1973-07-19

OFFICIAL REPORT


[Stage Direction]
22 Elizabeth II

[Stage Direction]
Published under the authority of the Speaker of the House of Commons by the Queen's Printer for Canada
Available from Information Canada, Ottawa, Canada
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, July 19, 1973

Mr. Ron Atkey (St. Paul's):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege as a result of a substantive change in Hansard of the answer given by the Prime Minister to a supplementary question I put to him yesterday. My line of questioning concerned one Ronald Patrick Lippert, a Canadian who has been held as a political prisoner in a Cuban jail for ten years. I asked the Prime Minister whether he was taking into account the fact that the prisoner himself, through his family, had requested the intervention of the Prime Minister.
The answer given to me in the House by the right hon. gentleman was, to the best of my recollection: "Mr. Speaker, I was not aware of that fact." My recollection has been confirmed by the hon. member for Leeds who has taken a continuing interest in the subject matter of the question. Yet Hansard reports the Prime Minister's answer as follows: "Yes, Mr. Speaker, I was made aware of that fact."
This is really the opposite of the Prime Minister's actual answer given in the House. Either Hansard has made an important error of substance or, as more likely may be the case, the Prime Minister or someone from his office has deliberately changed the answer on the blues prior to printing when it was found that the Prime Minister had made a mistake. If the latter is correct, Mr. Speaker, I would submit that this deliberate change in substance infringes not only on my privileges but on the privileges of all hon. members in the light of the dangerous and unfortunate precedent which is set.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I would rather the Prime Minister did not reply to the hon. member's charge. It is very seldom that the Chair intervenes in matters such as this, but when a serious accusation has been made, as has been made today by the hon. member for St. Paul's with the apparent support of the hon. member for Leeds, the Chair thinks it has a duty to look at the record. I have looked at the record, and the hon. member's charge that someone in the Prime Minister's office has altered the record is without substance. The record shows that according to the Hansard report-and I think hon. members would wish to give some substance to the reports and the records as they appear for the benefit of the House-that the Prime Minister used the following words: "Yes, Mr. Speaker, I was made aware of that fact." That has not been corrected by anyone, so the hon. member's question of privilege is at least questionable.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Cossitt:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member rising on a question of privilege?


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Yes.


Mr. Speaker:: It cannot be on the same question of privilege, because I ruled there was no question of privilege.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: In view of the fact that my name has been mentioned by the hon. member for St. Paul's, I feel I should be entitled to make a brief statement on this matter.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is not entitled to make a statement on that point. The hon. member for St. Paul's raised an alleged question of privilege. I have studied the record. I say there is no question of privilege. If the hon. member for Leeds wished to raise a question of privilege he ought to have given advice and notice to the Chair. This, he did not do. I think we have to proceed with the business of the House.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask leave to present a motion under Standing Order 43. The motion speaks for itself, so that no preamble is necessary. I believe if hon. members listen to it carefully, they will agree to it. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Harding):
That Mr. Speaker be requested to seek an immediate meeting of the Canada-United States Interparliamentary Group, so that Canadian parliamentarians can make known to their United States counterparts their views on the movement of Alaskan oil down the west coast of British Columbia and through the Strait of Juan de Fuca.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's motion is proposed under the terms of Standing Order 43 and requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed? There appears to be unanimous consent.

July 19, 1973
Labour Relations


Mr, Baldwin:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I did not quite hear the motion and wonder if it could be read again. I wonder if the words "bunch of parliamentarians" were included in it.


Mr. Speaker:: It is moved by Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre) and seconded by Mr. Harding:
That Mr. Speaker be requested to seek an immediate meeting of the Canada-United States Interparliamentary Group, so that Canadian parliamentarians can make known to their United States counterparts their views on the movement of Alaskan oil down the west coast of British Columbia and through the Strait of Juan de Fuca.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour of advising the House that the Senate has sent a message requesting its approval for setting the quorum of the Joint Standing Committee on Regulations and other Statutory Instruments at seven (7) members, provided both Houses are represented whenever a vote, resolution or other decision is taken and that the joint chairmen be authorized to hold meetings and receive evidence so long as five (5) members are present and provided both Houses are represented.


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, in relation to the message from the Senate just read by the Chair, I should like to move:
That the quorum of the joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons on regulations and other Statutory Instruments be fixed at seven members, provided that both Houses are represented, whenever a vote, resolution or other decision is taken, and that the joint chairmen be authorized to hold meetings and receive evidence so long as five members are present, provided that both Houses are represented; and
That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours thereof.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, wish to move a motion under Standing Order 43 and I hope that it, too, will commend itself to the House, because it relates to a matter of some urgency and of national importance. Pursuant to Standing Order 43, I

wish to move a motion of urgent and pressing necessity based on the following facts.
Reports today indicate that the two sides in the railway dispute are so far apart that only personal intervention by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) can end the threat of a Canadian rail strike. I would therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), the following motion:
That this House immediately request the Minister of Labour to meet both sides in the dispute to secure agreement on a contract which will eliminate the threat of a national railway strike and the national consequences thereof.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion proposed by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) under the terms of Standing Order 43. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity and the motion cannot be put.


CANADIAN COASTGUARD
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to move a motion under Standing Order 43 relating to a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
Reports have persisted for some time that the government planned to move the Canadian Coast Guard College, now located in Cape Breton, to the Ottawa Valley. I have repeatedly asked questions about this rumoured relocation and have repeatedly been assured by ministers of transport and by the government minister who supposedly protects the interests of Cape Breton, that this would not happen.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the hon. member might indicate the terms of the motion. As the hon. member knows, under the terms of Standing Order 43 it is not possible to bring forward argument or discussion in support of the proposed motion.


Robert Muir: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I shall come immediately to the motion. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Maclnnis):
That the matter of the misleading, contradictory and incorrect statements made by the present and former ministers of transport and the President of the Privy Council concerning the future of the Canadian Coast Guard College in Cape Breton, be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's motion is proposed to the House under the terms of Standing Order 43 and requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No.
July 19, 1973

Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member will have heard that there is not unanimity in this regard.


Robert Muir: Yes. The right hand man of the President of the Privy Council said no.


Mr. Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order reflecting once again on the automatic refusal of government members in respect of motions under Standing Order 43. I would draw the attention of the Speaker to the fact that there was a "no" from the other side of the House in respect of the first motion moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. I heard "no's" in all three cases.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member had a negative ear because I certainly did not hear it.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL AFFAIRS   SUGGESTED CONFERENCE ON ALL TYPES OF INSURANCE-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION
Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provision of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the announcement by the Canadian Underwriters Association to the effect that the costs of car insurance will be increased by 5 per cent to 16 per cent in six provinces which do not enjoy the benefit of provincial automobile insurance, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That the federal government take the initiative and call together a federal-provincial conference to deal with all aspects of car insurance, general and life insurance, so as to ensure that Canadians in all provinces would enjoy the benefits of insurance programs at reasonable costs comparable to those in Saskatchewan and Manitoba.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This motion again is proposed under the terms of Standing Order 43 and requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimity in respect of the motion of the hon. member for Broadview?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Apparently there is not unanimity. The motion cannot be put.


WESTERN ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITIES CONFERENCE-TABLING OF FINAL BACKGROUND DOCUMENT
Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 41(2) I should like to table in both official languages the final federal background document for the Western Economic Opportunities Conference.


CANADIAN CITIZENSHIP ACT
Mr. Joe Hueglin (Niagara Falls) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-214, to amend the Canadian Citizenship Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Joseph Fred Hueglin: The purpose of this bill is to facilitate the obtaining of Canadian citizenship by those men who have served in the Canadian armed forces and who are not in possession of Canadian citizenship. It is concerned primarily with veterans, and I am certain it will be dealt with in the manner in which veterans affairs have customarily been dealt with in the House. I commend it to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, and to the gentleman in charge of citizenship-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. member shall have leave to introduce the said bill?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.


Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of the revelation yesterday that the government did not make the Canadian position on the Alaska route and the Mackenzie alternative clear in answering questions put by the United States state department, and in view of the amazing delay in communicating corrections in government answers from June 27 to July 16, can the Prime Minister explain to the House whether the original answer was government policy and if the correction concerning Canadian ownership was the result of a change in government policy after June 27, 1973?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might be allowed to answer. May I say specifically with regard to the last question, the answer is no. It was not a recent change in government policy; it was a position that had been decided last summer.
With regard to the delay in transmitting the clarification, I should point out that the Canadian embassy in Washington communicated the exact terms of the clarification to the state department on July 6 and that the U.S.

July 19, 1973
Oral Questions
government at that time was in full possession of the clarification, including being aware of the fact that there was one answer for the gas pipeline and another answer for the oil pipeline.


An hon. Member:: A lot of gas.


Mr. Baldwin:: Hogwash.


TAPS TANKER ROUTE-ALLEGED DELAY IN PRESENTING CANADIAN POSITION TO UNITED STATES-GOVERNMENT ACTION TO CORRECT
John Allen Fraser: My supplementary question is again to the Prime Minister, although he may wish to refer it to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the fact that the TAPS proposal has been a matter of concern both for the U.S. government and the government of Canada for several years, and in view of the Prime Minister's repeated assurances that the Canadian position had been clearly and forcefully presented throughout to the U.S. government, can the Prime Minister inform the House why it was not until July 16, 1973 that the government finally presented to the U.S. government the full Canadian position?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: That is not correct. The Canadian position was communicated to the American authorities as far back as May 1972 to Secretary Morton. The most recent statement, as I pointed out to the hon. gentleman, was communicated to them on July 6. If the state department chose not to pass on that information, I cannot be held accountable for that.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Allen Fraser: I might point out to the Secretary of State for External Affairs-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the hon. member would like to ask the supplementary question.


John Allen Fraser: Again I direct my supplementary question to the Prime Minister who once again may wish to defer to the minister. In view of the fact that the government did not advise the House of the U.S. inquiries and the government's replies, and in view of the fact that the existence of such replies was only released to the press after my questions of July 6, can the Prime Minister now advise the House as to exactly what immediate steps the Prime Minister is prepared to take directly with the U.S. government to correct the damage done by this incredibly inept piece of nineteenth century quill pen diplomacy?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. gentleman should know, the answers given to the State Department were repetitions of answers given to him and to others in public, and indeed some were direct quotations of answers given in this House. In other words, there was no new statement of policy involved in that.


TAPS TANKER ROUTE-REASON FOR FAILURE TO COMMUNICATE CANADIAN POSITION THROUGH DIPLOMATIC CHANNELS
Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a supplementary question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Why did he not communicate the change in the Canadian position, announced on July 6, in response to the questionnaire submitted by the United States Secretary of State, as would be the usual way? In other words why did he not, through his department, communicate formally with the U.S. Secretary of State rather than leaving it for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to write a letter to the U.S. ambassador accredited in Ottawa?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, it is not unusual, in relations between Canada and the United States, for my colleagues to communicate with their counterparts in the United States, or in response to inquiries in their specialized fields, and I think the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources did the usual thing in his usual, efficient way.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Did not the Secretary of State for External Affairs, through his department, make a formal response to the questionnaire as of June 27, I believe it was? Did not the Department of External Affairs make that communication to the Secretary of State?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might respond to that because the American Embassy did not communicate with the Department of External Affairs but communicated directly with my department. It was for that reason that my department responded, and the actual communication was made through the Canadian embassy in Washington with the State Department, but of course communication was going on at the same time with the American embassy here in Ottawa after we received the inquiry.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Is it correct then to draw the conclusion that the Prime Minister and his government have taken this matter so seriously and have been so concerned, that the correct position of the government of Canada was communicated by letter to the United States ambassador to Canada some four days after it was published in Canada and, as a result of this inept and careless proceeding, this did not get to the United States Congress until July 16?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sure the Leader of the Opposition will appreciate that a question asked in those terms is not in order.


TAPS TANKER ROUTE-POSSIBILITY OF DELIVERING OIL TO POINTS IN UNITED STATES SOUTH OF VANCOUVER ISLAND
Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the potentially tremendous oil hazard to the coast of British Columbia, and in particular to that part of the seacoast which would be affected by a major oil spill in the Strait of Juan de
July 19, 1973

Fuca, I would ask the minister if the government has had active discussions with the United States on the possibility of having all Alaskan oil delivered to points on the U.S. west coast south of Vancouver Island, where there are far fewer navigational hazards than in the Strait of Juan de Fuca?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker. That is exactly the point we have made to the United States on many occasions.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: On a question of privilege-


Mr. Speaker:: Is the minister rising on a point of order?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: On a question of privilege with regard to the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Speaker. I think it is only fair from my standpoint to indicate that the State Department had agreed to release the information on July 6, and it was only on July
9,	when we found they had not released the clarification and, at their request, that we submitted the letter on July
10.	It was our understanding that they would release that information on July 6, and it was only when we found out that they did not do it that we sent them further clarification.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps there might be some order. I realize the hon. member for Kootenay West has a supplementary, but perhaps the Chair might be allowed to recognize the hon. Leader of the Opposition first and then go to the hon. member for Kootenay West.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, arising out of the remarks made by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. I should like to point out that the normal way to communicate on a matter of such importance as this-


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: That is not a point of order.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: It is as much a point of order as my hon. friend's question of privilege. I will be very brief and to the point. I just make the point that the whole procedure was sloppy and there was no follow-through, even assuming that what the minister says is correct. There was no follow-through at all.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I recognize that the hon. minister was rising on a point of debate in the same way as the hon. Leader of the Opposition. Perhaps we might now go to the hon. member for Kootenay West for a supplementary.


Randolph Harding: Mr. Speaker,-	/
Some Kon. Members: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Kootenay West has an interesting and relevant supplementary to ask.
Oral Questions


TAPS TANKER ROUTE-POSSIBLE DELIVERY OF OIL TO CHERRY POINT BY CANADIAN PIPELINE
Randolph Harding: Mr. Speaker, my further supplementary is to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. What has been the result of the talks for possible oil deliveries to the United States through other United States west coast ports or to the Cherry Point refinery in Washington by way of an existing Canadian pipeline?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, as my colleague, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources said yesterday, and as my colleague, the Minister of the Environment has said on many occasions, it seems to us only to make sense that the Cherry Point refinery should be served from interior points and not from sea and that would meet our main problem.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I appreciate there are sup-plementaries from the hon. member for Victoria and other members. Perhaps for a change of pace the Chair might be allowed to recognize the hon. member for Bellechasse.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
Since a number of employees have become involuntarily unemployed as a result of the closing down of the Davie Shipbuilding yards in Lauzon, and that they are having a hard time obtaining benefits for that period of unemployment, can the minister tell the House whether he has received representations from the Unemployment Insurance Commission in this regard?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, to the best of my knowledge I have not had direct representation but I will certainly consider the hon. member's representation today and see what can be done about it quickly.


TAPS TANKER ROUTE-POSSIBLE ACTION TO REMEDY MISREPRESENTATION OF CANADIAN POSITION TO UNITED STATES
Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the almost unbelievable position in which we now find ourselves that the Canadian west coast is going to get a tanker route to which all west
5780

July 19, 1973
Oral Questions
coast residents are opposed, apparently because our affairs of state are now being carried on using the InfoCan Hansard clipping service-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure that the hon. member appreciates that a question cannot be asked in those terms, and that it is not conducive to the orderly conduct of business to ask questions which are clearly out of order.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, I will try to get to the question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs who must take responsibility for this communications muddle. Can he explain to the House in a straightforward way what he intends to do to retrieve the situation, if it can be retrieved?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I want to make it perfectly clear that the position of the Canadian government has been known, to the Congress of the United States, the State Department, this country and this House, for many months and has not changed.


COMBINES
John Gilbert: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In view of the recent announcement by the Canadian Underwriters' Association that the cost of automobile insurance will increase in the six provinces which do not have a provincial automobile insurance program by 5 per cent to 16 per cent effective August 1, 1973, would the minister tell the House whether he has instructed his officials to investigate this massive and concerted move on the part of private insurance companies for a possible violation of the Combines Investigation Act?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, it is my intention to draw this point to the attention of the officials of the combines branch to see whether any question has been raised or would be raised under the Combines Investigation Act.


REQUEST FOR STUDY OF PRIVATE AND PROVINCIAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE SCHEMES
John Gilbert: A supplementary. Would the minister tell the House whether it is his intention to instruct his officials to study the automobile insurance rates in all provinces and to publish the results of such study so as to inform Canadian consumers everywhere about the relative merits of provincial car insurance programs as compared with private insurance schemes in the other provinces?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I will consult with my officials

about that and see whether the suggestion comes under the terms of reference of the Combines Act.


FINANCE
Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Finance on the general subject of inflation and prices. In view of the magnanimous undertaking by his colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, yesterday, that the minister is going to play some lead in some international meeting respecting trade, commerce and inflation, I wonder if the minister would be good enough to inform the House today what new initiative he or the government is taking to provide leadership at the international level respecting rising prices and inflation?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I will be directing the attention of other industrial nations of the world both in Washington when we meet at the Group of Twenty having to do with international monetary reform and as my colleague has suggested, within OECD as well, to pinpointing the central relations between inflation on a worldwide scale and the difficulty it is causing in the resolution of the international monetary problems.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary. In view of the fact that Canada's inflation rate is higher than most others, would the minister tell us whether he is seeking information or giving it at this meeting?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman's preamble is not factually correct.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, a question for the Prime Minister. In view of the urgent need, as very accurately expressed in the latest report of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, that the Prime Minister should, in the very near future visit the countries of the European Economic Community as have all the leaders of the other leading trading nations of the world, has the Prime Minister already prepared a plan for such a series of visits next fall or does he intend to formulate such plans in the very near future?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am giving most earnest consideration to this suggestion of the Senate Committee, and I do hope I will have the support of all sides of this House if and when I make that trip.


George Harris Hees: A supplementary question. I should like to ask the Prime Minister if the reason that he has steadfast-
July 19, 1973

ly refused to make these visits in the past six years is the fact that these countries were not sufficiently exotic to prove to him that he should make these visits?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Leeds.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Solicitor General. In view of the minister's statement on Tuesday that John Murphy, arrested in Ireland, is a member of the communist party of Canada, will he now tell the House if he has any information to indicate that the communist party of Canada is giving assistance to the IRA and specifically, have the Royal Canadian Mounted Police been requested to investigate fully any connection between the communist party and the IRA?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I have no information at all that the communist party of Canada is assisting the IRA.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: A supplementary question to the Solicitor General. Is the minister or is the RCMP investigating reports that so-called Republican clubs are acting as IRA fronts in certain cities of Canada?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I have no information on that right now but I will look into it.


FINANCE
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, a question for the Minister of Finance. On April 9, as recorded at page 3087 of Hansard the minister stated that where the monetary policy was in conflict with the fiscal policy, the Bank of Canada controls the monetary policy while the government controls the fiscal policy; in light of that fact and the fact that mortgage interest rates for CMHC loans are going up as high as 10 per cent and probably 12 per cent, does the minister now consider that it is time he discussed the matter with the Bank of Canada, because there is definitely a conflict, to bring about a change in policy?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Fraser Valley West.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
Oral Questions


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, there is no conflict. I see the Governor of the Bank of Canada regularly.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Is it now clearly established that the government policy is high interest rates and there will be no change, except for an increase in the interest rates of CMHC mortgages and conventional mortgages in Canada?


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In view of the fact just revealed by Statistics Canada that in 1971 medical doctors' and lawyers' incomes were on average four to five times higher than the incomes of ordinary Canadians, will the minister responsible for the protection of Canadian consumers be good enough to inform the House whether his department is conducting any studies on the subject of doctors' and lawyers' fees charged to Canadians, and what steps he proposes to take to ensure that Canadian taxpayers seeking to maintain their health and to protect their legal rights have access to these services at reasonable costs?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, the matter the hon. member has raised comes essentially within provincial jurisdiction.


ALLEGED HIGH COST OF MEDICAL SERVICES- CONTINUATION OF FEE FOR SERVICE CONCEPT FOR DOCTORS-GOVERNMENT ACTION
Mark Willson Rose: Given the almost predictable attitude of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Since the federal tax dollar is being spent massively on medical education and on medicare, and in view of the concern expressed by federal government spokesmen about the soaring costs of health care in Canada, will the minister tell the House whether any serious studies are being conducted in his department to determine the extent, if any, the medical profession is abusing its privileged position in terms of ripping off the taxpayer of Canada and in terms of dispensing extravagant medical services to those few overly concerned about their health?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is asking a question which I suggest ought normally be answered by way of a statement on motions.


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I asked if any studies were currently being conducted by the Minister of National Health and Welfare on these two points, dispensing services and treatment of-
26454-2.!

July 19, 1973
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If that was the question, perhaps the minister might reply. The question was so long, I had forgotten the first part of it.


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, there has been put before the provinces a new financing formula that will allow plenty of flexibility on health services to the population at reduced costs. I suggest the hon. member's friend in British Columbia could listen to his question about reducing the cost of health services.


Mr. Speaker:: I will return to the hon. member for Fraser Valley West. The hon. member for Athabasca rises on a point or order. I will hear him on that.


Mr. Yewchuk:: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member for Fraser Valley West did not intend to mislead the House with regard to the question of fees charged by doctors. I have a statement in my office which I am prepared to table. It indicates that a plumber charges $22 for a house call whereas a doctor charges $10.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member ought to have first declared his interest.


Mark Willson Rose: I might point out, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Is the hon. member rising for the purpose of asking a supplementary? That was the reason he was recognized.


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, I rose several times, but I did not feel I had the attention of the House. I might say to the hon. member for Athabasca there might be some very expert plumbers who could justify that kind of salary. I wish to ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare whether his proposals to the province of British Columbia and other provinces to reduce the cost and increase the health care of Canadians contemplates the continuation of dependence on the fee for service concept for rewarding the medical profession.


Marc Lalonde: As I said in my previous answer, Mr. Speaker, there is nothing in the proposal that would prevent any province, including the province of British Columbia that my good friend knows, from adopting a system other than the fee for service system. The federal government would be pleased to continue sharing in the cost of those services.

[ Translation]


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport.
Can he tell the House if the employees of the Canadian National in the Quebec passenger service must be bilingual?


Mr. Speaker:: This question could be placed on the order paper. If it is urgent to establish whether the employees of the Canadian National should be bilingual, the question could be discussed at ten o'clock tonight.

