swerve from that difficulty at this time.


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, since it is very close to six o'clock I wonder whether we could call it six o'clock. I can assure the house that within a very few minutes after the commencement of the debate tomorrow afternoon yet another province will be out of the way, because I am sure I can complete my remarks in approximately seven minutes.


John B. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, may I suggest that any member who wishes to speak to the objections raised in respect of the changes in Nova Scotia be allowed to speak at this time so that we can complete that part of our job this afternoon? I am sure this would take only about 12 or 15 minutes.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I think that is a very good suggestion. Perhaps you will not see the clock until we have completed this province.
Redistribution


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Robert Jardine McCleave: I promise I will keep my eye on the clock and take not more than seven or eight minutes to complete my remarks.
My colleague has covered much of the ground in his remarks that we compiled for presentation to the commission, and I shall not deal with those areas again. I should like to point out, however, that there was agreement among the political parties regarding the general presentation to the commission when it met in Nova Scotia.
The new boundaries that we propose conform to the municipal lines in the province of Nova Scotia. These are lines which have been in effect for generations and which, of course, determine the set-up of the political organizations. I am advised by the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Stewart) our colleague from the adjoining riding of Antigonish-Guysborough, that he would have joined us had we asked the commission to take another look at the suggested redistribution of Nova Scotia as it affected the whole province. Unfortunately our efforts were confined to the one county of Halifax, which in the future will have three members and include part of a fourth and fifth riding.
This is perhaps understandable when one realizes that the population served, as of the last census, was 225,723. Halifax, even though a dual riding, is one of the largest in the country. To elaborate on the figures given by my colleague, if the changes were made as have been suggested, creating the Halifax-East Hants riding by adding part of the east shore of St. Margaret's bay and Bedford, the member would represent a population of approximately 77,866, which is within the permissive limitation of 67,000 plus the variation. The riding of Dartmouth-Halifax East, adding the eastern end of Halifax county, would then have a population of 74,950. It should be pointed out that Dartmouth is a growth area so the number would be larger than that. However, we are bound by the figures of the last census.
What effect would these changes have on the adjoining seats from which the proposed areas would be taken? Again we must check the figure for Central Nova and the south shore. We would find that these are still within the acceptable population limits.
The argument has been advanced by my colleague, with the regard to the suggested

April 27, 1966
Redistribution
change, that the area near the head of St. Margaret's bay should not become part of the south shore area but should remain in the proposed Uniacke riding.
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)
I should like to deal with two other points. First, with regard to the city of Halifax, we suggest to the commission that it do one of two things. The northwest corner of Halifax is taken out to go into the riding immediately west. We suggest that to avoid political confusion the commission follow the ward 7 boundaries in the northwest section of the city. The boundaries determined by the commission have no relation to the ancient ward system of Halifax. Alternatively, if it will not consider making the change to satisfy municipal lines, we suggest that it make the change to satisfy the new provincial lines set up since the commission sat and since we presented our petition. This would be to take out and put in the western riding that area bounded by Windsor street North and Che-bucto, and the Dutch Village road.
There is a population of about 2,000 at the eastern end of Halifax county which we suggest remain in the Dartmouth-Halifax East riding, rather than go into Central Nova. Our submission is that this area is not a viable unit attached to Pictou county and part of Colchester county. There is a crosscountry road between these areas but it is a small one; the major roads in the area run along the coastline. The area has its economic interest identified with Halifax and Dartmouth and its political roots-and politics, of course, are important to Nova Scotians-are tied in with the area immediately to its west.
For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I would hope the commission would pay some heed to the wishes of the inhabitants of that area and would take a look at the various points we have presented. We have presented them in a non-partisan way, trying to make units as compact and as nearly identifiable with existing units as possible. With those remarks, Mr. Speaker, and with our fingers crossed, we send these speeches to the commission through Your Honour. I would point out that I was right on the dot of seven minutes.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does this complete the consideration of Objection No. 15?


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 the house, back to the commission for reconsideration thereof.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I would seek the permission of the house to revert to routine proceedings for a moment.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the house give unanimous consent to revert to routine proceedings?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



BROADCASTING, FILMS AND ASSISTANCE TO THE ARTS

[Stage Direction]
Third report of the standing committee on broadcasting, films and assistance to the arts -Mr. Basford.

Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, before we adjourn I would point out that it was arranged that the individual representations from Quebec, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick would be considered today. 1 would assume that since all these representations have been considered except those in connection with New Brunswick, representations in respect of New Brunswick will be heard first tomorrow, in addition to any others that the house leaders might decide upon at their meeting tomorrow morning.


John B. Stewart: I understand that is acceptable to the government house leader, Mr. Speaker.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
It being at seven minutes after six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.