[ English]


NATIONAL CAPITAL COMMISSION
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. Has the National Capital Commission reported to him any change in their long standing policy with regard to leasing recreational land to the Ottawa-Hull municipalities? If so, when was the change made and will it adversely affect local municipalities?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: No, Mr. Speaker, it has not. I understand this question relates to press reports of yesterday with regard to a proposed arena. That is a matter for discussion between the NCC and myself and the NCC and the city of Ottawa.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Claude Wagner (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
Could he tell the House if it is correct that investigators of the department, especially in southwest Montreal, abuse the recipients of unemployment insurance, and more particularly immigrants, aged persons, women and young people, and does the minister intend to remedy the situation more clearly and severely than last April 5?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the allegations are correct. However, to make sure there is no doubt about it, I will look into the specifics of the hon. member's representation. I might add that having read the press reports of the incident to which I think the hon. member is referring and which gave rise to this comment, from information I have, I do not believe these are factual representations from the people making demonstrations.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
[ Translation]
I	believe the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe has a supplementary question.


Claude Wagner: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
July 19, 1973

When does the minister expect to table the report of the advisory inquiry committee established last April.


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I presume the hon. member is referring to the report of the advisory committee of the Unemployment Insurance Commission, on benefit control operations. I have answered this question several times in the House. I am now awaiting the final report from that committee which has been delayed by a public meeting that I believe is being held in Toronto today, to be followed by a public meeting in Vancouver. The chairman of that advisory committee tells me that following the completion of those public hearings, it is his intention to submit a report as quickly as possible.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. William C. Frank (Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Have representations been received from concerned veterans associations in Ontario expressing concern about the handover of the Westminster Veterans Hospital in London and, if so, what stand is he taking?


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, representations have been made to me by people concerned about the handover of the Westminster Veterans Hospital. If it is turned over, this will be done with great caution. Certain things will be guaranteed. Veterans will be looked after and given priority. The veterans employed there will keep their employment.


PROPOSED MACKENZIE VALLEY PIPELINE-REASON FOR FAILURE TO MAKE CANADIAN POSITION CLEAR TO UNITED STATES
Mr. Peter Bawden (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, I have an additional question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources on the subject of the pipeline from Alaska. Last April he said repeated attempts had been made to inform Washington of the government's position with regard to this oil pipeline. Can the minister say why he is finding so much difficulty in communicating with Washington and whether he anticipates he will now be able to make our position clear as it relates to an oil pipeline through Canada.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Well, Mr. Speaker, as I have stated, our position has been communicated both to the United States State Department and the Secretary of the Interior and, indeed, to members of both the Senate and of the House of Representatives when they were in Ottawa.
Oral Questions


Mr. Oberle:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I had occasion to visit Washington in April of this year and I would hate to see the Secretary of State for External Affairs have the last word on this subject. He has said that the Senate and Congress of the United States were aware, and that the House was aware-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member knows, or ought to know, that this is not a point of order. If he can show me, by reference to the Standing Orders, how an intervention of that kind is a point of order I will be pleased to hear him further.


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, the point of order is that the Secretary of State for External Affairs has said that the position of the government was made clear to the House of Commons, to the people of Canada and to the Senate and Congress of the United States. That is very difficult for me to believe.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member can believe or disbelieve what is said in the House by other hon. members but that has nothing to do with the Standing Orders of the House of Commons.


FOOD PRICES REVIEW BOARD
Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In view of the sharpening urgency of the food price situation, can the minister tell us whether staffing of the Food Prices Review Board has been completed. If not, why not? When does he expect this staffing exercise to be completed?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I understand from reports I have obtained from the Board that the staffing activity is quite advanced but I do not have information today as to whether or not it is complete. I will endeavour to get further information and inform the hon. lady.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Bearing in mind the minister's recent promise that the first report of the Food Prices Review Board will be made by early fall, can he tell us whether this report will contain concrete recommendations to the government for dealing with the price of food, or whether it will be merely an outline of a grand strategy for the winter campaign?


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: A supplementary question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In the light of the announced removal of controls by the United States government and the resulting sharp

July 19, 1973
Oral Questions
increase in imports into the United States of foods at this time, is the government now prepared to use export controls on a temporary basis to avoid scarcities and an escalation of prices at consumer level?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I am glad the hon. member has drawn the attention of the House to the failure of the kind of policy his party has been proposing for some months.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

[ Translation]


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
Yesterday, as recorded on page 5751 of Hansard, in reply to a question on family allowances the minister replied: We are proposing that the act provide for an average of $20 per child, and this amount may be more or less, but that the minimum be $12. I would like to ask the minister to state clearly whether the cheques will be mailed directly from Ottawa to the families and what will be the amount received by each child, $12 or $15?


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will allow the hon. minister to answer briefly to the question of the hon. member for Temiscamingue but it would seem that those questions are related to a measure which will be eventually before the House. In any case, I would not want to be unfair to the hon. member for Temiscamingue and the minister might reply briefly to this question.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I can give the hon. member the assurance that family allowances cheques will still be issued by the federal government. As regards the second part of the question, the amount of the cheques may vary from one province to the other depending on the provincial legislation provided, first, that no child gets less than $12 and, second, that the average for all children in one province works out to $20 so that if a province should reduce the amount sent to one child this amount will be automatically increased for the other children in this province so that the average be $20 per child in the province.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I realize that we will discuss this question later on, but it is important for the information of the people.
Does the minister mean that the family allowances cheques for each province will be issued by Ottawa, after an agreement with the province?


Marc Lalonde: Indeed, Mr. Speaker, as in the past all family allowances cheques will be issued by the federal government for each of the provinces.


PROPOSED MACKENZIE VALLEY GAS PIPELINE-INQUIRY AS TO UNITED STATES INTEREST
Mr. William Skoreyko (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, might I ask the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources whether the government of the United States has inquired as to the interest of the Canadian government with regard to a joint Mackenzie Valley pipeline to carry Prudhoe Bay gas? Has the U.S. government requested any information as to the possible conditions governing such a pipeline?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Discussions have taken place with United States officials over the last several years regarding a gas pipeline route. There is an extensive record there. Indeed, there has been an exchange both of inquiries and responses in this regard.


LABOUR RELATIONS
Mr. Harvie Andre (Calgary Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Transport and it relates to the railway labour dispute currently in progress. In view of allegations made by the union that there were discrepancies in the submissions made by the railway company to the arbitration board, can the minister tell us whether he has asked his officials to look into this point and thereby remove this obstacle to a solution of this dispute?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: These people enjoy autonomy as far as the conduct of negotiations is concerned. In the event of a dispute it is dealt with by the Minister of Labour, but I do not see why I should intervene and tell the company what they should or should not do.


DISPUTE WITH NON-OPERATING RAILWAY EMPLOYEES- REQUEST FOR INTERVENTION OF MINISTER OF LABOUR
James Aloysius McGrath: A question to the Minister of Labour, Mr. Speaker, who I believe is within earshot, or, at least, he was a few moments ago.


Mr. Bell:: The shot part is right.


James Aloysius McGrath: My supplementary is to the Minister of Labour. In view of this very serious allegation, and in view of the failure of the conciliation board to reach agreement, and, further, in view of the fact that as a consequence thereof both parties are irreconcilably separated, is the minister now prepared to exercise the responsibilities he has under the statute and intervene personally in an attempt to end this strike which could easily take place as of next Saturday?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: I am certainly prepared to exercise my responsibility. Whether

this means intervening at the present time or not is certainly debatable.


James Aloysius McGrath: Can the minister tell us whether he has now made mediators available to both sides in this dispute, or whether he is prepared to delegate someone, perhaps the hon. member for Verdun or even the hon. member for St. John's East, to represent him?


ALLEGED SHORTAGE OF MEDICAL SERVICES IN LOW
Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, the urgency of my question, which is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, can be judged on the basis of a petition containing over 5,000 names which I have just received in my office concerning counties all over Canada, such as Brome County, which now find themselves without the services of a qualified family doctor. My question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare is simply this: Has he been informed that in low-income areas across Canada it is now easier to obtain the services of a veterinary surgeon to treat animals than it is to get a doctor to treat human beings? What action does the minister intend to take in this area?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question asked in those terms is hardly in order, as the hon. member will recognize.


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, then I ask the minister what action he intends to take, with the provinces, to make sure that in low-income areas there are more family doctors, more clinics and more medical assistance to rectify this chronic and serious situation.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, this is a question which has been the object of discussions with the provinces at every meeting of health ministers.
[ English]


William Heward Grafftey: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the grave urgency of this situation, because right now people are being deprived of services which they should be getting-


Mr. Speaker:: Order please. That is argumentation.


William Heward Grafftey: With respect, Mr. Speaker, it is not argument; it is fact.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Chair recognizes the Leader of the Opposition.
Oral Questions


CANADA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister with regard to the heard office of Canada Development Corporation, about which there seems to be some difference of opinion within the corporation. Can the Prime Minister reassure the House that the headquarters of Canada Development Corporation will be in Vancouver both for purposes of policy determination and also in terms of operations? In other words, will the headquarters of Canada Development Corporation be in Vancouver, as the Prime Minister has assured the House?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the assurances I gave to the House are well known to the directors of Canada Development Corporation and, for greater certainty, our government representatives on the board of the corporation were told anew what our instructions were when I communicated to the House how the corporation was to be set up.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance arising out of his straightforward answer to my question of last Friday on recapitalization of the Canadian National Railways' system. The minister said that in his view, in the long-term interests of the country there should be recapitalization both of the CNR and of Air Canada. I ask the minister whether he and his officals are studying this matter and does he have any proposals to put before the government? Will he be presenting proposals to parliament later this year?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, we have had this question under active review with the Department of Transport, but for the moment I prefer to see whether we can get the current financing bill through and tidy up the situation.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. As we have already informed the government House leader that the bill could go through second reading in one day, if he calls it, I ask the Minister of Finance if he would consider urging the government House leader to refer the matter of CN financing to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications this fall?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the government House leader is aware of the importance of the bill, but I would not want at the moment to add to his immediate problems.

July 19, 1973
Oral Questions


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Finance. In light of the fact that, according to Bank of Canada figures, Canada ranked last among the major industrial nations in containing food prices for the 12 months ended last April, is the government giving the idea put forward by the Secretary of State for External Affairs at a global conference, serious consideration with a view to learning how other nations are better containing inflation with respect to food than Canada is, or is the government simply looking for a ploy to distract the attention of the public-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Simcoe North.


SUGGESTED GRANTS PROGRAM TO ESTABLISH GERIATRIC UNITS FOR RESEARCH PURPOSES
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the increasing aging population in Canada and the consequent increasing burden of chronic illness- 50 per cent of a physician's workload being with older patients today-adding to already skyrocketing costs, would the minister give consideration to special research grants or to the establishment of geriatric units where more scientific data could be applied not only to the care of such patients but also to the prevention of chronic disease?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, due to improving health services, it is obvious that there has been an increase in the longevity of Canadians, and geriatrics has become a more important aspect of medicine. I will certainly give careful consideration to the suggestion of the hon. member.


OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH PROGRAM-REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON FUTURE STATUS
Mr. Joe Clark (Rocky Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Secretary of State. Since the minister's reason for not making a statement on motions regarding OFY was that the decision as to its future had not been made, and since Cabinet decided on Tuesday not to combine OFY and LIP into a single program, can the minister now give an undertaking to make a full statement on motions tomorrow? Also, will he tell us, now, that in future the OFY program will be based on statute, rather than being run out of the back pocket of the minister?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Pro-vencher. Is the hon. member rising on a point of order?


Charles Joseph Clark: I wish to ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's question was clearly out of order. He cannot ask a supplementary to a question asked in those terms. I think hon. members should know that when they ask questions along the lines of the question of the hon. member for Rocky Mountain, which clearly was out of order, they cannot take it for granted that, the point having been scored, they can then rise to ask a supplementary. I think that is an entirely wrong practice, and that is why I recognized the hon. member for Provencher. I see the hon. member rises on a point of order.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if you would advise me in what particular my question was out of order when I asked the minister if he would make a statement on motions.


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member had asked only that question, it would have been in order. The hon. member for Provencher.


BROADCASTING
Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Communications. In view of the fact that the Department of Communications initiated research for a compact FM broadcasting unit for remote communities, a project commonly referred to as the Snow-Goose project, and as a company called Mico-Com Electronics, of Beausejour, Manitoba, was successful in its application to build the new broadcasting units, would the Minister of Communications indicate whether the department will release the world marketing and manufacturing rights in order that production of the Snow-Goose project can be undertaken?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Minister .of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, I hope that the hon. member will allow me to take note of his question and give him an answer later.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth and then call orders of the day.


PENITENTIARIES
Mr.   Sean@: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. Can the hon. gentleman advise this House whether the failure to report to work of many training personnel at the federal

training centre at Ville de Laval is continuing today, and did officials of the Canadian penitentiary service instruct employees at that institute yesterday to give misleading answers to the subcommittee of this House investigating the penitentiary service and the reasons for this failure to return to work?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I do not have an up to date report on that matter, but I will be pleased to get a report for the hon. member.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Gerald William Baldwin: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This might be one of my last opportunities to ask the President of the Privy Council, as the government House leader, what his plans are for the House for the balance of this week, and next week, as the case may be.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, we would continue today with the debate on the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, followed by the immigration bill, followed by the amendments to the Criminal Code, and then the Olympic bill. I have changed the order of business slightly because it is my understanding that some members who might want to participate in debate on the Olympic bill will not be here tomorrow, including the Postmaster General whom I should like to see attending tomorrow a very important historical celebration in Nova Scotia.


Gerald William Baldwin: On a further point of order, Mr. Speaker, as the government House leader said that we were to begin debate on what he called, I think, the amendment to the Criminal Code, is it intended to complete this bill before any other legislation is called?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, save and except the necessity of dealing with the Olympic bill at some point next week.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the business of the House, I wonder if the government House leader has had time to think of the suggestion which was made yesterday, namely, that before we deal with anything else we might call order No. 12, the report stage and third reading of the bill regarding crop insurance.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the hon. member I would say that if we could pass the bill without debate, I would call it as the first order of business today; but I have had no assurance that it would pass in those circumstances.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has a supplementary point of order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, my question is, has the minister sought this assurance? He has it from this party.
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I asked the hon. member to give me an assurance, and the other House leaders, and I will call this bill if they say there will be no debate.


Some hon. Members:: Up, up.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I rise simply to say there is a time and a place for everything, and it is not the floor of this House at this time.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]
[ English]

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Wednesday, July 18, consideration of Bill C-208, to suspend the operation of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections; and the amendment thereto of Mr. Blen-karn (page 5758).
Mr. Speaker:: The "time and place" now is to call on the hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte (Mr. McCain).


Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, the difference of opinion varies, increases and multiplies, it seems, as we go through the procedures of this House. It multiplies a little more as we get further into the session. No debate in this House exemplifies more clearly the difference of opinion that can exist among members of the House than this bill which pertains to redistribution and the amendment in respect of time. The change proposed by the amending bill is not new to Canada; it is something which has been necessary before, and unquestionably it will be necessary again.
When Canada was initially developed on the basis of negotiation, there were differences among those parts of Canada now known as provinces when the Dominion of Canada was formed. Negotiations were held and a decision arrived at which was considered at that time to be a fair, contractual agreement in respect of seats. I have listened with interest to those who have said it is not fair to Canada that there should be a minimum number of seats for some provinces. It seems to me it would be better to have a minimum number of seats for more provinces in Canada, so they might at least be geographically more competently and effectively represented.
While it may be a very interesting theory, I am sure in some areas of Canada if one were to say, "Let us alter the fact that there is a minimum number of seats in certain provinces," it would create a hubbub and furor in the general nation of Canada which would not be in line with what we want: furthermore, when the suggestion is made I think we are asking the House of Commons to negate or to fail to honour the contractual agreement by which Canada was formed. That contractual agreement did not relate only to seats in parliament; it did on one occasion relate to the necessity of constructing a railroad: so to me and to

July 19, 1973
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension
many other people it would be a logical move of the Canadian people to say, "Let us take up the rails of the railway which was part of the deal by which one province became part of Canada while at the same time we made the deal in respect of the minimum number of seats for other areas of Canada." This was a contractual agreement entered into by a responsible government.
Having said that, I think it is only fair to add that just because there are a minimum number of seats in certain provinces does not mean there should not be a minimum number in other provinces. I submit there should be, and that part of the redistribution program outlined in this bill should assure a minimum number of seats for certain areas of Canada which find themselves losing representation on our strictly representation by population structure.
I am not one of those who would in any way wish to say that we should not have representation by population in Canada. However, I am one of those who say that when the question is presented clearly and fairly to Canadian citizens, I do not believe anyone in Canada today would fail to recognize that when you try throughout this nation to arrive at a one vote, one person proposition, no matter how one is represented it must be vote for vote, person for person. The people of the cities should be given to understand-I am sure they do not comprehend the complications of rural representation in respect of distance-some of the pleas made in this House based on the so-called "rep by pop" argument. They should consider the fact that a member of this House stated that in perhaps five minutes he could walk across his constituency, and in 15 or 20 minutes could walk its length.
Let us consider the vast areas of the rural country and consider the amount of time a rural representative spends in travelling from one part of his constituency to another. We must consider the consumption of that amount of time in relation to the opportunity of a member to see his constituents, or for his constituents to see him. There are also more factors to be considered than just a one person, one vote basis for the distribution of seats in Canada.
If at any time in Canada's future it must be one vote, one person then it will become absolutely necessary that special consideration be given to constituents and their representation in rural areas, so they can in effect be represented by people whom they know and can be given an opportunity to see these people. I submit some members of this House probably spend more time in the process of transportation from one part of their constituency to another than some city members spend representing their people. I am not casting any reflection on any member of this House when I make that statement.
Again, as I did when I spoke in respect of the New Brunswick distribution, I want to make it very clear that no member of this House has a finer group of people, and no member derives more pleasure out of representing his constituents than I do. I do not object to any part of the constituency as it originally existed and in which I was elected. However, I object with the greatest vehemence at my command to what has been done to New Brunswick in a general way, because this redistribution has completely disregarded the social, geographic, ethnic, economic and political practicalities which should prevail in a program of constituency redistribution.

I cite for you, Mr. Speaker, the fact that the filing by members of this House of the objection to the map when it was laid on the table was a non-political presentation, signed by members of the government party and the Conservative opposition, in an effort to obtain a better deal for our people. One great weakness of the present act is the fact that the commission is in no way obligated to listen to people. It has been given the opportunity to hold a hearing at a time and place of its convenience, to hear presentations written out in advance without necessarily any opportunity for rebuttal or discussion. This has limited the possibility of the presentation of the voters' ideas to a degree that most people in New Brunswick threw up their hands rather than attempt to make a presentation.
This is not a reflection on the members of the commission but, rather, on the regulations by which they are bound. Any act relating to the redistribution of seats should also give an opportunity to the people of the area to present their points of view in respect of redistribution. At the same time, it should obligate the commissioners to pay attention to them. The representations made in New Brunswick both by myself and the hon. member for Mada-waska-Victoria (Mr. Corbin), as well as by the president of the Liberal Association, were almost ignored, although not totally. Therefore, the people find themselves in the position in which the commission decreed they should be initially.
This is not a local problem and I do not speak as a prejudiced individual from a particular constituency. The arguments which have been presented in the House have been publicized in one area as an intention by the members to protect themselves. I deny that. It is a misunderstanding of a political situation by somebody who does not have knowledge or expertise in the field of politics. It concerns me to see individuals make comments in respect of this subject when they have not at the same time, in the organization of their media operation, asked a member of the staff to live in that particular section of our society, investigate that facet of society from personal knowledge and then report on it. At no time has any individual, other than my own constituents, made a knowledgeable presentation to me, nor have I been asked why this redistribution should happen.
I do not know how many other members of the House have had the same experience with the media. I respect the media totally and recognize that they have a job to do. On occasion a mistake can be made by them, as well as by a politician. I submit that when you have an illness, you go to a doctor; when you have a political problem, you go to your member of parliament, legislator or city councillor. These are fields of expertise as completely separated from other fields as any, including the legal profession.
Members of the House have a knowledge of the problem, and if the act has a weakness its great weakness is lack of recognition of the political nature of a democratic country. It was intended, of course, to avoid gerrymandering, the lumping together of populations for political purposes by the government of the day. I think it may have avoided that to some degree, yet as I listen to reports from various areas of Canada I find that gerrymandering still exists. In its objective to eliminate gerrymandering, the act has

perhaps succeeded in some instances-but it must have political guidance, in the scientific sense of the word, to recognize the necessity of political representation.
What is equality in terms of representation? Is it an opportunity to see your member of parliament in a city or riding five minutes walk away from you? Does this compare with the necessity of a 200-mile drive? What is equality? Is it an opportunity to walk into the unemployment insurance office a few blocks away from home, or is it when you find that your constituents and yourself live more than 200 miles away from the nearest branch of the unemployment insurance office?
What is equality? Is it the lack of a Manpower training centre, a Manpower office within 100 miles of your home, versus the opportunity just around the corner or at most a few blocks away? We have heard a great plea for equality of representation. I submit that this plea is without knowledge of what is equal representation. I am sure some members from rural ridings have not been in all the communities of their constituency since the last election, and will have no opportunity to get to them before the next election. I submit that this is not equality when compared with the opportunity of the member representing a city community who is a matter of blocks away from his entire constituent body.
What is equality? The legislation may have brought about what is considered to be an inequity on a temporary basis. But that, of course, is what confederation is; it is what democracy is. It must be the aim of this House to seek out, and to try to find in whatever time may be necessary-either the time of limitation as imposed by this amendment, the time proposed by the bill, or whatever period of time it takes legislators to come up with a fair formula in the form of legislation-the most equitable representation that rural and urban Canada can possibly obtain.
That is equality, and that must be the objective of the House. It must be my responsibility to compromise, perhaps, some of my rural attitude. At the same time, it must be the responsibility of the city-oriented member of the House to compromise part of his city attitude and recognize that the inequities of this redistribution do not all lie in the city, do not all lie in British Columbia and do not all lie in New Brunswick: they lie all over Canada in a rather equitably distributed fashion, with complaints coming from coast to coast. From Newfoundland it is one complaint, and from British Columbia it is another. When legislation generates a situation which brings about complaints on a coast to coast basis in this country, it is high time we took the time to amend the act and to bring about a situation in which there may be some political reality, in the scientific sense of the word, for the government of Canada and the election of the members of the House of Commons.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I apologize to the hon. member for York East (Mr. Arrol) who is the next hon. member to have the floor. I believe the hon. member for Madawaska-Victoria (Mr. Corbin) is seeking the permission of the House to ask a question of the hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte (Mr. McCain), if he wishes to accept the question.
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension


Mr. Corbin:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask my colleague, the hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte (Mr. McCain)-I must say, first, that I support entirely many of the things he said in his speech-whether he supports the amendment of the hon. member for Peel South (Mr. Blenkarn). This did not come through in his remarks.


Fred Alward McCain: That is a good and fair question. I did not state my position in that respect. I said that regardless of the time required for an equitable settlement of the dispute from coast to coast-and the time is important-the equality of distribution and proper selection is more important.


Mr. Ian Arrol (York East):: Mr. Speaker, I am in favour of the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Peel South (Mr. Blenkarn) that the electoral boundaries readjustment suspension be extended only to July 1, 1974, rather than, as proposed in Bill C-208, to January 1, 1975. I should like to remind the House of a rather profound statement of recent times, namely, Parkinson's law. Mr. Parkinson states that work expands so as to fill the time available for its completion.
There should be no delay beyond that which is absolutely necessary to bring boundary readjustments into effect. We must act as soon as possible to bring justice to those citizens of Canada now denied the full value of their vote. I refer, for example, to those from Newfoundland who are now residents of Toronto or Vancouver. I refer to those from the Maritimes, from Quebec, from the Prairies and from northern Ontario who are now residents of urban centers. Because they exercised their choice to move where they would in Canada, are they to be denied a full vote? Are they less a Canadian, less entitled to have adequate representation? An independent commission has said yes, they should be entitled to a full vote. Parliament seems to be saying, in a majority, by its delaying tactics, no.
It would appear that parliament, by ignoring the needs of the cities, is ignoring the needs of 80 per cent of the population. A number of members from rural areas have indicated that the needs of those in the rural areas are more in want of attention than the needs of those in the cities. As a general comment, Mr. Speaker, I would say that the prosperity of all areas in Canada is directly proportional to the prosperity of the urban areas. Unless the cities of Canada, the industrial centres, perform their role of activating the economy through utilizing their resources, we are all poor.
More specifically, in reference to the individual it is unthinking, if not cruel, to state that the city dweller does not need as much service from his member of parliament as the rural dweller. The city dweller, for the most part, is somebody who recently lived in the country. He has left his roots; he has left his family; he has left his relatives. He is alone in the midst of an uncaring throng, be he from Europe, Asia, the West Indies or the Maritimes. There has been talk about, and attention paid to alienation of Quebec and alienation of the west. By our action let us not incite alienation of the cities. We ignore the cities at our peril.

July 19, 1973
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension
Look at the United States today where, without adequate city representation, they have not had adequate solutions.
There is, I believe, an element of self-interest versus national interest in some of the arguments presented to this House. We would do better, both urban and rural members, to think less of maintaining our present positions as individual members of parliament and to think more in terms of the best interests of Canada. I am well aware that the political life of urban members of parliament such as myself is, generally speaking, short. I believe our time is better spent in doing the best for Canada in what may be the one chance that we get, rather than thinking in terms of the next election.
It has been said that the name of the game of politics is to be elected. But if it is only to be a game it will not be a rewarding kind of life. So what, if our constituency and our political life be wiped out by boundary readjustments? These are relatively unimportant. If our lives are motivated only by political expediency, we will never have any profound satisfaction.
But we do have an opportunity now to follow through with the work of the boundary readjustment commissions, to give Canada more equitable representation and to help solve, with an increased number of members, some of the problems of the cities. So again, speaking on behalf of the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Peel South, I plead that we get on with the work of enacting the new boundaries.
[ Translation]


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, we are now considering Bill C-208, An Act to suspend the operation of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, and the amendment moved by the hon. member for Peel South (Mr. Blankarn), and I quote:
... by deleting the words "1st day of January, 1975" where they appear on lines 4, 8 and 9 at page 2 and by substituting therefor the words "1st day of July 1974".
Mr. Speaker, I am wondering exactly why such an amendment is moved; it is only a matter of six months more or less to reestablish fairly the electoral boundaries. Moreover, this matter has already been discussed just four or five years ago. The proposed readjustments of 1965 have been implemented in 1968, at the time of the election, and now we are considering whether this readjustment will take place on July 1, 1974 or January 1, 1975. If we are going to waste the time of the House, this is a good way to do so because it will change absolutely nothing and if we are given six additional months, it is clear that we will perhaps be able to study still more seriously the question of electoral boundaries.
Now, we all know that there will be no change for some provinces. For example, Prince Edward Island has four members and will continue to have the same representation regardless of the population. The constitution wants it that way.
In New Brunswick, the number of people is immaterial since they must have at least ten members whereas the other provinces have to play the game of alterations.

Quebec has lost some members since the last census and it will loose two other members occording to the report of the commission.
Saskatchewan had a rather impressive number of members some years ago, but it will probably see its representation reduced to 11 or 12 members, whereas Alberta will keep its representation and British Columbia will add a few. Manitoba will not increase its representation very much. Ontario will probably have four additional seats.
Mr. Speaker, I notice that we stress the population of ridings almost exclusively and that virtually no comparison is made between rural and urban areas, as underlined in the suggestions included in the bill on new boundaries.
In my area, we now have three ridings: Abitibi, Vil-leneuve and Temiscamingue. According to the new bill, one riding will vanish-Villeneuve-and be added to the riding of Abitibi which will stretch as far as Ungava, the James Bay, the Hudson Bay and the Duparquet-Sen-neterre line. It will be an oversized riding, 800 miles long, reaching all the way to Ungava. By eliminating the constituency of Villeneuve, I am given back the municipalities I represented before 1965:	Val-D'Or, Malartic,
Louvicourt.
At present, the length of my constituency is 150 miles. According to the new boundaries, it will be 250 miles and nobody wants to understand that the time I spend covering these 250 miles, the member from Montreal can stay in his office receiving hundreds of electors of his constituency. In Montreal or Toronto, a square of houses makes a constituency while in northern Ontario constituencies, in Hearst, Kapuskasing or Cochrane, the member must spend his time travelling in his car to meet electors every two three miles. They just don't understand that in Toronto.
Mr. Speaker, this is why time must be taken to study a suitable readjustment of the boundaries of electoral constituencies. The population factor is certainly important, but the geographical factor should also be taken into account, yet it is completely disregarded.
For example, Prince Edward Island with a population of 111,041 is represented by four members. What does that mean? If there is one member for 27,000 citizens, how many voters are there: 11,000, 12,000 or 13,000?
The province of New Brunswick has a population of 634,557 with 10 members, which gives 63,455 citizens per member.
In Quebec, where there is a population of 6,027,764 and 74 members, they want to eliminate two members. The number of people for each member will be increased, although there are already 79,865 citizens in each federal riding.
Mr. Speaker, I have more people in my riding than there are in the whole of a Prince Edward Island riding. By virtue of the British North America Act, Prince Edward Island is entitled to four members. The number of voters is irrelevant; what matters is the number of members of Parliament. As a matter of fact, there are four. The same goes for New Brunswick.
Mr. Speaker, if we are to be illogical we might as well be all the way. That is why people everywhere find the matter of representations funny.

I for one am opposed to increasing the number of members for the city of Montreal where there are already too many. I see the hon. Postmaster General (Mr. Ouellet) in his seat and he too knows very well that there are too many members. Some members are very active and one member in Montreal can work ten times more than a member of a rural riding because he does not have to travel. He has his office in town. The hon. member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) nods in approval. That is true. One can represent 150,000 constituents in the city of Montreal, but not in a rural riding.
If we compare federal and provincial ridings, we can see that there are four provincial constituencies in our region, while there are only two federal ridings.


Mr. Prud'homme:: They have secretaries.


David Réal Caouette: As the hon. member for Saint-Denis just said, all provincial members have secretaries who are paid by the government.


George Albert Proud: They also have offices.


David Réal Caouette: They have offices, expense accounts, everything to serve their constituents. In Ottawa, on the contrary, they want to play politics with that. Every member of Parliament needs some services in his riding, but nobody dares stand up and ask for them. They are real hypocrites!


George Albert Proud: They sit four days a week, four months a year!


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, much could be said about it. I think the hon. member for Saint-Denis is getting to like Social Credit.


An hon. Member:: That makes sense.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon at least he has some common sense.
I am told that the National Assembly in Quebec sits four days a week and at the most four to five months a year. There is a difference with what is being done here. One should note, by the way, that the parliamentary allowance for the members in Quebec is superior to that of federal members of Parliament.


An hon. Member:: Disgusting!


David Réal Caouette: I hope this will appear in the official report.
Mr. Speaker, I think that the process of readjusting federal electoral boundaries should take into account the needs of rural citizens so that they may get the best possible services. I see that my friends from the New Democratic Party are applauding, and with reason. When I visit in Saskatchewan the riding of Rosetown-Biggar in the north of the province, around Saskatoon, or in the south in Ponteix or Regina or in Gravelbourg, I realize that hon. members there have huge ridings which they must crisscross, while in the cities, all the constituents are practically on the spot. One meets his constituents on street corners, as I was saying a little earlier. In large
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension cities like Vancouver, a member has to walk only three blocks to meet all the people of his riding.
I therefore believe that we should take our time, study the situation in depth and refrain from moving hasty amendments which mean nothing. Instead of seeing the act come into effect or having us continue discussing it on January 1, 1975, we should discuss it before July 1, 1974. It seems to me that if there is an idiotic argument, that is one. This proposal makes no sense. We are not in such a hurry. These are the same people who say: Let's end the session and go on holidays. But when it is time to go, they move amendments like that. This afternoon has been wasted, completely wasted. We could have undertaken the study of those bills which have to be passed before we adjourn for the summer. For example, the Olympic Games bill for Montreal. Why did we not start on it this afternoon? Because once again there is-


An hon. Member:: There is blackmail!


David Réal Caouette: Yes, there is a bit of blackmail in that. In fact, we are told that that legislation must pass before recess. But there is something else too. We are warned that there will be no adjournment now if we refuse to promise to restrict the debate on capital punishment in the fall.
Mr. Speaker, in the fall the debate on capital punishment will perhaps last three days and maybe even twelve or fifteen days. It is up to hon. members. We have neither to compromise nor to get involved in that connection. They should drop it now if they intend to reintroduce it in the fall. If they do not want to discuss it immediately, as I would hope, let us wait till the fall. But between now and then, let us finish the business before the House.
There is no need to discuss the electoral boundaries all afternoon, as well as tomorrow and Monday. If Progressive Conservative members were bright enough to withdraw their amendment and say: "Well, we could discuss this when we return next fall", we should not have to determine whether we shall examine again this bill before January 1, 1975 or July 1, 1974.
Personally, I am fully against this amendment. Instead, let us take the time necessary to review the situation so as to increase especially the urban representation throughout Canada. Moreover, let us make sure that the number of constituencies will not drop more in Quebec than in Prince Edward Island or New Brunswick. And if we must increase the representation in some areas, let us not abolish existing constituencies in others.
This is my suggestion. Let us maintain present boundaries and create new constituencies, because some of them are already too large. For instance, it should be proper for Saskatchewan to send three more hon. members to the House of Commons. This would relieve and help the population of Saskatchewan.
But if more members of Parliament are needed in Ontario, let us add them. If ten members are needed, let us give ten to Ontario, but to do so, we do not have to take some from Quebec, from Saskatchewan, from Alberta, from Manitoba or from New Brunswick.


An hon. Member:: That is true.

July 19, 1973
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension


David Réal Caouette: It certainly is. Now it is said that the number of federal members must be limited to 264. Mr. Speaker, not long ago in Quebec there were 92 provincial members; I think that they now number 114 or 118. They did not hesitate to establish new ridings. In Ottawa we will offer fewer services to our constituents on the pretext that the figure 264 is sacred. Nothing is that sacred. Let us put a new figure in its place through a new law which will allow us to increase the number of ridings in the provinces where it is needed without any decrease elsewhere in Canada.
In studying this bill, we should take our time this afternoon, but we should not discourse endlessly on that matter: we should state clearly our positions and accept to study that matter anew before the January 1, 1975. That will do no harm either to the Progressive Conservatives, the Creditistes, the New Democrats or the Liberals; but that will allow us to go on to something else in order to enjoy holidays like everybody else.


Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette) who spoke with such eloquence. He asked that the upholding of the principle of redistribution await the 18-month period. He typifies the position of the rural member of parliament who has the obvious difficulty of travelling great distances. Before coming to this House I followed the career of the hon. member for Temiscamingue in the newspapers. I read about his sleeping in the back of his Chrysler and doing a number of other things because of the large area he has to cover. I understand he has some connection with the Chrysler product.
I listened to the speech of the hon. member for York East (Mr. Arrol) and the speech of the mover of the amendment. They represent another extreme in Canada, the extreme of the congested area. I have some experience in both these settings in my constituency. People in both rural and urban areas have their peculiar problems of communication with their member of parliament no matter on what side of the House he may sit. I think the point is well taken. I experience the difficulties of a rural area in one part of my constituency. In the northern part of my constituency I have the problems of an area that is congested and becoming more congested. The communication problem is growing.
Generally speaking, I support the first principle, that of representation by population. If there is to be a delay, I would support as another first principle that the House get on with the matter of redistribution by the time suggested in the amendment. I have not been in this House very long, but long enough to know that in the period suggested by the hon. member for Peel South (Mr. Blenkarn) this House will not be able to deal with the many problems that face both rural and urban areas. I would like to have it otherwise. I would like to be able to say with sureness that all these questions can be answered within the short period of time suggested by the hon. member for Peel South. However, I do not believe that is possible because of the workload of members of parliament in their con-

stituencies, in the House of Commons and in our committees. I think it would be improper, from the point of view of the input there must be in connection with this consideration. This would not be possible if we limited ourselves to 11 or 12 months. We may be doing an injustice to the fundamental problem of this House and this parliament, namely, its representation, if we so limit the period for full consideration of this question. I do not believe any member of this House, or any person in Canada would want something so fundamental to be compressed into a short period of 11 months.
I again read the speech of the hon. member for Peel South in which he set forth the problems. He referred to the Alberta problem and the New Brunswick problem. In dealing with the new New Brunswick problem he mentioned the sociological factor. Without being disrespectful to the representation commission, which at least did a good job of dividing my province in terms of the number of people involved, there has been overlooked-even in the province of Ontario-the sociological and traditional aspects.
The sociological factors which the hon. member for Peel South related to New Brunswick relate as well to Ontario and other parts of Canada. They are great problems and cannot be solved by members of parliament talking among themselves. They cannot be solved in party caucuses or in this House. They require input from community groups across the country, from people interested in appearing before a committee of this House to discuss these problems. Problems in the rural areas, such as dwindling incomes, high costs, and weather put pressure on a member of parliament. These people also feel alienated. As the hon. member for York East said, there is alienation in Canada. That alienation is not confined to the cities but exists in the rural areas as well.
The hon. member for Temiscamingue referred to sociological and geographical effects being considered. We would be doing a disservice to this country if we considered them in what for all practical purposes is a very compressed period. I am not suggesting there ought not to be legitimate political input into redistribution; there is nothing wrong with that. However, the input into redistribution ought to go beyond representations before a commission. Representations from the public ought to be made to a committee of this House. Members of parliament who are not members of that committee may also want to attend.
There should be no time limit placed on the work of the committee which would result in a half measure. We must give this very important aspect of the representative life of this country the most complete and most reasoned consideration. As much as I would like to see it done in the relatively short period of 11 months because of the first principles I mentioned earlier, I do not believe it can be done within that time. I believe we would be doing this House and the people of this country a disservice. We would be denying them the right to come before members of this House, assembled in committee, to present their arguments on the sociological, geographical and democratic aspects of redistribution. It is with some reluctance that I say what I do with regard to this bill, because I understand the feelings of my colleague for Peel South.
July 19, 1973

The hon. member for Temiscamingue said there were ridings in the cities which were merely agglomerations of apartment blocks, and so on. That is true. In other areas, ridings are measured in collections of townships, collections of small cities and towns. The problems which arise are different. We ought, in this period of 18 months, to consider not just the factors which go toward providing for representation for groups of people; we ought to consider during that time the ways in which a member of parliament can best serve the public, the kind of assistance with which he should be provided, whether different standards should apply in different parts of the country, what special assistance should be given to members from the far north with respect to transportation, and so on.
In the past, these things have been considered on an ad hoc basis when they have been considered at all. We now have an opportunity, I suggest, to deal in depth with the sociological and other factors which go to making a member of parliament functionally representative of his constituents in terms of the particular problems of his riding. For these reasons, I fear I must differ from my hon. friend from Peel South whom I hold in great respect. I find myself caught in this debate between the hammer and the anvil, between the large urban areas and the rural areas. I should like all these considerations to be studied. It is important that the House should not attempt to compress into too short a period the type of consideration which the electoral process deserves.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Fraser Valley East (Mr. Patterson).


An hon. Member:: Filibuster.


Mr. Alex Patterson (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, the observation from across the way was totally unnecessary. He suggested this was a filibuster. I do not know whether he was referring to me. I may express my views a little more often than the hon. member does-I have not heard him say anything yet-but I believe we have a responsibility to represent those who have sent us here, and despite the fact that the hon. gentleman objects I intend to assume that responsibility this afternoon.
As every hon. member is aware, the question of redistribution is of vital concern not only to those who sit in this chamber but also to the people of Canada. It is very gratifying to be elected to sit here in the House of Commons, but it is even more gratifying to feel one is provided with the means of adequately fulfilling the responsibility which has been imposed. It seems to me that every possible facility should be available to members to assist them in fulfilling their tasks. The task which has been entrusted to us is an extremely onerous one, though I realize that this opinion is not shared by everyone. I remember that shortly after I was first elected in 1953, I received an anonymous letter from a lady suggesting it was too bad I had left the profession in which I had been engaged, in order to become a member of parliament because, she said, members of parliament just sat around and did nothing. I assure hon. members I was not here very long before I realized just how wrong that lady was.
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension
There are two aspects of our task here. The first is to pursue and conscientiously discharge the duties which are ours in the House of Commons. The second is to maintain liaison with our constituents so that we may be aware of their views and their aspirations and represent them in parliament. In recent years, at least, we are finding that the demands of the House are making it increasingly difficult for us to maintain this necessary contact. A proliferation of problems is currently being brought to the attention of parliament. There are issues which were formerly matters of provincial concern only but which have now moved into the realm of shared responsibility. New approaches have to be developed in response to changes in a highly organized society, and all these demands have added to the workload of members.
Here we are, at this late date, still in Ottawa at a time when common sense and necessity insist we should be meeting with our people and sharing in their activities. We are a part of community life. I am aware that an expression of opinion such as this leaves one open to a charge of longing to get away to spend a leisurely summer. However, those who take this attitude are not only out of touch with reality but are unaware of the responsibilities of a member and the wishes of those who work hard planning community projects and who appreciate a member showing an interest by his presence and support at those functions.
I believe the failure of the government to properly organize the business of the House and concentrate on priority items has resulted in the situation we face today. Perhaps this answers the question raised by my hon. friend from York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) when he asked why this question of redistribution had not been dealt with earlier.
As I have indicated, the second aspect of our responsibility is to maintain close liaison with those we represent. The question has been raised whether a member should simply speak for himself, form his own conclusions, reach decisions without regard to the views of his constituents and then leave his fate in the hands of the electors at the next election. If this were true, the necessity for knowing what our people are thinking would not be so great. I believe these two positions should not be mutually exclusive, but should blend together. A member's own decisions, views and conclusions should blend with the views and wishes of his constituents. At least there should be a proper balance and blending of the two in order that the important issues we face may be taken care of more adequately.
The members of this House have become the ombudsmen of the people and, despite all our representations, the federal government has not seen fit to introduce a measure or to support one that would provide an ombudsman. We know that such persons have been appointed in several provincial jurisdictions. I was interested to learn that the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) recommended the appointment of an ombudsman for those who are incarcerated. Significantly, those who run afoul of the law and must pay the penalty for breaking the law are to be given the services of an ombudsman, but law-abiding citizens who run into problems are not entitled to the services of

July 19, 1973
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension
one. I do not understand that rationale. One has now been appointed, as I have said, to take care of this field. Consideration should be given to appointing one for all Canadians.
Redistribution must be effected in such a way that the needs of all parts of the country are fully recognized. Adequate representation for our areas of major population density must be assured, and the legitimate needs of rural Canadians for a voice in the councils of the nation must be heeded. As well, there are the claims of the community which must be acknowledged by a dedicated effort on the part of the member, who must assist the community to gain that which is of legitimate concern to it. He should obtain assistance from the national government. We must consider, as well, the needs of the various regions of this vast country. Some regions, although similar in some ways to others, are in other ways dissimilar and require attention.
We must take into account provincial needs that call for attention. In this respect, some provinces are far from adequately represented at present. We must recognize, and this concerns me, that passage of this measure will for a time perpetuate this inequity for perhaps five years. Of course, I am referring to my province of British Columbia. We appreciate the tremendous growth of the province. People are moving there from all parts of the country and, considering our salubrious climate and the beauties of nature in the province, one need not question why people go there. We like them to come. British Columbia is experiencing a tremendous population growth. Under the redistribution proposals we would gain three seats. We must remember that.
I have always maintained, as others have I am sure, that British Columbia is seriously underrepresented in the upper House of parliament. If one analyses representation in this country, one will see that some centres of low population are represented by many more senators than come from my part of the country. That is why I suggest that we are seriously underrepresented in the upper House of parliament, and it will be a disservice to British Columbia if we continue to be underrepresented in the House of Commons. That is why I think the amendment before the House will assist, at least to some degree, in meeting the situation as the time element is being somewhat reduced. On the other hand, I still feel that it would be of advantage to the province I represent if the original redistribution plan were to come into effect.
I realize that urban Canada faces problems, rural Canada faces problems and the provinces face problems, as do the various regions. Although we oppose changes which militate against the interests of any one segment or area, we say that we must guard against unnecessarily maintaining a situation which perpetrates injustices against other parts of this country.
The question has been asked, why has this delay been proposed? Why is the operation of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, as reported from the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections, to be suspended until the end of 1974? Last evening the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Reid) commented upon the reasons for this suspension being introduced. If his pessimism is justified, we will wait an eternity until

changes are made. He suggested, in speaking of the problems that are inherent in this matter, that even if this bill were passed there would hardly be enough time to make the required changes.
What puzzles me is this: the government, apparently, has realized for a long time that injustices are being perpetrated in certain parts of Canada. The parliamentary secretary suggested that what was done in 1964 was not a final step, but one step forward in evolving a satisfactory answer to the whole problem. Since then apparently nothing has been done. Action has not been taken, plans have not been drafted and suggestions have not been announced by the government for bringing before parliament changes that would ensure that all parts of this country are properly represented in the House of Commons.
Now that the provinces which would suffer if there is a delay might be given some relief, this issue is being raised. We are told that we should not proceed until we have had a long time to discuss the matter and come up with answers. We are told that it will take time to bring forward solutions and to bring before parliament something that might be satisfactory. It seems that even if there were to be such lengthy consideration, any suggestion brought forward still would not satisfactorily meet the needs of the country. So I ask, why is there this long delay? We should get down to business and consider changes that would meet the needs of provinces which have gained tremendously in population without jeopardizing the rights of the less densely populated areas.
The changes in representation are necessary and desirable. I maintain they should be effected at the earliest possible time consistent with the need to ensure that they result in justice for all Canadians. I believe the amendment introduced by my colleague from Peel South is very worthy. If the government has been considering, looking at and working out the problems behind closed doors, surely it has something in mind to bring before this House. If we were to give the government a period of one year, I think this would be more than adequate. In the meantime, however, I object to the fact that my province of British Columbia will be denied proper representation until some time in the future when, hopefully, those needs will be taken care of. I believe this should be assured and provided for at the present time.


Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, both yesterday and today I listened to the debate on Bill C-208 and the amendment. I recall the comment made by my hon. friend from Peel South (Mr. Blenkarn) in respect of the time being shortened to 12 months. As a new member of parliament, I am wondering what gave him the idea that parliament could move that fast based on past performance. I would certainly think the 18 months' period would be required.
As some members may know, I am of a very shy and retiring nature. I do not speak very often. I represent a rural area. Rural members sometimes speak parochially, and I suppose city members speak on the same basis. We must all look at this situation in terms of the country as a whole and even those of us from rural areas, probably in
July 19, 1973

the context of a favoured son or daughter ideal, must give consideration to our colleagues from the great urban ridings and agree that probably they are entitled to more representation based on their population. I do not think we should go back to the old days that were mentioned, when "rep by pop" was the slogan. In those days a great part of Canada was populated on a much more even basis, in respect of rural and urban areas, than it is today. In those earlier days, and until recent years, Canadians were classed as drawers of water and hewers of wood. A great part of our population derived its living in rural areas.
Through listening to this debate I have learned from my very knowledgeable and well educated colleagues that this problem is a hiatus. I wonder if their constituents are as knowledgeable as they are. I have also learned from the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Atkey) that certain areas are exacerbated. That is really a "50-center." In real English, putting it on the line for my own people, I believe that means rubbing salt on the tender part of the wound, or whatever part it may be. I wanted to clear that up.
A great many members have repeated, verbatim, speeches they made previously on this same matter. I spoke on this question, I believe on July 9. My remarks are on the record and I do not intend to repeat them. However, I do wish to mention one or two things which I believe should be mentioned. The city members told us they have a really difficult job. One member, the hon. member for St. Paul's, measured his riding-as was mentioned today-in minutes; five minutes by 15 minutes. I believe that is the measurement of his riding, and I do not believe he is the world's fastest walker or runner.
A great many rural ridings would be measured in terms of days and weeks. It is on that basis that rural members feel they cannot properly look after as many constituents as a city member. I might point out that the hon. member for York East (Mr. Arrol), a fine member and a colleague, who spoke earlier today mentioned a letter he had sent to his constituents in York East. In this letter he listed 25 telephone numbers and 25 departments. It does not matter what a person wants, all he has to do is pick up the telephone and automatically the department answers. This would apply, I suppose, in the great city of Montreal and in other large urban centres.
What is the situation in respect of a rural member? In his case there would be only one phone number, the member's. This is another "plus" for the city member. I appreciate the position of my colleague from Fraser Valley East (Mr. Patterson) who just spoke. British Columbia is being discriminated against. I concede that. I suppose the city of Toronto is being discriminated against. Of course, this happens to be the only item in 10,000 in respect of which they are discriminated against. Everything else is a "plus" in their favour.
On this particular basis we must agree that something should be done, but surely the city members would agree that when there is a larger territory to be looked after in a proper manner, the member should not have to be on the run all the time. Perhaps something can be done. Parliament moves slowly: I have learned that in my six months and a few day here. However, perhaps parliament can do something in this case.
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension
I appreciate that the commissions had a difficult job. In my particular case the commission, in its wisdom, came up with a description figure of 84,000. In rural areas a variation is allowed of 25 per cent. This would bring my constituency down to about 62,000. However, they placed in my riding an extra little corner which, for the information of my city colleagues, includes 22 townships. Most of the city constituencies could be placed in one township and be lost. In addition, we have the county of Haliburton. I am supposed to do a good job in respect of it. If I am left with it, perhaps I shall be able to do a good job, but I think this is asking a little too much.
Parliament might be able to come up with some suggestions for the benefit of the city members. Perhaps we could give British Columbia three more members. I will not mention Ontario. However, we might give five seats to southern Ontario. We could steal two seats from northern Ontario. So we are going to give southern Ontario five seats. I feel that Quebec should not have hers taken away, either. I am hoping that a new plan can be devised for revision of the boundaries in this country within 18 months. I think that 12 months is asking for the impossible.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few comments on the amendment that stands in the name of the hon. member for Peel South (Mr. Blenkarn). In doing so I should like to refer to the tenor of the remarks made by the hon. member for Fraser Valley East (Mr. Patterson) who, at least in my view, sought to create the impression that this was a particular responsibility of the government, that it was an initiative taken solely by the government without relation to the sentiments expressed by members of parliament since the beginning of this parliament.
In the course of this debate the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), in his short intervention, made it clear that he was the first person in the House who insisted that action should be taken to deal with this problem that has now been dealt with by the House of Commons. I ask hon. members to take a look at the order paper and at the objections that have been filed by members of this House from all parties, objections against the results of the present over-all framework under which we are operating.
These objections came streaming in from members of the House. They came from the provinces of Newfoundland, New Brunswick, Quebec, Manitoba, Alberta, Ontario, and Saskatchewan. Read the objections and you will find that probably the only way to meet the objections that have been expressed by members of the House of Commons is to try to look at the over-all framework under which we are operating at present.
It should not be a secret that the proposals that are contained in this bill were fully canvassed by representatives of all parties in the House. It was my view from the very beginning that if the official representative of any of the parties said we should not proceed with this, we would not have done so. However, all the representatives of the parties-speaking not for every member, because I under-

July 19, 1973
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension stand that there can be differences on this question within parties-agreed to proceed in this way. So it is a responsibility that must be shared by all parties in the House. All the details of this bill were discussed by the House leaders before the bill was introduced.
I believe it is important that that be stated because the bill would not have gone forward if a single party had said, "No, we think this is wrong and we do not think you are proceeding in the right way." I think that is important because this is a parliamentary problem, not particularly a government problem. It is true that the government must take the responsibility for putting proposals before the House of Commons, but this is a problem that must interest every member of the House.
I am merely saying, in reply to the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt), who asked what was the necessity for the review, that the necessity for the review is contained, it seems to me, in the argumentation that is before the House and in the objections filed by members from almost all the provinces of Canada. The question then is asked by the same hon. member, "Why not proceed with the present program and conduct the review simultaneously?" There are two answers to that. First of all, unless parliament were under some deadline it would probably never complete the review; and second, the review is intended to try-perhaps we will fail-to correct the dissatisfaction that has been so widely expressed by members of the House of Commons. In all good humour I would want to put that before hon. members who seemed to insinuate in their remarks that somehow the government had proceeded and that no one else had been involved. We are all involved.
The hon. member for Peel South has not struck at the heart of the bill in his amendment. He has asked, "Why do you not do the job in 11 months rather than 17 months?" I have attempted to deal with why, in my opinion, 18 months is probably necessary. It is now July 19, and in all certainty the standing committee to which this problem will be referred will not get going until the fall of this year and the government will be putting forward definite proposals to that committee. When I mention definite proposals, perhaps hon. members should remember that in the last parliament I introduced a measure to amend the BNA Act in order to mitigate some of the effects of the present system by increasing slightly the total membership in the House. There was no interest, or very little interest in that bill and it died on the order paper.
We will make another effort to put proposals before the committee in the fall, and obviously other members from all parties will be putting forward proposals then. The hon. member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Lundrigan), the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) and, I believe, the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) have stated that it would be essential for such a standing committee, if it is seized with a problem of this magnitude, to travel and hear evidence throughout the country. That is going to take some time. Then we will come back and watch the difficulty that members will have in reconciling all the different points of view in an effort to come up with a better system. In the committee I have mentioned
[Mr. MacEachen.j
some of the problems that have been raised. I put it this way:
They-
Referring to members of the standing committee.
-will be considering the total membership in the House of Commons. They will be considering the Senate rule. They will be considering the exceptions. They will be considering the principle of representation by population. They will want to consider the question of regional representation. They will be considering, obviously from what has been said even today-
I am quoting myself, having listened to members of the committee.
-the question of the independent commissions versus the politicians.
I am not making any proposal to alter the existence of the independent commissions, but even this afternoon an hon. member on the other side said that an opportunity should be given for greater political input. He asked why it should be that the final word be left with the independent commission. As surely as I am standing here, all these questions and others will be dealt with. The hon. member for Grenville-Carleton said that we must consider further sociological factors, in response to the speech made by the hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette).
I think that that is quite a job. Suppose, after doing all that, they get proposals, they hear witnesses and they reconcile their problems and their difficulties and make specific recommendations to the House. What happens then? If we are going to do anything, we will have to amend the BNA Act, we will probably have to amend the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, and we will probably have to amend the Representation Commissioner Act, to name only three at the present time. Then we bring these into the House and we have another debate, and we have what we are going through today going on and on and on. Yet members say ten months is enough time.
If you want this effort to fail or, to put it more constructively, if you want to oblige us to bring in another bill next May extending the time beyond the 11 months, then you will pass this amendment. I am certain, given all the factors I know, that the time limit is a reasonable one and we will be doing well if we complete our task within that time. The question was put to the Representation Commissioner. He was asked by a member of the committee, why the 18-month period, and he quite properly replied as follows:
I cannot give you any explanation as to why 18 months is required. This is a political decision which the House has made to find a solution. There is a period of 18 months until January 1, 1975, in which the House of Commons has time to find a solution to the problem of five provinces losing seats; areas like northern Ontario losing representation, and northern Quebec; and the shift of rural population to urban, rural seats becoming large. This is all a legislative decision. Parliament has to find a solution.
He went on to say:
In my own view, if you judge this time factor by the 1964 bill, 18 months is not unreasonable.
Those of us who were in this House in 1964 will recall how long it took to put through the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act. I put through part of that bill, acting for Mr. Pickersgill who was absent from the House, and I
July 19, 1973

recall the frequent consultation and negotiation that had to take place with members of the opposition. We will have to go through the same thing again.
I agree with the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling) that parliament does move slowly but, hopefully, wisely. In this case it will probably move more slowly than it does on other things because of the importance of the question to all of us. To me, 18 months is a reasonable period. It is put in there as a guarantee to members like the hon. member for Peel South, the hon. member for New Westminster and the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon) who are fearfull that this is an effort to put off redistribution indefinitely. To provide that guarantee we have stated that if parliament has not succeeded within the 18-month period in finding a better solution, we will reinstitute the commissions which are being discharged through this legislation.
It may not be any comfort, but hon. members should bear in mind the fact that in a normal parliament, assuming we had a majority parliament, probably there would not be an election until the fall of 1976 under any system of redistribution, and probably we will be just a few months behind that time through the process that we are now undertaking. If hon. members put themselves in that other world a little, they will understand that perhaps not as much is being taken away as is suggested.
Members from the urban areas, from the rural areas, from the big provinces and from the smaller provinces have all expressed their concern. Our job will be to find a framework or a system that will provide better satisfaction to all concerned, and to do it within 18 months. I think that is not an unreasonable period.
Before I conclude, Mr. Speaker, may I just refer to the other 12-month period that is mentioned in the bill. There has been some confusion and a bit of misunderstanding in the debate on the 12-month period as opposed to the 18-month period. The hiatus to which the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka referred arises from the fact that if the Representation Commissioner in the normal course of events, without this interruption, made his order this fall, as he inevitably would do, or in November or December it would be physically impossible to hold an election for a period of a full year. That is not my evidence; that is the evidence that you will find in the committee. That is the advice given both by the Representation Commissioner, Mr. Castonguay, who has more experience in this field than any man living, and by the Chief Electoral Officer, Mr. Hamel. They say a year is required.
So despite the best efforts of parliament in passing the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment act the last time, we failed to take account of that hiatus problem and it is covered in a separate provision in this bill so that it would be possible for Canada to have an election at any time. If the provisions of the act were allowed to stand as at present, it would probably be impossible to have an election in 1974, and you can imagine how the rafters would ring in this chamber and how the editorial voices would clamour if, say, the government were defeated in January and we could not have an election until ten months after that. Everybody would decry how negligent parliament had been and how the government had tricked the people and the House of Commons. There might even be the
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension horrible possibility that the Governor General would have to send for the opposition without there being any opportunity of their going to the people. That is corrected in this bill.
If the hon. member for Peel South would just look at the evidence given by the Chief Electoral Officer, he would see that this is a solid situation despite what has been written in the urban press to the effect that this is just a bit of imagination concocted in the House leader's mind because he wants to save his seat. Mr. Speaker, it arises from the very fundamental characteristic of running an election in Canada. So I hope we will not be influenced by this amendment, that we will defeat it and give all members of the House of Commons a reasonable time to come up with a better system. If we do not come up with a better system, we will have to go back and live with the one to which so many objections have been raised by all members of the House.


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to support Bill C-208, an act to suspend the operation of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act. My support comes from very basic reasons. The President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen), the government House leader, has just made an elegant speech in which he reminded hon. members that the impasse which parliament has reached is the result of protests that have originated not only with members of parliament representing all parts of the country, but is also the result of a massive protest from the public itself.
Those of us who attended the local hearings of the redistribution commissioners I think will be able to conclude that it was the most vigorous and active example of public participation that we have engaged in for a considerable length of time. Under these circumstances it was inevitable that some emergency action should take place in order to deal with and respond to those protests.
The point I wish to make, however, is that the reason we are in this dilemma, the reason we have reached this impasse is that there is a basic law in the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act itself. We were convinced of this when we were carrying out redistribution the last time following the 1961 dicennial census. Those of us who were members of parliament at that time recall that we went through precisely the same process-"agonizing" process would be a better phrase-that we have engaged in at the present time.
Obviously, from the two applications of the new act- the act is comparatively new, having been passed in 1964, I believe-I think it is time to conclude that there is a fundamental flaw in the legislation itself. I would hope that the government, which has put forward the present emergency bill, C-208, will take this into consideration along with the other problems that were dealt with by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) a moment ago.
When we were debating the act, members of parliament were not unaware of the dilemma we were getting ourselves into. The original act back in 1963-64, as it came from the hands of the governor in council, provided a

July 19, 1973
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension
measure that would make it possible for the two chief officials of the Parliament of Canada, the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Official Opposition, to appoint representatives to the Electoral Boundaries Commission. As a result of strong protest at that time, I think my hon. friend and colleague from the province of Manitoba-the keystone province-the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) led the opposition at that time and introduced the amendment which I think has created the problem confronting parliament at the moment. In his amendment the hon. member suggested that to give the top officials of this House, the Prime Minister of Canada and the Leader of the Official Opposition, the privilege of appointing representatives to the Electoral Boundaries Commission would return the whole process to the realm of partisan politics.
The Hon. J. W. Pickersgill was leading the debate at that time and was piloting the legislation through the House and, faced with a confrontation of this kind, he decided to capitulate. Those were the days when the government had a majority.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: No, I guess it did not, but it was not in the dilemma it faces today when it is at the beck and call of the New Democratic Party. They could have taken fate by the forelock and carried on with the legislation as it was originally proposed. We would have been spared the agony and the process of sober second thought that we are going through at the present time. I could quote excerpts from the debate on that occasion. Page 739 of Hansard for March 10, 1964, reports Mr. Pickersgill as saying:
-in doing this-
He is referring to this amendment.
-we should not abdicate the final responsibility which is imposed upon this parliament and we would have to find some means of making sure that we did not just turn this matter over to a commission

Notwithstanding those wise words, the government agreed to the amendment and the whole process of redistribution was turned over to a commission which was made up of the judiciary and two appointees by the Speaker. I am sure those of us who have gone through the experience of two redistributions are quite convinced that this is an entirely unsatisfactory method of carrying out redistribution.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Speak for yourself.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre tells me to speak for myself. I think the facts speak for themselves. Surely he has been in tune to a sufficient extent that he is aware of the massive protest that has been generated on the basis of a redistribution that has been carried out by an independent commission-a commission that is so independent that it is completely out of touch with the political realities of this country.
Obviously, as I have indicated, Mr. Pickersgill was aware of the problem and we spent a considerable time trying to convince the government to carry on with its original legislation. Had it done so, Mr. Speaker, I am sure

that the purpose of including representatives of the officials of parliament on the commission would have been realized and we would have had in the redistribution process some imput that would have dealt with the political realities of the country.
As I have indicated already, I trust the government will look back over the debate and will amend the legislation in such a way that it will achieve the purpose that we intended by the original act. It is almost five o'clock, Mr. Speaker. I want to go on to another topic, so perhaps we could call it five o'clock.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
[ English]

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: It being five o'clock it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser)-Energy; the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles)- Social Security; the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger) -Agriculture.
[ Translation]
It being five o'clock the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely Notices of Motions (Papers), private bills and public bills.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the member in whose name the motion stands today would be willing to have us suspend private members' hour and get on with the amendment of the hon. member for Peel South (Mr. Blenkarn). I am sure he would like a decision to be reached on it.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, we have noticed that private members' hour is being done away with far too readily around here. I could inform the House, in order to make everybody happy, that we have only two or three more speeches for tonight.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: There is no unanimity.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS
[Stage Direction]
[Transla tion]

Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: That an Order of the House do issue for copies of the contract and all documents relating to a grant by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion to the newspaper Le Solei] of Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, with consent of the House I should like to say a few words about the point of order brought up a moment ago.
Unless I am mistaken, I believe Bill C-208 might be passed if the time set aside to study this motion were given up. If that can expedite the business of the House, which would be in the public interest, I am quite prepared to do so. But if it will enable the official opposition to proceed indefinitely with the debate on this matter, then I do not agree. If. on the other hand, this legislation can be passed by six o'clock and the government could then introduce legislation that is expected by the people, for instance, the one concerning family allowances, then I am prepared to sacrifice anything to speed up our business.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order. I think that the hon. member should have made that proposal before we proceeded with private members' business.
Still, we can ask for the unanimous consent of the House to revert to consideration of the bill, and I do not see any objection to that.

Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-208, to suspend the operation of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.
Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted there has not been a long interruption in the discourse I commenced, because it is always difficult to pick up the thread. I will just restate the main point I wish to make in my contribution to the discussion. If we are going to solve this problem it will be necessary to carry out some rather detailed amendments to the original act on the basis of the suggestions I have already made.
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension Notwithstanding the point I have made, that there is this fundamental flaw in the legislation, the redistribution that precipitated the recommendations of the commissions across the country, which precipitated this emergency bill could have been avoided if the redistribution commissions had taken into consideration the protest they met with at regional meetings across the country.
The protest was based primarily on the failure to recognize what is one of the major social problems in Canada today. That is the tendency of governments at the federal and provincial levels to cater to the process of the continuing drift of population to the city, rather than bringing into being policies to counter this fundamental trend. The impression I received when I discussed the matter at the hearing in Brandon last May was that the commissioners were also accepting the myth, without criticism or reservation, that it is inevitable that the population of Canada will gradually shift to the great urban communities. They accepted the statistical trends put forward by the sociologists and other social scientists who pontificate from great heights that by 1985, 85 per cent of the population of Canada will be resident in a dozen or so major urban communities. If they accept that myth uncritically, obviously they will get a distorted picture when they try to carry out redistribution based on the 1971 census.
As I see the results in Manitoba, the province I have examined in detail, it is obviously they not only took into consideration the statistics from the 1971 census but were trying to anticipate the statistics for 1981 which they feel will conform to the continuing pattern of rural to urban drift. As a result, the redistribution in Manitoba is badly out of whack. This was brought home repeatedly, in clear-cut terms, to the commissioners when they listened to the public protest at the local hearing in Brandon. There was nothing fuzzy about it.
We face the situation where nine out of the 12 electoral ridings in the province of Manitoba could be represented by an urban member of parliament. When you fall into that gross error, obviously you are going to perpetuate this trend which has become a part of our Canadian mythology. Members will understand why there has been such an enthusiastic and vigorous protest from at least the rural parts of the province of Manitoba
If the commissioners had understood the political protest, and if there had been some practical political input- as would have been the case had the original act been allowed to proceed in this House in 1964-we would have avoided a fundamental error of this kind. We are not necessarily objecting. Some commentators have the impression that Manitoba is objecting to the fact we are losing yet another seat, dropping from 13 to 12. Certainly that is something that has to be regarded. Perhaps I should underscore this by pointing out that in 1941, when Manitoba had a population of 729,744, we had 17 members of parliament. Today, with a population of 980,000-close to one million-we are going to have only 12 members of parliament. We have dropped five members of parliament notwithstanding the fact that our population has increased by almost 300,000. That is an undesirable trend. It is for this reason the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) raised the basic point that perhaps there needs to be an increase in the over all member-

July 19, 1973
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension ship of the House of Commons if we are to avoid that unhappy situation.
Basically, our protest is not on the ground that we are losing another seat, but on the ground that the redistribution commission has neglected to include in its recommendations means of dealing with rural-urban drift. Everyone is seized with this question. Municipalities and provincial governments alike are expressing themselves in favour of public policies which would reverse the drift to the larger communities. The federal government is moving in the same direction. For example, there is the proposal to decentralize DREE, to reverse the old formula under which 70 per cent of the staff would be in Ottawa and 30 per cent outside. In future, 30 per cent of the staff is to be in Ottawa and 70 per cent in other centres throughout Canada. It could be that as these programs take effect, by the time we reach 1981 the recommendations of the commission, predicated on the naive acceptance of the myth of continued rural-urban drift, will produce further distortions of redistribution patterns.
The hon. member for Peel South (Mr. Blenkarn) has asked that the period of consideration be shortened. If the necessary reconsideration could take place in a shorter period of time, I would be inclined to agree with him, Mr. Speaker; but my experience in the House leads me to believe it would be impossible to do so.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired. Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: I might point out that the reason I asked whether the House was ready for the question was that no member rose to continue the debate. It is impossible for the Chair to determine whether an hon. member wishes to speak, if no one rises.


Joseph Fred Hueglin: Mr. Speaker, may I say that basically I am in favour of the amendment. One of the reasons is that I believe we must resolve the problem as quickly as we can. The area I come from, the Niagara peninsula, is very diversified, considering its small geographical size, encompassing as it does tourism, commerce, industry and agriculture. The members of parliament representing the Niagara district must represent all these diverse interests and also take into account the great transportation routes contained in the constituency. There is the Queen Elizabeth highway and also the Welland canal on which so much money has recently been spent. This is something about which we learned last weekend. In addition, my riding is contiguous to the border with the United States, which also goes to create diversity and unity.
The Niagara riding which I am honoured to represent was one of the few ridings fortunate enough to remain the same during the process of the previous redistribution. What we saw, however, when redistribution was originally brought down was that no population shift in the four ridings in the peninsula occurred; nothing was added and nothing was taken away. It was almost as if the ridings

were a deck of cards just thrown up in the air. Purely on the basis of population they were then reassembled differently. No heed was taken of anything except density of population.
Within the riding of Niagara there are both city and rural communities. The difficulty under redistribution was that we were to get something completely different; the riding was to include a town on the Welland canal based completely on industry. What we need is a quick decision in this respect so that the people in the Niagara area are not faced with the degree of uncertainty about which they have been expressing concern to me over the past few months. Something other than population must be taken into account. History must be considered. My riding has been the same since its inception. Geography must also be taken into account. The Queen Elizabeth highway runs through the riding, and the frontier with the United States is there.
It is difficult for members of parliament to represent as many different economic activities as there may be in a region. I know some of my hon. friends from the east have difficulty for this reason. Population as a sole basis ignores these factors and this is exactly what we have been saying in the Niagara peninsula. I submit there will be no objection on the part of most of the citizenry to some imbalance in strict population if individual concerns are well dealt with and members have increasing assistance to serve them. I think most people are concerned with being well served, not with exactly how many men, women and children live within a given area which the member represents.
It would appear that a new framework is necessary, something other than just throwing the cards up and having four ridings divided into four new and different ways. It appears to me we should attempt to deal with these problems with all haste. Haste means it has to be done more quickly than some of the things we see from time to time. We are not faced, in the Niagara peninsula, with the vast areas that face other members. Our representations have mainly to do with history, geography and economic interests. But it is very unfortunate when questions are left for months or even years without resolution.
It now appears that when the final distribution came down, the argument raised that something other than population be taken into account had its effect. We went to Welland, made representation there and spoke to the commissioners. They said representations of a similar nature had been made all across the province. At least in our happy situation they were effective, because in the final distribution what has happened is that Fort Erie and Niagara Falls will still constitute Niagara riding. So whether this bill is passed and we hold up redistribution for 12 months or 18 months, or whether it is not passed at all will not have any particular effect upon my riding. Other commissions, however, have dragged on. Although this will be, as I understand it, parliament itself rather than some appointed commission dragging on, I am afraid I have very little confidence in commissions coming in with recommendations within the stated time.
Therefore, all I would presume to do in support of this amendment is say that if it is a year instead of 18 months in which a report must be made, then perhaps "all due
July 19, 1973

haste" will be a little hastier than it sometimes is, if 12 months is the limit. It appears to me, therefore that the sooner a report is returned, the sooner the uncertainty will be ended in the country and in my riding.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Hon. members will be glad to know, I am sure, that I shall not unduly delay consideration of this measure by the House. However, I feel it is incumbent upon me at least to outline in the House the position I have already taken outside the House and in my riding in particular. It is not a new position for me by any means. I have had experience of so-called independent electoral boundary commissions in jurisdictions other than this. The fact that I now represent a rural riding has not changed my opinion with respect to previously held convictions which I expressed when I represented a congested urban riding in another jurisdiction. The theory of an independent Electoral Boundaries Commission, presumably free from gross, partisan political considerations, is excellent but in practice it leaves much to be desired.
I complained bitterly when in another jurisdiction I was confronted with legislation almost similar to the bill we are considering in the federal field. I do not understand how those in the federal jurisdiction can commit the same blunders that people in other jurisdictions have made. In some cases the federal people have picked the same personnel for the boundary commissions that the provincial people have picked, despite the errors of the past. Here, as usual, the federal jurisdiction drags along, like a cow's tail, behind provincial jurisdictions in legislation that has been enacted at the provincial level, even when everyone at the provincial level is willing to admit that the province made a mistake. As I said, the theory is good, but it does not work in practice. The history of electoral boundary commissions at both provincial and federal levels proves this.
Somehow or other these commissions are imbued with the ideas of the engineering concepts, with the concept that takes into account only population figures. That is why I welcome the government's move in this respect to hoist for 18 months the whole operation of the Electoral Boundaries Commission. When I say that, I wish that some of these considerations had been taken into account earlier by the government so that we would not be in our present position, because many people, including editorial writers, are taking jabs at us for undoing what they believe to be progressive legislation. It is not progressive legislation in that it simply does not work.
In deciding electoral boundaries one should not only look at bare population figures; one should also look at communities of interest, at municipal boundaries and at municipal electoral and provincial electoral boundaries. The people of this country find most confusing the fact that municipal boundaries are different from provincial electoral boundaries, which in turn are different from federal electoral boundaries. Surely, in these days when mankind can put men on the moon, it should not be difficult for political administrations in this country to get together and work out a realistic and workable system under which municipal electoral boundaries, provincial
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension electoral boundaries and federal electoral boundaries can more closely coincide with one another than they do today.
In the province of Ontario, particularly southern Ontario, there is a hodge-podge of electoral districts, It is my hope that in the 18 months or so that lie ahead of us when this matter will be considered and, hopefully, a more permanent solution will be found, we shall come up with an answer which will make possible some sort of working agreement with provincial and municipal authorities. I hope that a more permanent body will be set up to look into the question of boundaries affecting all three levels of government. Hopefully, it will do so more realistically than these so-called independent commissions.
There is another matter I shall mention, although I feel that I should not talk about it. It is this. The general area of southern Ontario, part of which I represent at the moment, returns 11 members to this House. Of those-I am speaking strictly from memory-eight are Progressive Conservatives, two are Liberals, of whom one is a cabinet minister, and one is a member of the NDP. In the first report of the Ontario Electoral Boundaries Commission, made earlier, changes were made in almost all those 11 seats. Some of the members concerned objected, some political organizations objected and some citizens' groups objected. Some of us did not object because we were aware of the problems that exist in satisfying the great conflicts that obviously appear when something like this is attempted. In any event, opportunity was given to the public and to politicians to object to that first report. Many people took advantage of that opportunity.
Sir, this bill having been given first reading, I found it rather odd, to put it mildly, that the next day the second report of the Ontario Electoral Boundaries Commission came out. No more public hearings could be held in connection with that report or, rather, there could be no more hearings unless there was filed a notice of dispute or a notice of objection. I would have thought that the Ontario commission would have realized that the first reading of this bill indicated that the government intended to bring about drastic changes in this area or at least to put things on ice, as it were, for 18 months. Instead, the Ontario commissioners presented their second report the day after this bill had been read the first time. That report was released to the press and tabled in this House. I find that strange. I do not know why that could not have been held until the House had finished its deliberations in respect of the measure now before us. That is my first point.
My second point is this. I am rather suspicious, being of a cynical turn of mind, of the drastic alterations proposed for many ridings of southeastern Ontario. Of those 11 seats, eight are held by Conservatives, two by Liberals and one by the NDP. I find it passing strange that only the Tory seats were to be affected. The two Liberal seats were really not affected at all, and the one NDP seat was not affected. I am afraid that in my senile dotage I am getting rather suspicious and cynical about some of these things. In any event, the people I represent were rather upset about the second report as they did not have any oportuni-ty to make representations to the commission about it. I think the legislation is therefore deficient, because the tabling of that second report means that unless notice of

July 19, 1973
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension dispute is filed within 30 days after its tabling in the House, those boundaries become law, or would become law except for the provisions of the measure that we are now debating. There is no opportunity for public hearings to be held.
My point to you today, Sir, is that that second or final report of the Ontario Electoral Boundaries Commission so drastically changes the first report as really to make the two reports completely irreconcilable. Therefore I think, even though it is a brand new report and one which has not seen the light of day before the people in my riding particularly, or in the neighbouring riding where the people are equally upset about it, there will be no opportunity for these people to make public their grievances or complain about it at a public hearing.
That is why I shall vote for the government measure that is before us today. I think this is rather unreal legislation, and therefore I believe an 18 month hoist is good. I also do not intend to support the amendment of my good and valued colleague the hon. member for Peel South simply because I think that a 12 month period is not long enough. A period of at least 18 months will be required to try to straighten out the mess we are now in.


Mr. J. H. Horner (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, I assure you and the members of the House that I shall not speak long in this debate. I believe, however, that there are a couple of factors which should be mentioned. The committee which will be set up will have the obligation in some way or other of bringing about equity between the provinces. In the province of Alberta the Electoral Boundaries Commission paid definite attention to the proposed growth factor and little attention to the 25 per cent variance factor. We have had city ridings with smaller populations than so-called rural ridings in which there has been a variance, in some cases, of 16,000, yet in the new redistribution in the province of Ontario, for example, this is not the case. Some of the rural ridings could go down as low as
54,000	in the new redistribution and some could go as high as 98,000. But nowhere do we see this same balance hold true in respect of Alberta or Manitoba. I have not looked at the situation in the province of New Brunswick but I am told that there too the preference is given to the growth centres and not the sparsely populated areas.
The other factor which I think the committee should study and which also will take some time-and therefore I am not really inclined to support the amendment of the hon. member for Peel South (Mr. Blenkarn)-is the floor for provinces which may well have a slower rate of growth than the general average for Canada. I am thinking here particularly of Saskatchewan and Manitoba. The present floor in the British North America Act, as we all know, in essence is the same number of Commons seats as the province has Senate seats. This gives a province like Prince Edward Island, with little more than 100,000 people, four seats in the House of Commons because it has four seats in the Senate. It gives New Brunswick and Nova Scotia a floor of ten seats while the province of Saskatchewan, which has a population similar to that of Nova Scotia, could well go down to the point where it has a floor of six seats.

In this day and age when all eyes are focused on the west and the new feeling of alienation which may have come to light here in Ottawa I think it behooves the members of this legislature to attempt to justify this inequity which appears in the redistribution act. Certainly we should give this matter a lot of thought. I do think that in doing that we should necessarily enlarge the membership of the House of Commons. From the attendance which has been evident in some committees it is possible that an enlarged House of Commons would allow for greater participation by members in committees, which would therefore allow more committees to function. But I really do not think that has been the real problem in respect of committees. I know that the larger the House of Commons becomes in membership perhaps the more unwieldly it becomes; also the more democratic the process becomes the more voices we hear from the people. However, I think the House could become pretty unwieldy.
I would not be opposed to a minor alteration in the membership of the House of Commons. When I was first elected the membership was 265. Our population has grown. It is hard to equate how the responsibilities of a member of parliament grow, but they have grown. The government seems to be rushing forward in its attempt to do things for people. In this attempt to do things for people we are seeing more and more government participation in business all across Canada. This causes a great deal of concern to many people. That concern, of course, is registered with their representative in the House of Commons. So while we might expect a minor increase in the House of Commons, I do not think it is necessary to consider a figure of 299 or something like that. I do not think we need go that far.
I think a formula in respect of a base for Manitoba and Saskatchewan can be arrived at with less enlargement than that of the House of Commons. Certainly with the spirit of conciliation which has taken place in Ottawa I think this committee of the House of Commons, when formed, would like to hear briefs from the provinces, particularly Saskatchewan and Manitoba, concerning the question of a floor for representation in the House of Commons. This could take some time. I have participated extensively in committee work and I know how difficult it sometimes is to get committees to arrive at a point where what might be called a consensus of opinion is reached in respect of the issuance of a report back to the House. Sometimes this takes a long time.
I see the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) in the House which reminds me of an occasion when it took a period of about a year and a half to reach a consensus on a bill in the committee on agriculture. I do not suppose this committee would take quite that long, but I do know that we require the length of time the bill suggests. I believe we would be running an undue risk if we were to accept the suggestion of the hon. member for Peel South in his amendment to shorten the time period from 18 months to 12 months.
This is a problem which has plagued Canada. If redistribution must take place after each census-and I am not opposed to that-then we must make certain that it takes place in a fair and equitable manner in respect of all
July 19, 1973

regions of Canada and all segments of society. A little extra time would be well spent in settling some of the grievances which have been voiced in this and other debates in the House of Commons.
The question of adequate representation of rural and urban areas is another problem. I do think that as legislators we should be attacking that problem; we should be attempting to solve it. Because of the differences in the findings of the electoral commissions in the various provinces, I do not think they can solve that problem. In fact, they have aggravated it to some degree. Also, no attempt has been made to solve the matter of the floor which I have mentioned.
For that reason I think that the House should not accept the amendment, although I realize the concern of the hon. member for Peel South regarding the huge size of his constituency and I certainly understand the motivation behind his amendment. However, I want to say to him through you, Mr. Speaker, that knowing the energy which he possesses I am sure that he is quite capable of representing that huge riding for the additional six months or so, no matter how long it takes to arrive at an equitable solution. I think that the people in Peel South are well represented and with his energy the hon. member will be able to do a good job in the additional six months.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: All those in favour of the motion will say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: I declare the amendment negatived.
Motion (Mr. Blenkarn) negatived.
[Transla tion]


Allan Joseph MacEachen: that Bill C-208, to suspend the operation of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Allan Joseph MacEachen: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened intently to the discussions that have taken place on this bill and I was particularly interested, as we all should be, in the remarks that were made by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen). We have considered the problem of redistribution on several occasions
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension
and therefore I am concerned about the government's intentions. I am sure that the people in northern Ontario would like better representation and this may be brought about by the time the government gets around to doing something about it.
Just last week a new agency has been established in northern Ontario whose purpose is to establish a new province in that area. I wish them well, and I certainly hope they will have some success. We have the problem of urban versus rural representation, the problem of distances and of floors, in fact all of the various problems that we were faced with in 1964. These problems have not gone away and some of them have been partly solved.
I have been very concerned about some of my colleagues in northern Ontario. One in particular did not have any interest in this matter and did not even bother making a representation to the judge, as did many other people. He ended up in a very bad situation, and it serves him right; he damn well deserves it. Anything that he got was of his own making. However, that does not change the situation for other members. I would be quite happy to go along with the boundaries which we now have, not so much because I am satisfied but because it would put him in such a bad position that it would please me to see him struggle a bit.
The point I would like to make on third reading is that I wish the House leader could outline what he wants and how long he thinks the review will take. He has said that it will take 18 months, but I do not think it can be done in 18 months unless we start right now. I am sure that we will not get started on this for a long period of time. If we are to do something about it, it seems to me that the President of the Privy Council will have to say that he is prepared to establish a committee immediately to assess what we can do about this matter.
Much has been said about the redistribution which we accepted in 1965. I think that the 25 per cent tolerance for each province is a pretty good system. I think we have a problem in some areas, and northern Ontario is one of them. I sympathize with the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Stewart), who represents a very large area which may be enlarged in such a way that it will be very difficult to service. The same has been true for me for a long time.
The boundaries of the riding of Timmins are a disgrace, but from another point of view. No distances were involved. It was easy to represent. Sudbury is another riding of which the same can be said. In northern Ontario we are really not competing with Toronto for urban representation, but Sudbury was the kind of riding that was easy to represent.
I think that the re-distribution was fairly reasonable and in accordance with the terms that we gave to the commission. I know that in my own instance the commissioners looked at northern Ontario and recognized that it was a big area and that they would be foolish to travel across it. There are really no good maps of northern Ontario except for lakes and forests, and no one would try to divide an area which covers three quarters of Ontario. But they did take into consideration the information they were given by us and they did make a number of changes. They gave the public an opportunity to make representations. I was not in complete agreement with the represen-
5804

July 19, 1973
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension tation that was made to the commission in Kirkland Lake and in Timiskaming, but the people made their representations to the commission and the commissioners listened to them and accepted pretty well their proposals. They redrew northern Ontario on the basis of those representations. I think that the commissioners did listen and did give the public the opportunity to speak out.
I do not think it really matters how long the review will take, whether it is three months, 12 months or 18 months. It depends on what we intend to do in that time. The House leader can ask for 18 months. I presume that he is thinking what most of us are thinking, namely that it will not affect us because there will be an election before that time. If nothing happens in that time and we come back, perhaps we will reinstate the boundaries commissions and start all over again. I do not think that is good enough. I think we have met the needs of members of parliament but we have not done much for the country. What the President of the Privy Council should do is to set down a timetable.
I listened with great interest to the speech of the President of the Privy Council. He knows the reasons why the job cannot be done within much less than 18 months, but he said nothing about establishing a committee to do the job. Surely we will not get back to the position where the government party can gerrymander.
A few minutes ago I heard another opposition member say he was looking with a jaundiced eye on what the commission had done in his area because greater displacement in opposition seats took place than in government seats. Or perhaps he meant that the NDP seat in that area had not been changed. Who he was accusing, I do not know. But I hold that if the government House leader is serious he should be prepared to give an indication on third reading of what he is going to do about the problem.
The period of 18 months may not be too long, but it will not give us too much time if he lets 12 months go by before starting to act. Here we are sitting in Ottawa in the month of July when we should be on holiday, and we may sit on into August. The government House leader knows that what he is doing may make it impossible for us to have a summer holiday next year also. I was one of a number of people who worked to establish a regular, organized summer holiday in June, July and August, but we loused it up by not having a real timetable and by not being prepared to make decisions early.
If we are serious about having an election under a new system of redistribution, we should set down a timetable for that redistribution. Will we have a special committee undertake the job? Will we bring in officials from the redistribution commission as well? Will we establish an impartial committee to which members of parliament will have some input? When will the job start?
If the government House leader is not prepared to get up on third reading and give us a timetable, nothing may happen until next spring. In that case we could have ar election on the basis of the old boundaries and we might not have to worry about this problem for another four years, although I suspect we would have to start worrying about it two months after the next election since I do not

think the result of that election would be much different from the last.
A constitutional amendment may also be necessary. In that case there are two sides to the issue. We may have to ask the provinces to give up their Senate floor, or we may add new Senate floor bases for a number of provinces that have been losing population. In that event we would need an amendment to the BNA Act, and this would require the co-operation of the provinces. With one exception we have not been able to amend the BNA Act since 1913 without the unanimous consent of the parties involved.
I think this discussion has been worthwhile although general in nature. Within limits I have always taken the word of the President of the Privy Council as gospel, and I am willing to accept what he says in outlining a timetable to bring together the diverse elements not only in the House of Commons but throughout the country when dealing with redistribution.
I believe we should benefit from the work already done by the boundary commissions. We would be stupid if we did not give some consideration to their deliberations. If the President of the Privy Council does not make a statement on third reading, then I hope he will discuss this matter with his cabinet colleagues and be prepared to give us a timetable in the very near future. I think the 18 month period should date from now, not from five or six months hence.


Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say that I feel this debate has been useful, that it has pinpointed the problems, and that it is incumbent on the government to move as quickly as possible. Despite what some editorial writers think about members having partisan considerations, I think that in the case of Manitoba, where every rural council, regardless of the political affinity of its members, has joined in protest against the proposed new boundaries, these are things that must be mentioned and considered. I suggest that we proceed now with dispatch, and I hope we arrive at a reasonable solution.


Mr. Don Blenkarn (Peel South):: Mr. Speaker, I have spoken on two previous occasions on this bill and have no intention of holding up the House for a great deal of time, but there are some things I should say in view of the number of comments made with respect to the position I took on the bill on behalf of the people of the riding I represent, and generally on behalf of the great urban areas. I am prepared to begin now, but it appears to be six o'clock so I will call it six o'clock.


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the House wish the Chair to call it six o'clock, or is it the wish of hon. members to continue beyond six o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Six o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: It being six o'clock I do now leave the chair.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
July 19, 1973



COMMONS DEBATES AFTER RECESS

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Mr. Lang:: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) on a point of order.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the agreement of the House to revert to motions for the purpose of allowing me to make a statement on motions in regard to wheat prices.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Hon. members have heard the suggestion of the hon. minister. Is there agreement to revert to motions?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: It is agreed.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
[ English]

Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the Governor in Council has approved a change instructing the Canadian Wheat Board to charge Canadian millers a higher price for wheat reflecting current world price.
In order to avoid the total of the increase going on the price of bread, the government will pay $1 per bushel as a continuation of its two-price wheat policy. The balance, and never less than $2, will be paid to the Canadian Wheat Board by domestic millers, basis 1 Canadian Wheat Red Spring Wheat at Thunder Bay.
Under the previous two-price wheat scheme, in effect since 1971, the Wheat Board charged domestic millers $1,951/2 per bushel and the government paid $1,041/2. This guaranteed farmers a $3 return for milling wheat used in Canada. The important thing to western farmers is that wheat sold to domestic millers will reflect the world price, and farmers will always be assured of no less than $3 per bushel.


Gerald William Baldwin: Always?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I want to take the opportunity to thank the minister for sending a copy of the proposed statement to my office. We appreciate that very much, particularly in view of the statement's brevity and its poor explanation of what the minister is really doing. If I misinterpret the statement in any way I ask the forgiveness of the House and the minister; it is because of his rather poor explanation.
The way I interpret this statement, it limits the liability of the government. Up until this time, if the world price of wheat continued to rise and it reached, say, $4 a bushel, in
Wheat Price Increase
ordering the Wheat Board to sell to millers at $1.95Vi, the government's liability would reach close to or above the $2 mark.
One must always acknowledge the fact that the executive must be better informed than the opposition, must be better informed than backbenchers in any party because they have a huge staff researching world conditions. I have had some arguments with the minister about what world prices of wheat do, but it is obvious from this statement that the minister is frightened about the obligation the government might have to assume if his expectations are correct that world wheat prices will continue to rise. The statement says quite clearly:
In order to avoid the total of the increase going on the price of bread, the government will pay $1 per bushel as a continuation of its two-price wheat policy.
The key word there is "total"-in order to avoid the total of the increase going on the price of bread. He is not necessarily saying there will be no increase in the price of bread; he is saying that part of the increase will be borne by the government.
There has been some mention in this place in recent days of the high price of food. Here is a government contribution to what the low price of bread is going to be.
The second last paragraph states that to date the government has paid $1,041/2 per bushel. They are going to lower their contribution. They expect the price of wheat to go higher, so we can expect the price of bread in Canada to go up in the near future. The government is somewhat frightened by the trend in world prices and about their liability, so they come forward with this concept now in order to make it abundantly clear that they will only be liable for another dollar a bushel and that is all.
It behooves one at this time to look at world prices. Depending on what port you buy from in Canada, whether Vancouver, Thunder Bay or Churchill, I think it is safe to say they are hovering in the neighbourhood of $3.50 per bushel. So the increase in the price of wheat to the miller is in the neighbourhood of 35 cents to 40 cents a bushel.
It is interesting to note that in his statement the minister says the balance paid to the Canadian Wheat Board by domestic millers shall never be less than $2. Even in the statement the minister is acknowledging the increase to the miller from $1,951/2 to at least $2. It will never be less than $2.
The other interesting concept is the conflict of opinion that has gone on in western Canada as to how the acreage payment or the two-price wheat policy of the minister will be paid. This is not clarified in this statement. The minister suggests in the statement a continuation of this two-price wheat policy. It behooves me to pose the question: will the dollar per bushel of the government's contribution be tacked on to the price of wheat, and will it be paid out through the wheat pools to the wheat farmers, or does he intend to continue with the acreage payment?
I think that would be an interesting question particularly in light of the oncoming wheat crop and the number of farmers who refuse to grow wheat or who did not sow as many acres as the minister wanted them to, perhaps because of a certain reluctance namely on his judgment.
26454-3}

July 19, 1973
Wheat Price Increase
We must also decide whether cattle ranchers, rapeseed growers, barley growers and all other agricultural producers on the Prairies should share in the buoyant wheat prices of today
Without saying any more about this statement, it should be clear to Canadian consumers that bread prices will rise and that the government's liability will be limited; in fact, it will be reduced, according to this statement.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the minister for the courtesy of providing us with this reasonably short statement some time ago. Like the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner), I am more confused by the statement than enlightened.
The indication is that the price of bread will go up. When we originally set up the two-price system, we did so for the purpose of maintaining a reasonable price for the western farmer. He was assured a minimum of $3. The price is now substantially higher than $3. By reducing the amount of subsidy which we pay by 4V4 cents per bushel, we are in effect saying this will have to be picked up by the milling trade.
With the price of bread increasing by 1 cent, this will produce about 551/2 cents plus the 4V4 cents the taxpayer is now paying through a subsidy. There will be a tendency on the part of the milling trade to increase the price of bread in the very near future by more than 1 cent in order to bring it up to the world price and the farmer can continue to get his price.
This is not the time to reduce the subsidy on milling wheat. Rather, it is an excellent time to increase the subsidy, so that the potential price increase for bread will be limited. We must find a way to control basic commodities in Canada as well as their price. An excellent way of maintaining a reasonable price for bread would be to increase the subsidy we have been paying in line with rising world prices.
Most farmers and the trade anticipate a price increase because of world conditions. There will be a scarcity of food. If we are going to maintain the price of this basic commodity, bread, the government should increase the subsidy.
I regret this subsidy is being reduced by 414 cents. When this is added to the milling price, it will obviously result in an increase. Any increase charged to the milling trade is always charged back to the consumer. If the price of wheat increases, the increase to the consumer is always considerably more. This will result not in a 1 cent increase in the price of bread but several cents.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, with regard to this increase in the price of bread, the minister responsible for the wheat board always makes the suggestion that more subsidies should be given to the millers of wheat. The minister never thinks of giving subsidies to the consumers of this country. This would help to increase the consumption of our flour and wheat in Canada as far as our domestic market is concerned. At the same time it would protect the wheat trade in the world market.

Every member of this House is willing to help Canadian farmers and the wheat market sell their product both inside and outside of Canada. Canadian consumers are at the very end of all the production in our country, including wheat, flour and bread.
I am surprised that at no time does the minister suggest helping the consumers to buy that wheat or bread at a cheaper price than they pay today by subsidizing the end where the production goes, the consumers of this country. This is why the Social Credit party has been advocating a compensated discount for many years. This would cut the price of bread by 20 or 25 per cent, after the government has agreed with the retailers of this country not to increase prices. With a compensated discount to the retailer, consumers would pay 25 or 30 per cent less than what they pay today. In this way we would have better distribution of our bread and wheat.
The minister is trying to find a solution. He never finds a solution. This is why we suggest the minister, the wheat board and the government accept the Social Credit suggestion of a compensated discount to the retailer, so that the consumers of our country will be satisfied and the producers will be assured of selling their production, first to the domestic market and second to the world market. In this way they would be competitive with every other country in the world.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. The House will now return to the consideration of the third reading motion on Bill C-208.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. MacEachen that Bill C-208, to suspend the operation of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, be read the third time and do pass.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: When the House rose at six o'clock, the hon. member for Peel South (Mr. Blen-karn) had the floor.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, before the House rose at six o'clock I said I was only going to speak for a very few moments because I had spoken on the second reading debate and on the motion to amend this bill. I was very disappointed the House did not accept the amendment because it would have solved some real problems.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Order!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: I would remind the hon. member that it is not proper for him to comment on a
July 19, 1973

vote or on a decision which has already been taken. I hope he will return to the consideration of the bill before us.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: I am disappointed that the House does not wish me to explain my position, as one who represents people living in urban areas. It seems the urban parts of Canada sometimes get pushed around here.
I am also disappointed that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) should have suggested to Your Honour that you ought to intervene. I was about to indicate to the House that those who live in urban Canada do appreciate the position of people who come from rural areas. It is clear to me from the speech made by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) that the whole question of redistribution is now being thrust back into a cocked hat. The efforts which have been made year after year, census after census, to deal with the growth in population and with changes in the distribution of population, culminating in the act passed in 1964, are to be thrown out of the window.
A number of difficult issues have been presented to the House. The first is the question of amendments to the British North America Act involving the minimum representation that each province should receive. I made a suggestion earlier as to the manner in which this might be approached. Then there was the question whether the independent commissions have done their work properly in accordance with section 13(b) of the act. Did they really pay attention to 13(b) in some parts of Canada? This should be a relatively easy matter for the House to determine. The President of the Privy Council suggests that the bill before us, by imposing a hiatus, will resolve this difficulty. I am not sure it will, but at least it is an attempt to do so.
We have heard the suggestion made a number of times during the debate that members of parliament do not represent people at all but represent areas of land. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, what I said during the debate on second reading. I do not represent areas of land, or apartment buildings, or airport runways, any more than the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling) represents areas in the province of Ontario called townships. He represents people and I represent people.
The people of urban Canada are prepared to say that the size of some urban constituencies does give rise to difficulty, and that the use of the permitted 25 per cent variation is the way to deal with this situation. That is what the act says, and this is what should be done. But apparently in certain areas some people are not satisfied with this provision. They say that because their community has always been represented by a member of parliament in the past, it should always be so represented in the future and that is all there is to it. Even if their community does not grow as the rest of Canada has grown, or fails to grow in the same proportion, they feel they are still entitled to the same representation.
This amounts to saying that the size of the House should be increased by a large number of members every decennial census. Because as I have already pointed out in this debate, the population of Canada has doubled since 1940. On this basis, if we had started back in 1940 with 245
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension members, the House would now consist of 590 members. So an approach of this kind is not a solution.
All of us, as members of the House, like the status quo. Usually we all like the comfortable pew. We do not really desire change that much. But change is taking place in our society. There is movement of people away from the country. Or, rather, the increase in our population is in the urban areas. And it is a huge increase. We shall not find a way out of this dilemma by ignoring all the effort and energy expended over the years since confederation in working out a reasonably fair, independent-commission-oriented redistribution act just because some people in this chamber say they may have to do more work, that they may have to represent more people. That is the way it is. Canada is growing. Members of parliament will have to represent more people and they will have to work harder. One of the reasons redistribution is necessary is to spread the load more evenly.
Trees do not write letters. Rivers do not write letters. Shorelines do not write letters. Roads do not write letters. It is people who write letters. It is people who wish to make their views known. To suggest that people in certain parts of Canada have less to complain about because they are crowded together in highrise apartments is utter nonsense. I can understand the inconvenience encountered by members whose ridings are being increased in size. Of course there will be an increase in their workload. And to the extent that my constituency, along with others, would be reduced in size, the workload would be reduced. But this is the way Canada is going.
Canada is becoming a great nation. The way to reduce the impact of a heavier workload is surely not simply to add more members to this chamber. No, Mr. Speaker; the solution lies in giving existing members the machinery and technical assistance which they will increasingly need. The leader of the Social Credit Party, for example, represents a huge rural riding. Is there anything wrong about supplying him with free airplane service around that constituency so that he can see his people? Isn't that what we should be doing? Is there anything wrong about seeing he gets the best facilities possible for telephone communication with his constituents? Perhaps this is the way we should be handling such a situation. He tells us his riding extends for 600 miles in one direction and an awfully long way in the other, and that it takes him 15 days to get round it. We must make it possible for him to get round that riding. This can easily be done in this modern age of fast transportation.
In throwing out the existing act-and we are throwing it out with the bath water-we are saying that our efforts in the 60's, in the Pearson years, to organize redistribution on a non-partisan basis, to get rid of the old gerrymandering, were wasted. Apparently we are prepared to go back to what we had before, to political influence, to what is called political input today. It used to be called gerrymandering; today it is political input.
These troubles have plagued us since confederation. One can read the kind of speeches which have been made in this debate in Hansard of previous years. The speeches were made up to the time of the passing of the bill.

July 19, 1973
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension Probably the kind of speech I am making has been made before. I remember, as a boy, reading the speeches of the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), then representing Lake Centre. He spoke of the horrors of his riding disappearing. Apparently the fellows on the other side had stolen his riding and wanted to make sure he was defeated.
Is that the kind of thing this House wants? Does it want to get rid of independent commissions? That is what the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) is talking about; that is what he is saying in going through this exercise.


An hon. Member:: No.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Well, what is he saying? Is he not saying to the people of urban Canada, "People of urban Canada, your voice will not be heard in proportion to your numbers in the House of Commons." Actually their representation will be nowhere near proportionate to their numbers. He is also saying, "While your ridings will grow in size and your communities increase in population, we shall not do anything until perhaps after the 1981 census."
I know that this bill seeks to set aside the provisions of the act for 18 months, but this review process will take much longer. All the things we have talked about will be rehashed. Indeed, we may as well say that there will be no redistribution as a result of the 1971 census. Perhaps something will happen after the 1981 census. Really, the minister is saying to urban Canada, which is growing, which is developing, which is faced with problems, that it will not be treated fairly, that it will not get equity. Even though urban Canada is prepared to say, "Give some areas a better break," urban Canada is not to be treated with equity. That is the issue before us this evening. That is the issue in this bill.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I want to say a word or two on this bill and on what the previous speaker said about representation. He said, for instance, that we do not represent pieces of land, that we do not represent telephone posts. He is quite right. At the same time I think he should have emphasized more the existing differences between rural constituencies and urban constituencies.
For instance, comparing his constituency of Peel South with mine, I note that it is quite different. His constituency is made up of people doing more or less the same kind of work. Socially, I do not think he has any problems, as most of his voters do roughly the same type of work. On the other hand, in my riding, which is 250 miles long, there are miners who are completely different from farmers; but there are also farmers who are different from forestry workers. And there are forestry workers in my riding. In the southern part of my constituency there is forestry, in the middle part there is farming, and in the northern part there is mining. So I must represent all these sections of the population.
I am not the only one in that category. Other representatives in this House of rural ridings are faced with the same social problems in their constituencies.
Representing people in our constituencies is different from representing, say, 50,000 people in Peel South, which

can probably be covered in a journey of less than two miles.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: No.


David Réal Caouette: Representing those
50,000	people is quite different from representing the 50,000, or even 25,000, in a rural riding which stretches for 250 or 300 miles, which is the case in northern Ontario, parts of Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and northern Quebec. For instance, the hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Laprise) represents about 32,000 voters, but he has to fly, or drive 600 miles if he wants to go from one end of the riding to the other. This is nonsense.
That situation is completely different from the situation in which the hon. member for Peel South (Mr. Blenkarn) finds himself. In the Toronto area you could add Peel South to York South and one member could cover the whole constituency. Because while we rural members are travelling from one end of the constituency to the other, the urban member can sit in his office in his riding.
The hon. member told us a moment ago that we do not receive letters from townships or villages; we receive letters from people. That is true. Yet I will bet my life that I receive more letters from my riding than he ever gets from his riding, even though he represents three times the number of voters that I represent. I could go to the postman downstairs and ask him to make comparisons, and I would bet my life that I get more letters from my riding than he gets from his.


Mr. Whelan:: About 10 times as many. It is about 10 to one.


David Réal Caouette: The Minister of
Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) says that the ratio is about 10 to one. Let me say this to the Minister of Agriculture: I think I receive more letters from Peel South than the hon. member representing the riding receives. So it is not a matter of not accepting redistribution. However, I am completely against an increase of seats in big cities. The member can be there day after day when the House is not in session, or when it is he can be in his office on Saturday morning, if he wants to be. On the other hand, if I want to be in my office in South Temiscamingue on Monday or Saturday, I have to drive from Rouyn to South Temiscamingue, a journey of 150 miles which takes me a good four hours.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Come now. The hon. member drives faster than that.


David Réal Caouette: You must observe the speed limit there.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Does the hon. member observe the speed limit?


David Réal Caouette: Well, I have to drive four or three hours.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Say, two hours.


An hon. Member:: The roads aren't very good in the area.
July 19, 1973


David Réal Caouette: I will say about three hours, to be honest. That only leaves me two or three hours for the people of South Temiscamingue, and I have to drive home at night. I have to drive for six hours. During that time the hon. member for Peel South can receive hundreds of people in his office in Peel South.
It is not a matter of my wanting urban people to be deprived of their rights. I want them to be very well represented in the House of Commons, but not to the detriment of our farming districts or to the detriment of our rural constituencies in Canada. This is the reason I am willing to allow as many months as we need to study the matter very deeply and seriously, instead of playing politics with it and saying they are cutting out this village from that district because part of the riding is Liberal, another part Conservative, another CCF and so on.
I do not think the independent commission will play it that way, but I do hope that it will invite us to take part in this before it takes any decision in so far as redistribution is concerned. I will go along with this not for political purposes but for a decent and fair representation in this House of Commons.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


IMMIGRATION
Robert Knight Andras: that Bill C-212, respecting certain immigration laws and procedures, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I should like to start by assuring hon. members of this House, who may be rather surprised to see me back so soon again with another bill dealing with immigration, that I am not trying to presume on the goodwill and the all-party co-operation that existed when Bill C-197 was before the House a few days ago. I have to be honest and tell them I am somewhat surprised to be here in this situation, but two recent and unexpected events threaten to weaken substantially the very foundation of progress in immigration matters after the all-party support of Bill C-197 and really would have the effect of sending us back to square one.
As hon. members will no doubt recall, the change in the immigration regulations of last fall, which revoked section 34 of those regulations, was intended at that time to prevent would-be immigrants pouring into the country in the guise of visitors, with the intention of seeking landed immigrant status once they got here on the strength of regulation 34. In recalling this, hon. members will also remember that one of the goals of Bill C-197 was to ensure that from now on refused applicants for landed immigrant status would not be able to stay on in Canada with impunity or be subject to delay in getting a decision about their appeal.
Immigration
During the debate and study at all stages of Bill C-197, I certainly sensed a general agreement in this House that Canada must have the right to screen future residents of this country before they establish residence here, and indeed that those who fail to pass that screening should not be able to stay here in defiance of Canadian immigration policy.
The two events to which I have referred which threaten to undermine the efforts of parliament to restore order to the immigration process are two recent decisions interpreting immigration law, one by the Immigration Appeal Board within the last two weeks or so, and one by the Federal Court of Appeal just prior to that.
In the process of discussing these decisions and their implications I want to emphasize I in no way wish to criticize the Immigration Appeal Board or the Federal Court of Appeal for either decision, although I do in fact disagree with them. Both those judicial bodies have the responsibility to interpret the law as written and as they see it. Certainly in meeting that responsibility quite clearly it is the text of the law which they must interpret and not necessarily the intent of the government in drafting that law.
The problem we now face is that either of these decisions alone could have a very serious impact on the administration of immigration law. When put together, just as we are about to put a new immigration policy into effect, the result is that their combined effect would be that the administrative system would be hopelessly overburdened and that in fact the props would be knocked from under all our efforts to restore order to the immigration process.
The result of the Immigration Appeal Board decision, to put it in the most simple and practical terms possible, is to restore the effect of regulation 34 which before its revocation enabled visitors to apply and qualify within Canada for landed immigrant status. When this regulation 34 was revoked last November or last fall, the companion regulation dealing with visa requirements, regulation 28(1), was also amended to require that immigrants, whether seeking admission at a port of entry or applying for landed immigrant status after entry in another category, must in fact have an immigrant visa. As hon. members know, immigrant visas are issued only at posts outside Canada. Short of amending the Immigration Act itself at that time, this was the only means at our disposal for heading off a continued flow of applications by visitors landing in Canada in spite of the revocation of regulation 34. Lacking a visa, applicants in Canada could, as a result of this amendment to regulation 28(1), be reported for special inquiry which could lead to an order for deportation.
The Immigration Appeal Board has now ruled in its recent decision that the amendment of the regulation dealing with immigrant visa requirements went beyond the power that the Immigration Act gives the governor in council to make regulations. In legal terms this decision, if upheld, could mean that applicants in Canada would not be required to have immigrant visas, which also means that the last legal hold on them would be thus lost. In practical terms, as I have mentioned, it would mean that the effect of regulation 34 would be restored-in fact the situation would be worse than when regulation 34 was

July 19, 1973
Immigration
valid-and that some 1,750 appeals against deportation orders may be upheld because the orders were made on grounds that the board has now had occasion to find to be legally invalid.
The second decision, that of the Federal Court of Appeal, deals with applications made under regulation 34 before it was revoked. Putting that decision in simple terms, it says that my department has had no jurisdiction over these many years to make deportation orders against persons who applied for landing in Canada and who after examination were in fact refused. In this case some 10,000 appeals against such deportation orders before the Immigration Appeal Board are affected.
In light of this federal court decision, all of these applications could be allowed. We have always taken the position, in the belief that it was fully supported by the law, that a person who applied in Canada for landing under regulation 34 ceased in fact, in legal terms, to be a non-immigrant and was reporting for examination as required by subsection 7(3) of the Immigration Act. That position has been backed up for many years by judicial decisions. The recent federal court decision that is now giving us trouble reverses those prior judgments.
The key subsection 7(3) of the Immigration Act reads:
Where any person who entered Canada as a non-immigrant ceases to be a non-immigrant or to be in the particular class in which he was admitted as a non-immigrant and, in either case, remains in Canada, he shall forthwith report such facts to the nearest immigration officer and present himself for examination at such time and place as he may be directed and shall, for the purposes of the examination and all other purposes under this act, be deemed to be a person seeking admission to Canada.
This subsection, together with succeeding sections of the act, gave authority, which we still hold to be valid, for an applicant's examination as an immigrant, in the legal sense of the word, defined in the act as "a person who seeks admission to Canada for permanent residence". It was from this that the authority came, if the applicant failed to meet the requirements for landed immigrant status, for his or her referral to a special inquiry officer and for the making of a deportation order if the special inquiry officer found that this was warranted.
However, the Federal Court of Appeal has now ruled that a person who applied under regulation 34 while it was in effect until November of last year did not lose his non-immigrant status. According to this ruling, again if it were upheld, the application was not the report referred to in subsection 7(3), as we had believed, and consequently there was no authority for the special inquiry or deportation order.
I do not think it is necessary for me to draw a picture for hon. members of what the consequences of this would do to Canada's image of a country able to control the admission of immigrants to this country, or to the horrendous workload which these two decisions could impose on the administration of our immigration system, coming at a time when the House would not, under ordinary circumstances, be in session, at a time when we have just introduced the adjustment of status program, with the special workload that that will entail, and also at a time when the tourist season is at its absolute peak.

Under both decisions we would be faced with a huge backlog of cases to reassess in light of an uncertain legal position. Under one decision we would be faced with another inundation of false visitors, such as we experienced last year. I would remind hon. members that we reached the peak one October weekend last fall when some 4,500 people arrived by plane at Malton, ostensibly as visitors but mostly with the intention of staying in Canada. This inundation of visitors that we experienced last year will most likely be repeated as these decisions become known around the world, and that will be very quickly, as I find is the case as I get experience in this portfolio.
This whole thing adds up to the fact that the new provisions of Bill C-197 will never get off the ground. I have some consideration for the disappointments that would arise as a result of the false hopes and expectations of people abroad, often very innocent people, who would act upon this and come to Canada, when it really is this Parliament's intention not to repeat the experience that we tried to correct the other day in Bill C-197. I would also draw to the attention of hon. members the danger of the exploitation of many innocent people by unscrupulous so-called immigration counsellors, who could take the substance of these decisions and convince innocent people to come to Canada, many of whom in countries we can all name and who would do anything to come to this country to get away from the circumstances in which they are presently living.
That is not a happy picture. As I emphasized earlier, I mean no criticism of the Immigration Appeal Board or the Federal Court of Appeal. As the minister responsible, I am seeking leave to appeal both decisions and I would be quite prepared to take my chances on the outcome of those appeals, assuming leave to appeal is granted. But I do not think we can collectively, as parliamentarians, afford to risk the possibility, under the circumstances that I have described of this House not being in session and of it hitting us when the peak load of genuine visitors are coming to the country, that leave may not be granted. Nor do I think we can risk the possibility of having to wait out a period of several months at least during which time these appeals are being considered.
I am acutely aware of the fact that, having just emphasized to hon. members the urgency of Bill C-197, I am again making a similar plea in favour of quick action for this legislation. I know that I could soon begin to sound, if I kept this up, as if I were crying "wolf". But I do think that the room that has been made in the timetable of this House, under these circumstances and at this stage of the session, speaks eloquently for the government's view of the emergency that faces us.
Bill C-212, to put it briefly and in layman's terms, seeks the sanction of Parliament for the regulation stipulating that all immigrants, in the sense of the word as defined in the Immigration Act, must have immigrant visas, no matter where they undergo examination. It would give the sanction of Parliament to the long established understanding that people who applied for landing under former regulation 34 did indeed cease to be non-immigrant and became immigrants, thus subject to examination and, as necessary, inquiry and a deportation order. Perhaps most
July 19, 1973

important, it would apply to all cases already dealt with by administrators but not yet finally concluded on appeal.
There are two important observations I would like to make at this point. First, I have always felt, and I am sure many hon. members would agree with me, that legislation that is in any real sense retroactive, unless of course it confers retroactive benefits, which nobody objects to, is repugnant. By retroactive legislation in that sense I mean basically a retroactive change in the rules of the game.
I must recognize that this bill, in an extremely legalistic sense, could be regarded as retroactive because it applies to persons who had been reported for special inquiry, or ordered deported, before it was introduced. But really, Mr. Speaker, I think those who examine the bill and sense the intent will realize that, rather than seeking to change the rules, it seeks to maintain the rules as they have been operating for many years-in the case of regulation 34 from its introduction six years ago in 1967 to its revocation in 1972.
The fact is that the rules for which this bill now seeks the ultimate sanction of Parliament, under the circumstances of emergency that I have described, are the rules that have been known and have been applied to all who have come to this country as non-immigrants and who have later sought permanent residence. The bill takes from no one any right that she or he had once enjoyed or had any real reason to expect to enjoy.
I also want to emphasize, re-emphasize and underline that nothing in this bill will affect the adjustment of status program that was included in Bill C-197. I really cannot stress too much or repeat too often that people should have no fear that their eligibility to register for that program, which is about to be launched and which had universal support in this House, will in any way be impaired by the provisions of Bill C-212. This legislation simply does not apply to people eligible for that program, and it will go forward as planned.
Before I conclude my opening remarks in this debate, Mr. Speaker, I do want to call attention to the fact that a minor typographical error was made in printing, of which I will seek correction in committee.
I think I could sum it up by saying that Bill C-212, through force of circumstances-recent decisions of the court-has become a necessary companion piece to Bill C-197. Without it, Bill C-197 might well fail to achieve the objectives we all agreed upon we wanted to seek. With this bill, if it meets the approval of hon. members, conversely Bill C-197 is virtually assured of success. In that light I would be very grateful if all members would give this bill their urgent and, I hope, their favourable consideration.


Gerald William Baldwin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could suggest to the minister at this time that he might like to ask the House to engross an agreement that I believe has been reached, that the bill be dealt with in all its stages in tms House. There nave been some discussions along those lines, and it might be agreeable to have that done now.
Immigration


Robert Knight Andras: 1 would be most grateful if that found merit, and we received the sanction and unanimous consent of the House to proceed with all stages right here in this chamber, in the appropriate manner.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is the suggestion of the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), and it seems to have the agreement of the House, that the motion, when presented later this evening, should direct that the bill be read a second time and referred to a committee of the whole. Is it agreed that this change be made in the motion that the minister is presenting to us?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Ronald George Atkey: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of our party I want to make it clear from the outset that we are going to make every attempt to co-operate with the minister and the government in helping him and them out of the predicament in which they now find themselves.
I think it would be irresponsible on our part to put up a strong opposition to this remedial type of legislation to get the government out of a jam resulting from a court decision. Nevertheless, I think it would be less than responsible of the opposition if we did not take this opportunity to comment on the general procedures by which immigration law has been made and administered in this country, going back to the original source of legislation in this field, as far back as 1952.
To put the point very briefly, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that the mess that the government now finds itself in as a result of two court decision which were made according to law, and which in my judgment are reasonable decisions, is a product of the fact that regulations have been made under this act, first enacted in 1952, which in many respects were never anticipated by that act.
This is one of the classic situations where the government has made laws by regulation. I think it is cited by lawyers throughout the dominion as the prime example of some of the dangers of law making by regulation, away from the scrutiny of Parliament, away from the public, done for supposed reasons of expedience, speed and flexibility, but with many inherent dangers which I will outline to the House later.
Indeed, I suggest that the bill we have before us is in many respect an admission by the government that the structure of regulations that it has built up since 1952, not in any orderly fashion but on the basis of mere ad hocery, may well be on the verge of collapse. I wonder, particularly in the next few months when this House is not sitting, what other judgments the Immigration Appeal Board and the Federal Court of Canada will hand down which hold that certain regulations are ultra vires the legislation which supposedly gave authority for them to be made.
It might be appropriate at this time to go back to some first principles in law making, which from time to time seem to have been forgotten by the government in the administration of the act. I take as my point of departure a study that is well known in the field of administrative law. Formally it is known as "A Report of the Committee on Ministers' Powers," made in 1932 in the United King-
5812

July 19, 1973
Immigration
dom and commonly referred to as the Donoughmore committee. It is a very relevant subject matter which I know a committee of a previous parliament had occasion to deal with when considering the whole subject matter of statutory instruments, a committee chaired by the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. MacGuigan) and which reported two or three years ago.
To refresh the memories of some hon. members on what the Donoughmore committee said, I am going to quote briefly from the section called "Summary of Arguments of the Critics of Delegated Legislation", or law-making by regulation. That committee at page 53 of the report suggested that:
Acts of Parliament may be passed only in skeleton form-
As the 1952 act was.
-and contain only the barest general principles. Other matters of principle, transcending procedure and the details of administration, matters which closely affect the rights and property of the subject, may be left to be worked out in the departments, with the result that laws are promulgated which have not been made by, and get little supervision from parliament. Some of the critics suggest that this practice has so far passed all reasonable limits, as to have assumed the character of a serious invasion of the sphere of Parliament by the executive. The extent of its adoption is, they argue, excessive, and leads not only to widespread suspicion and distrust of the machinery of government, but actually endangers our civic and personal liberties.
I believe those words were relevant in 1932 and they may well contain lessons for those of us wrestling with the problems before us in 1973.
I refer to another comment of the Donoughmore committee. The committee suggested that delegated power may be so loosely defined that the area it is intended to cover cannot be clearly known and uncertainty of this kind is unfair to those affected.
Again, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that is a relevant commentary on the immigration laws and form of regulations that we have had in this country. As proof of the pudding let me refer to the rather landmark regulations that were introduced by a former minister of manpower and immigration in 1967 and outline to the House the broad and expansive scope of those regulations which, in my opinion, should have been introduced in the form of legislation- legislation which was consistent and which contained clearly defined and enunciated principles for members of the committee and members of the House to follow.
I am going to refer to a release from the office of Manpower and Immigration in 1967 which purported to explain those regulations to members of the House and members of the public. But before I get into the particular problem of what the minister thought he was doing by introducing those regulations, I should add that Parliament passed companion legislation called the Immigration Appeal Board Act. That was the first Immigration Appeal Board, set up in 1967, which in my view negatived any argument that it was impossible to monitor the conduct of Parliament even to introduce such regulations.
First, in 1967 the minister purported to suggest that by regulation-not by law but by regulation-he would set up an assessment system to permit immigration officers to apply the same standards to potential immigrants from all

areas of the world. A pretty significant statement and a pretty significant enactment, but done by way of regulation!
Second, the 1967 regulations formula confirmed that Canadian citizens or permanent residents of Canada were entitled to bring their dependants to Canada. Again, an important matter of principle contained in regulations.
Third, in 1967 the regulations established that the privilege given citizens or permanent residents to apply for other more distant relatives to come to Canada was to be extended to all areas of the world, and new classes of relatives were to become eligible for this assistance. Again, an all-embracing matter of principle incorporated into law without the benefit of parliamentary scrutiny.
Finally, there was the linking of the selection standards to conditions within Canada to ensure that a flow of immigrants was made possible and was more closely related to the economic requirements of Canada. Very sweeping and significant measures, Mr. Speaker, not adopted by law but by regulation.
Well, Mr. Speaker, we find the government today, in 1973, the victim of its own law-making processes which have been perpetuated now for 24 years. I think it is high time we had a change in thinking as to the way in which our immigration law is to be made. I am not too sanguine that we are going to have a change in thinking, however.
I was impressed by a comment made by the former minister of manpower and immigration, now the hon. member for Verdun (Mr. Mackasey), when he was speaking in this House on Bill C-197 and commenting on his experience as a former minister. If I may quote him to hon. members, on June 22, 1973, as reported at page 5034 of Hansard, the hon. member said:
I want to speak really of my own experience in a non-partisan way, provided the opposition will let me do that.
Well, we will let him, Mr. Speaker.
I hope what I say will be considered constructive criticism relating to a very important department of government. When I assumed the role of minister of immigration I also assumed an archaic, outmoded law which had been adopted in the year 1952. It was hardly a set of rules that was suitable to meet the challenge of a contemporary society.
What an admission, Mr. Speaker.
So, consequently, as some of the lawyers in this House know .. . many of the practices of the past three years have been based on regulations rather than on any concrete, specific provision within the law of 1952.
And then here is the great statement of prophecy of the hon. member for Verdun. I am sorry he is not here tonight. He said:
Regulations do have a tendency to run well beyond the intent of the law.
It is almost as if he had read the judgment of the Immigration Appeal Board that night and was sorry for what had happened. But what a statement of prophecy, Mr. Speaker. I was also impressed-and I say this as a credit to the present minister-when in committee he indicated that perhaps we may have some change in direction in law making on the part of the government in this field. He did say he was not going to make the usual sort of statement that about eight ministers had made before
July 19, 1973

him, that we were going to have a complete review of immigration policy and perhaps new regulations. He said he was going to have a green paper, and then continued: Therefore, it is my intention to have produced a public document that will raise a number of essential issues which have to be determined in the establishment of a long term immigration policy. This document will be designed to encourage a response from all sectors of the community who have an interest in such a vital subject. When we receive this variety of views, we will be in a position to recommend to Parliament legislation that should provide a basis for an immigration policy to meet Canada's future needs.
Mr. Speaker, I say hallelujah-a commitment from the minister to have legislation. I want to assure him that I and members of this House will hold him to his word. But it must not be skeleton legislation. It must consider the principles, rights, privileges and obligations of the people of Canada in their broadest and most public form possible under our law. As I say, Mr. Speaker, we will hold the minister to his word.
In committee, pursuing the discussion of Bill C-197, an act to amend the Immigration Appeal Board Act, there was another interesting exchange which I think should be brought to the attention of the House. This is the question, I think treated rather facetiously by the minister at the time, which was put by the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander). He questioned a particular subsection in the Immigration Appeal Board Act in which the governor-in-Council was given power by regulation to amend or vary any regulations made under the Immigration Act. The hon. member for Hamilton West, quite rightly in my view, questioned whether it was proper in the legal sense in one act to be granting authority to amend or vary regulations in another act. The minister and his deputy, who was present at the time of course, replied that they had had legal opinions that it was quite proper to include that particular clause in the legislation. I cannot help but quote the minister's statement at that time. He said:
May I just say, Mr. Alexander, that I hope and pray you will never be in a postion to say, "I told you so"-as a slight aside to my legal advisers.
The hon. member for Hamilton West is not here, so I am going to take this opportunity to say on his behalf, "I told you so".
There is one last matter which I think is important. It deals with another important act which was a product of the last Parliament. I refer to the Statutory Instruments Act. That was a product of a recommendation by a committee which was ably chaired by the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. MacGuigan). That act created a number of obligations on the executive to ensure that proposed regulations were properly perused, scrutinized, publicized and reviewed, with the object of ascertaining their legality before becoming law and affecting the rights of people.
In particular, I want to make references to section 3 of the Staturory Instruments Act. I might say that was law at the beginning of November when the purported repeal of section 34 of the regulations and the amendment to section 28(1) of the regulations took place. Section 3 requires, and I quote:
Immigra tion
Where a regulation-making authority proposes to make a regulation it shall cause to be forwarded to the Clerk of the Privy Council three copies of the proposed regulation in both official languages. . ..
-the Clerk of the Privy Council, in consultation with the Deputy Minister of Justice, shall examine the proposed regulation to ensure that
(a) it is authorized by the statute pursuant to which it is to be
made;
I ask the minister to indicate in committee whether this was in fact done. Was there in fact a proper examination by the Clerk of the Privy Council, in consultation with the Deputy Minister of Justice, to see whether the amendment to regulation 28(1) was authorized by section 57 of the Immigration Act? Or was it the case, as it states in subsection (b), that:
-it does not constitute an unusual or unexpected use of the authority pursuant to which it is to be made;
To my knowledge, we have not tested the provisions of the Statutory Instruments Act. This may be a good opportunity to begin.
I would be very interested, as would other hon. members, in hearing the minister's comments as to the extent to which the Statutory Instruments Act was complied with. To my mind, it raises some suspicion as to whether the whole process of decision making by regulation in the government really complies in substance and in fact with the Statutory Instruments Act.
This matter will, of course, be the task of the statutory instruments committee, which is a standing committee of this House and the Senate. As a member of that committee, I look forward to participating in the scrutiny of that which Parliament designates it to do. This is an opportunity we ought not let pass on the bill before us.
In conclusion, I may say it was a make-shift manner in which the government introduced the November regulations. It was done hurriedly, rather like a guillotine. Possibly the government did not have much time to give any thought to the regulations prior to October 30. They were engaged in other things. As I said at the outset, what we have here is a classic example of the danger of law making by regulation. I think this will become a very valuable lesson for future governments and future Parliaments.
Our party will co-operate with the government in seeing that this bill is quickly passed through all three stages in order that we can, as the minister suggested, achieve the objectives that the recent amendments to the Immigration Appeal Board Act sought to achieve.


John Gilbert: Mr. Speaker, it is my intention to take a very few moments to outline the position of this party with regard to this bill.
The reason for Bill C-212 is two decisions, one of the Immigration Appeal Board and the other of the Federal Court of Canada, both of which made a very strict legal interpretation of the act and regulations. I recall that when we set up the Immigration Appeal Board in 1967, it was to be a court of record rather than an administrative body. There was some debate at that time about whether we should make it that. Since the time it was set up it has developed a body of law. I might say it has helped lawyers who prepare and present cases before the Immigration
26454-4 i

July 19, 1973
Immigra tion
Appeal Board. However, it seems the Immigration Appeal Board is serving as a half-way house between an administrative body and a court of record.
I do not intend to cast any reflection of the Immigration Appeal Board because the composition of that board and its work has been excellent. They have developed a good body of law. They have made it very easy for appellants to appear before them and present their case in a strictly non-legal way. That was probably our intention when we set up the Immigration Appeal Board. Sometimes in a court of law it happens that lawyers argue with regard to the admissibility of evidence and some of the strict legal points. Clients just cannot appreciate or understand the complexities of law and evidence. The Immigration Appeal Board attempted to overcome that when appellants appeared before them. As a result they have developed a very strong body of law and at the same time have tried to retain an administrative approach with regard to the tendering of evidence and so forth.
In both decisions the Immigration Appeal Board took a very strict legal interpretation. The result is that there could be chaos with regard to the cases before them. The minister indicated that if we were to follow the decisions of the Immigration Appeal Board and the Federal Court, nearly 12,000 cases would be in jeopardy, and this would destroy the good intent of Bill C-197 which was basically to clear up the immigration mess.
One of the fine features of the present government is that, every time they have a problem, five or six previous ministers have been involved and the problem has compounded over the years. With regard to immigration, we have had a tremendous mess. No person can really point a finger at one or more of the immigration ministers, especially the present minister and the hon. member for Verdun (Mr. Mackasey). It has been very awkward to pin down the responsibility for the problems that has developed over the past four or five years.
If any person has any appreciation of immigration problems, he will appreciate what has happened to our immigration laws over the past three or four years. Prior to October 30, places in Canada such as Montreal were being flooded by persons who came here for the obstensible purpose of being visitors, but really to get landed immigrant status. There was a tremendous flow of people, and this compounded the difficulty. On November 3, immediately after the election, regulation 34 was changed, with a related change to regulation 28. I think that had the N.D.P. or the Conservative party been in power at that time, they would have done the same thing. There was nothing else which could be done. With all these people in Canada, the government was obliged to take a realistic approach, and I think the contents of Bill C-197 embodies such an approach.
We now have a law which would give would-be immigrants presently in Canada the right to adjust their status. Most of them will probably remain here, and that is a good thing. The minister is before us tonight because of two difficult decisions, decisions which were probably correct in the strict sense of the law, but very difficult to apply in the field of administration. I hope that the Federal Courts
(Mr. Gilbert.]
of Appeal and the Immigration Appeal Board do not regard this as a slap in the face reflecting on their own approach to the law. I hope they see that, if we were to follow those two judgments, the beneficial effects of Bill C-197 would be lost and we would find ourselves in a worse position than we were on November 3, 1972.
We in this party wish to co-operate so that we can get rid of the problem which exists at the moment, apply Bill C-197 to its full effect, and then get on to the next step. I wish I had understood the erudite exposition of the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Atkey) concerning the regulations and so forth. This is why we have professors in the House, men who are strong on theory. We also have men who are experienced in practice. The member for St. Paul's presented an erudite exposition of the theoretical aspect of the regulations, and I hope the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. MacGuigan) will take up the challenge presented to the House, study the measure in depth and assist in coming forward with a solution.
More important, there is need for a long term program. The Minister has undertaken to study this question. He says he will make no rash promises as to the date upon which a new law may come forward, but he will look into the matter and see that something emerges by way of a study in depth. Once this has been undertaken it is up to us as members to relate our experience and thinking to it and bring forth an Immigration Act which will be applicable in 1974-75.
I think all Canadians want an act of which they can be proud, because immigration is really the keystone of a growing Canada. If we have a satisfactory act, one which can attract the right people, we shall continue to grow in prosperity and culture and this land will be better as a result. We in this party support the bill for those reasons.
[ Transla tion]


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, we do not intend to delay the passage of Bill C-212 because we believe it is very urgent to pass it in order to settle many cases of immigration in Canada. Increasing the number of members of the Immigration Appeal Board will be of great help, in my opinion, in solving, current immigration problems as soon as possible, and will also help prevent those which could occur in future and maybe as early as this fall.
Mr. Speaker, we will therefore give our complete support to the minister presenting Bill C-212, and we wish that this new act on the Immigration Appeal Board will contribute greatly to the introduction in Canada of select people, of people liable to become good Canadians. We need people who want to take part in the development of Canada. We want to have a larger population than we now have. Certain immigrants are desirable and I believe that, with an improved board, and one which will take care of them, these people will become good Canadian citizens and will contribute to the economic and social development of our country, which will be, I believe, to the benefit of all Canadians.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I have to say some words on this subject although I know that by doing so I am preventing hon. members on the government
July 19, 1973

side from coming to grips with the amendments to the Criminal Code which will follow. I know they are tremendously anxious to do this, and I hate to stand between them and that legislation, but I do not think anyone really wishes to start on that bill tonight. Therefore, I hope that after the few comments I have to make, if we give this bill second reading it might well be your Honour would agree to see the hands of the clock at the magic hour of ten.
A short time will probably be taken tomorrow in discussion in committee of the whole stage. There will be some questions to ask. The bill will, I think, be passed on Friday, though I do not know about its passage in the other place. Maybe the minister has some assurance from the other place as to their state of readiness, whether they are sitting tomorrow. I do not know what their habits are. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), who is a more assiduous observer of the habits of the other place than I, may know exactly what they are doing.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: They are sitting tomorrow.


Gerald William Baldwin: Well, they will be able to bring the bill on for consideration some time tomorrow.
The minister will expect to be chastised. He has been chastised only mildly so far. Not because of what he himself has done. It is unfortunate for the minister that he is the last of a long line of ministers who have really done some terrible things affecting the immigration practices of this country. I do not know how many ministers we have had. If we look over the last 10 or 15 years we find that the department of immigration has been a stepchild. This has resulted in a tragic situation, one from which we are now suffering. The present minister is, I think, trying to do a good job. I do not blame the civil servants; they have lacked ministers who could give them effective direction. Of course, I am not criticizing the minister personally. He must be given credit for coming forward promptly and saying mea culpa, admitting he was wrong and asking for a remedy.
In his speech tonight the minister said words to the effect, "A couple of decisions are giving us trouble." I sympathize with his position. When I practised law I disagreed with every decision which went against me.


An hon. Member:: The hon. member does not disagree with the decisions of the Chair.


Gerald William Baldwin: I may disagree with those decisions too, but am not allowed to say so. The minister also said something like, "We are not going to repeat the experience." I do not know whether the "we" refers to the ministerial "we" or the parliamentary "we". As it is not a parliamentary experience to which the minister is referring, surely he is speaking of a government experience. That must be made plain.
As to disagreeing with decisions that give us trouble, let us recognize that the rule of law and of Parliament is supreme. That fact is often forgotten. Let me recount something that happened a short time ago. This story may be irrelevant, but it bears on the attitude of this govern-
Immigration
ment. In Yellowknife a judge who is a good friend of mine, Mr. Justice Morrow, was engaged in a case, an issue with which, under the law, he had a right to deal. He was properly seized of jurisdiction. The government, fearing what he was likely to do, or fearing his decision, went before a judge of the Federal Court and asked for an order of prohibition which would prevent Mr. Justice Morrow from hearing the case.
That was not right. Merely because you do not like a judgment or what a judge will do or has done is no reason for saying, "This is bad; this is hurting what the government has done." I do not believe in that, and I do not think other members of the House do. The minister does not take that attitude as an individual, but that has become part of this government's thinking. Of course, in the not too distant future when we form the government, we may adopt the same attitude. However, I do not think so and hope not.
I remember when the present Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Gray), who was then a private member, sat on a committee of this House and of the other place, established in the fall of 1966 and commencing its deliberations in November, 1966, on the issue of immigration. That was a good committee. It heard many witnesses. It did not have the great urge to travel, as is the case with many committees now, but it nevertheless went to Toronto and Montreal and heard briefs from many groups representing ethnic organizations and other organizations in the country. It called the minister responsible at that time, who is the present Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand), and the deputy minister, who has gone on to greater things under the aegis of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen).
I had not been in the House for too long then and was still fairly innocent. I thought the committee would do something. The government had said, "The Immigration Act passed in 1952 is giving us great trouble. We want to examine important areas of concern to do with how the state should exercise its prerogative in selecting people, what manner of people should come into this country, and under what circumstances." We sat from November until May, 1967. As I said, the present Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs was a good member of that committee, not having suffered as a result of becoming a minister; he was then a private member. Probably when he comes over to my side of the House, he will once again become a good member.
The committee did not make too many recommendations, having been advised against it. We discussed lots of issues. I well remember the first appearance of the present Minister of Transport before that committee. He said, as recorded on page 9 of the evidence taken on November 15, 1966:
The deliberations of this Committee will, I hope, lead both to Parliamentary action, revising the basic legislation needed in immigration and also to administrative arrangements and procedures that will receive the widest possible support from the Canadian people.
Both the minister and the deputy minister wanted to distract attention from the fact, as became evident shortly after, that they were engaged in processing the passage of the Immigration Appeal Board Act which has created the

July 19, 1973
Immigration
difficulties in which the government now finds itself. That committee was a subterfuge.
Among the witnesses called was the present leader of the Conservative party in Manitoba, Mr. Spivak. I am not talking in any partisan sense when I say that when he appeared he made a tremendous impression on the civil servants and members of the committee. He made a good presentation and pointed out something which many of us had forgotten, namely, that immigration can and ought to be an effective economic weapon. Properly used, it can do effectively what this government has been trying to do without success for many years-deal with economic disparities in the country. He pointed that out and buttressed his presentation with evidence and facts. Members of the committee of all parties and the members from the other place as well were all impressed with what Mr. Spivak had to say.
I recall, in questioning Mr. Spivak, that a sensible suggestion was made. I am referring to the fact that, under the British North America Act, jurisdiction, over immigration is divided between provincial legislatures and the federal Parliament. I do not know if anyone has ever determined where the supremacy in this field lies. Certainly, the federal government has invaded the field and occupied it. Nevertheless, provincial legislatures are interested in the question of immigration.
I suggested that there ought to be a standing council, made up of federal and provincial ministers or civil servants and that they should look at questions of immigration. I do not know whether anything was done about that. I doubt it. I expect that recommendation was treated in the way all recommendations by that committee were treated.
On the last day of the hearings the present Minister of Transport appeared before the committee and told us what a tremendous job we had done, how thankful he was for our contribution, and how much would come out of it. He said, "Don't worry, you will be reconstituted next year and we will pay attention to your recommendations."
Apparently all this work was to lead to a new Immigration Act. This happened in 1967, 15 years after the last bill in this area had been passed. It is in existence today. The minister said, "Yes, we are going to accept your recommendations; we want new legislation." So the committee brought in its third report, which said in part:
Your Committee therefore recommends that it be reconstituted next session and the evidence adduced during the present session, in both French and English, be referred to it, so that it will be in a position to pursue its work on this important matter, namely Canadian Immigration Policy.
That report was submitted by the chairman of the committee on May 8, 1967. We came back the next session and that committee was never reconstituted. Its recommendations withered on the vine. All the thousands of words of evidence that had been taken were simply scrapped and forgotten.
That is the trouble with this government and with the immigration department in particular. I have a great deal of respect for the officials of the immigration department. I have respect for the ministers, with some reservations.

However, Mr. Speaker, when it comes to questions dealing with immigration it lies with this Parliament, with its knowledge, experience and capacity, to interpret the views of the public with which they deal, to best suit the interests of this country in dealing with immigration policy. I think it has been a tragic mistake.
I suggest this is one of the reasons we have this difficulty today. What has been the result? The recommendations of the committee, as I have mentioned, were entirely forgotten. The Immigration Appeal Board was set up. It did a good job at first and then slowly, by order in council, by regulation and by decree, the widest possible licence was granted in respect of people seeking the right to come into this country or ultimately being in this country to be able to secure the right to ask to remain here. If they were then rejected, through procedures established by the act, they placed themselves on the assembly line of the procedure of appeal available through the Immigration Appeal Board Act.
As a result this backlog of thousands and thousands of cases was built up. Several situations ensued. There was a situation last year in which I was involved. I asked questions a number of times. I remember one particular occasion within the last 12 or 14 months when there was evidence that a man had not only been allowed to come into this country but in fact had been surreptitiously smuggled in by the government under an assumed name. This man was called Pershing Gervais, whose mottled history both socially and in criminal terms left an awful lot to be desired. Because of arrangements made between officials of this government and officials of the United States government this man, who had been an investigator on the staff of the district attorney of New Orleans and was involved in an inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the assassination of the president of the united States, for reasons no one has ever been able to tell us in this House, was smuggled in and provided with a job with the Canadian counterpart of a United States firm. This man lived in Vancouver, thousands of miles from his job. He received a salary of $18,000 a year. His family was smuggled in under an assumed name. He was given landed immigrant status through illegal use of the Immigration Act and regulations. That was one case.
What do we find on the other page? We find a case of an unfortunate young Polish woman who had entered Canada properly as a visitor. Her application for appeal and leave to stay in this country had been objected to. She was so concerned, discouraged and disappointed about what she thought was her fate if she returned to Poland that she committed suicide.
There are two opposite sides to problems that have arisen under the Immigration Act in its present form, in addition to the thousands of cases which are the subject of discussion tonight. I have spoken to the minister about this and I think he genuinely believes that something must be done. While there must be left in the hands of the administration some opportunity to act with flexibility and speed, nevertheless it is essential that it be left to this House to deal with new legislation, and in that new legislation take into account the facts which we have experienced and which have been dealt with by the minis-
July 19, 1973

ter and other members tonight, facts of which hon. members of this House are aware.
I suggest we might have a green paper and a committee which would make a most careful and painstaking examination of the facts and recommendations in respect of new legislation. So far as I am concerned, if such a proposal is made-and this government now seems to be addicted to the green paper-I would certainly do all I can to facilitate such an inquiry.
If that were done and new legislation were established, I suggest there be a small standing committee to deal with immigration matters so that there can be constant liaison between the government and members of this House, acting as members and as ombudsmen in respect of people who have immigration problems. This House and its members are better qualified than anybody else to deal with the problems of immigration, and to revise and amend the regulations from time to time. If the minister, as he indicated previously he would, would do something like that, I would certainly go a long distance with him in trying to bring it about.
I shall simply end by supporting what the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Atkey) said concerning the Statutory Instruments Act. There has been a most flagrant violation of the Statutory Instruments Act, not only in respect of the section dealt with by the hon. member, but in respect of the clause which says that in examining a statutory instrument the deputy minister of justice must see that it does not trespass constitutionally on existing rights. Retroactive legislation always has that effect.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I think the hon. member for Drummond has a point of order.


Mr. Jean-Marie Boisvert (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the hon. member who now has the floor that if he wants to see the bill passed tonight, he has only 30 seconds left to complete his remarks.
[ English]


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, that is a question between myself and this House. The comments of the hon. member I am afraid are not very conducive to promoting the passage of this bill. I have undertaken that it will be passed tomorrow. The hon. gentleman had every opportunity to make a contribution if he had wished to do so. I do not think he is helping in the passage of this legislation with his inane remarks. Mr. Speaker, I call it ten o'clock.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.
Adjournment Debate

John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address the House for a few minutes tonight on a matter about which we have heard a great deal in the last several days, namely the appalling situation in connection with any hope Canada might have of stopping the Alaska TAPS proposal from resulting in tankers going down the coast of British Columbia and the west coast of Canada.
In 1971 this House instructed the government to send a formal note of protest to the United States government in Washington since we took the position that we were opposed to a tanker route down the west coast of British Columbia. Since that day, I want to remind hon. members that ministers of the government have repeatedly assured us that they are doing everything possible to have this tanker route stopped.
We all know what the situation has been in the last few days. We all know that the Senate has passed a bill overriding environmental considerations and everything else in order to push the tanker route proposal through. One of the most vigorous members of the Liberal party in opposition to the tanker route was the former member for Esquimalt-Saanich, Mr. David Anderson, who is now the leader of the Liberal party in British Columbia. All hon. members know that he staged for a considerable time a proper, decent and vigorous fight, which he continued since he left federal politics, against this tanker route.
In apparent admiration for the work that he was doing in the province of B.C. the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) replied to a qeustion that I put to him on March 2, 1973, as reported at page 1835 of Hansard, when I was asking what was happening with the tanker route proposal. After telling me that he was interested in my belated interest in the tanker route-which seems rather amusing in view of the fact that I come from the west coast where people do not have a belated interest in the tanker route but a very real interest-he said:
Of course, the hon. member is aware of the fact that the Liberal leader in British Columbia is responsible for the very good turn of events in this matter.
I do not know what good turn of events the right hon. Prime Minister was referring to in that answer, but I can tell hon. members today that there are no happy events. I want to remind them that according to the July 16, 1973 edition of the Vancouver Sun, the present Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald), in referring to the proposal of the leader of the Liberal party in British Columbia to try to use the Mackenzie route as a last ditch stand to avoid the tanker route, told delegates:
.. . that what Anderson suggested was a bluff . . .
Here we have the provincial Liberal leader doing his best in the province of British Columbia, and at the same time the federal minister telling people in B.C. that all he is doing is bluffing. Now we have the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Davis), who entered this debate in recent months, referred to in the same edition of the Vancouver Sun in the following terms:

July 19, 1973
Adjournment Debate
In the audience was Environment Minister Davis, who has publicly suggested using the gas line to apply pressure.
On March 29, Davis told the Vancouver Kiwanis Club that the gas line is Canada's "trump card" in the battle to keep tankers out of west coast inland waters.
Here we have at the western conference of Liberals in my city a complete and utter confrontation with respect to policy.
All hon. members will remember the incredible episode of a few months ago when the Prime Minister told us that a committee had been set up to study tanker route controls. He could not find that committee and he could not find out what had happened to it, but finally the Minister of the Environment told us on March 8, as reported in Hansard at page 2017, when we were talking about this committee:
Yes, Mr. Speaker. The word "committee" is inappropriate.
It was "inappropriate" because the committee did not even exist. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources said today that continual representations have been made since the summer of 1972. The Prime Minister said on television yesterday that these have been continued. Yet not so long ago the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources was asked about this, and this is what he said, as reported in Hansard of February 14 at page 1281:
The government has no intention of renewing its representations.
That is to the United States. He went on to say:
Of course, we will be interested in hearing from the United States administration in this regard, but at present we do not plan to take any fresh initiative.
All I can say is that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources was misleading the House or else was unbelievably unaware of what was going on to an extent that is almost inconceivable.
There has been talk of a railroad. You remember that questions were asked on May 22 of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) by the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker). The minister replied:
-my response to the right hon. gentleman is yes, there is such an evaluation under way.
He continued:
In collaboration with my colleague, the Minister of Transport, that proposal is being evaluated.
Yet today we have an incredible release put out by those four horsemen of disaster, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien), the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand), who have apparently been sent forth by a blind commander, the Prime Minister. This release says in part:
A study will begin immediately on the engineering feasibility and the cost of a railroad to move oil and natural gas southward from the Arctic over the perma frost region.
In view of these incredibly conflicting statements by the government over the last four or five months, I ask where is the credibility, where is the competence, where is the sincerity? I demand, on behalf of everybody living on the west coast-even if this does not matter to a government which is so concerned with central Canada-the tabling of all documents exchanged between the government and the

United States government; and I demand the personal intervention of the Prime Minister, even at this eleventh hour, to do something about this disastrous situation.


Mr. John M. Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the last comment which the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser) has made, may I suggest to him that as quickly as possible he put a motion on the order paper calling for the production of the papers he wants. As the parliamentary secretary in charge of that matter, I will undertake to do what I can to get them for him as quickly as possible. I would make only one caveat, and that would be that any papers which have been exchanged between Canada and the United States government would also require the permission of the United States government before they could be released. But other than that I would undertake, on behalf of myself in this position, to provide him with those papers as quickly as possible.
In terms of the original question which the hon. member raised concerning the time at which the last correspondence or communication between the United States government and this government took place, he is aware, of course, that that material was provided on June 22, and again on June 27. On July 6 the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) released a series of questions and answers on this particular issue, which had been provided previously to the government of the United States. The original replies were transmitted to the United States embassy in Ottawa on June 27, and the revised version was transmitted by the Canadian embassy in Washington to the United States state department on July 6.
As the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources stated to this House earlier today, the answers given to the Unites States government were almost entirely repetitions of answers given to Parliament and to U.S. officials. I would also inform the hon. member that the House of Commons is monitored by U.S. officials, just as we monitor the U.S. Congress, and they are fully aware of our position.


SOCIAL SECURITY-SUGGESTED REMOVAL OF 2 PER CENT CEILING ON ANNUAL ESCALATION OF PENSIONS
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker on Tuesday, July 10, as recorded in Hansard at page 5453, I put this question to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau):
Mr. Speaker, I have a question that is supplementary to those that have been asked with reference to the rising cost of living and I address it to the Prime Minister because it relates to a matter which comes under the administrative responsibility of at least six different cabinet ministers. In view of the fact that a 2 per cent ceiling on the annual escalation of any pension is out of date, and in view of the rapidity with which the cost of living is rising, will the Prime Minister arrange for the government to consider as a matter of high priority the removing of that 2 per cent ceiling from the annual escalation of all pensions to which it still applies?
July 19, 1973

Hansard records the answer to that question as follows:


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, since the government took the very worth-while and bold action of tying down many pensions to the increase in the cost of living, I am sure the hon. member will realize that we are considering this total matter. However, the matter of availability of funds to deal with all categories of people at the same time is the one which the government must also keep in mind.
I offered a retort to that in which I expressed the hope that the Prime Minister might be here for a discussion of this matter some night at the time of adjournment. I realize now that I am going to have to settle for the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Reid), but maybe it is not all that bad. Maybe I will get a better answer from him than I got from the Prime Minister.
Surely, Mr. Speaker, it is not necessary to argue the basic point which I set out in my question, namely that with the cost of living rising 5 per cent, 6 per cent or 7 per cent a year it is no longer sensible or just for pension escalations to be limited to 2 per cent per year. So long as this situation obtains it simply means that pensioners under these conditions are falling behind year after year.
It is true, as the Prime Minister said the other day, that i* was a Liberal government that first brought in the escalation of some pensions; but when the Prime Minister boasts of that I ask that he also take the blame for the fact that they put a 2 per cent ceiling on the amount by which such pensions could escalate.
Now the fact is, and I welcome it, that we have got rid of that 2 per cent ceiling with respect to four pensions that I can indicate, namely, old age security, the guaranteed income supplement, the war veterans' allowance and war disability pensions that are paid under the Pension Act. That is fine. Those pensions now escalate in accordance with the actual rise in the cost of living. I put in parenthesis, as I always do when I speak on this subject, that I am not satisfied even with an increase which measures up to the cost of living. I think the escalation of pensions should equal the rise in the standard of living; but at least let us get to the point where pensions escalate to the full extent of the rise in the cost of living.
In my question to the Prime Minister I said I was putting it to him because it related to a matter that comes under the administrative responsibility of at least six different cabinet ministers. May I indicate those? The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) is responsible for the Canada pension plan and escalations under that legislation are still limited to 2 per cent. The President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) is responsible for the pension increases that are paid retired public servants and a number of other related groups and those increases are limited to 2 per cent per year. The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Richardson) is responsible for pensions paid to retired armed forces personnel. The Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) is responsible for pensions paid to retired RCMP personnel. Again, in those two categories the 2 per cent limit applies on the annual escalation. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand), in my view, is responsible for Canadian National Railways pensions, and those are limited to an escalation of 2 per
Adjournment Debate
cent per year. Even that 2 per cent is on an ad hoc basis; it has not been made permanent.
I could have mentioned Devco, which comes under the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Jamieson), and the retired employees of the Bank of Canada, who come under the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner). Certain retired diplomats come under the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp), so my list of six is growing to eight or nine. In case, any pensioners are missed, the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Stanbury) is responsible for a regulation that says that no pension plan can qualify for income tax purposes unless it limits its escalation to 2 per cent per year.
Yet the Prime Minister has the gall to stand up here the other day and boast about what the government has done in making a start in tying some pensions to the cost of living, when along with that step the same government has imposed this miserable 2 per cent ceiling which, as I say, is affecting pensioners on all kinds of pensions, both public and private.
Mr. Speaker, I hope the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council has that better answer that I anticipated. I suggest this is an area where action must be taken and taken soon, namely the removal of the 2 per cent ceiling from the annual escalation of all pensions, both public and private.


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to suggest to the House I have been around here as long as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), but I was around when the 2 per cent annual increment for pensions was introduced into the House of Commons. I recall what a revolutionary theory that was and what an impact it had on the development of pension plans in Canada.
Just as a long journey starts with a first step, we took that first step in removing the 2 per cent limitation on the pensions which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has indicated; that is, on pensions paid to senior citizens, the guaranteed income supplement, the war veterans pension and the was veterans disability allowance.
I hope that in short order we will be able to come to an accommodation with the provinces and have the 2 per cent limitation removed from the Canada pension plan. That will probably be the big difficulty. It is currently under negotiation. If those negotiations are successful with the provinces, I hope legislation will be brought in some time this session, probably in the fall.
With regard to pensions of defence employees, RCMP and other government people, I remind the hon. member he was helpful in sending to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates a resolution dealing with those pensions, although not particularly on the point he mentioned. However, I am certain that, on examination, the resolution which we sent to the committee for discussion will permit that committee to make recommendations on this very point.
I assure the hon. member the government is cognizant of the problem. It is sympathetic toward getting a proper solution to that problem. I hope that in this Parliament we will come to a solution that will not only satisfy the hon.

July 19, 1973
Adjournment Debate
member and myself, but the people who are receiving those pensions.


AGRICULTURE-REQUEST FOR PROGRAM TO ASSIST YOUNG PEOPLE WISHING TO BE FARMERS
[Stage Direction]
Mb'. Stan Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin): Mr. Speaker, on Friday, June 22, as recorded at page 5022 of Hansard, I asked the following question:
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the fact that capitalization costs for young farmers have increased by 66 per cent in the past ten years and young farmers cannot always get Farm Credit Corporation loans or afford 10 per cent plus interest rates, will the minister be announcing a program soon to help young farmers stay on the farm or get starting in farming?
The minister replied as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the record shows that more young farmers have received farm credit loans this year than for many years. We are working on a program. We will be meeting with our provincial counterparts to discuss this program on how we can aid more young people who really want to enter farming or remain in farming to do that.
In my short period of years, I have heard politicians say over and over again that they are working on programs to get young farmers started in farming. For years they have stood on platforms and said that, although we have been successful in the past, we are working on a new program to stop the mass exodus of young people leaving the farms and going to the cities.
Perhaps it is necessary to have a definition of a family farm. One person has described the family farm as a way of life, an independent business in the conduct of which a farmer has a chance to live a decent life with a reasonable income, financially dependent less upon the vagaries of the market than on his own efforts to produce.
Canadians should never forget that the family farm, as opposed to the corporate farm, still produces the bulk of Canada's agricultural output. It is ironic that many economists still point to the agricultural sector as one of the last examples of effective private enterprise with substantial economic competition.
Unless something basic is done, this characteristic of the sector will disappear just as surely as it has disappeared in other productive sectors. The continuing decrease in the number of farms in Alberta has gone almost unnoticed in the past few years. Figures show that in 1972 there were 67,702 farms in Alberta compared with 84,000 in 1951. This means we have suffered a decrease amounting to nearly
1,000	farms per year.
The chief factor in this decline has been the ever-increasing amount of capital necessary to begin farming. In 1951, the capital figure was $21,000. In 1961 it was $37,000 and today it is estimated that one needs $80,000. Since an initial outlay of this magnitude is needed, many people, especially young people, who would like to begin farming are unable to do so.
As we all know, the main lending institution is the Farm Credit Corporation. It is to the credit of past governments and of the present government that the number of loans has tripled over the last decade or so. However, I come

from an area which is populated by many family farmers and I have received numerous complaints from young farmers, or would-be farmers, that credit is very difficult to obtain. This personal but very real testimony to the inadequacy of government programs should sharpen our critical faculties in the present discussion.
A glance at some statistics indicates that in 1972-73 at least 60 per cent of the loans went to persons who were over 35 years of age. The average age of Canadian farmers is 49, and this figure, rather than decreasing, is increasing. Every social scientist has documented the exodus of young people from the farms to the cities. It has been said that every day 42 farmers leave their occupations.
Not only are farms being bought out and older established farmers increasing the size of their farms, but, more significantly, the programs implemented by the government have reinforced and perhaps encouraged this trend instead of counteracting it. But before we go any further, let us listen to the words of an individual who is actually engaged in the farm credit business. Mr. G. W. Arnold, manager of the agricultural department on the Royal Bank of Canada, told the international credit congress last May that government-backed loans were of decreasing importance because the nature of the farm unit is radically changing. The farmer, he said, was a businessman with a large capital investment in land.
My bank manager says he is leery of lending under the farm improvement and farm credit legislation because of the restriction on the interest rate to one per cent above the prime rate. It is clear that if young people are to be encouraged to enter farming it will be necessary to provide sufficient capital at prime rates or below for those in the lower age groups. Perhaps we could subsidize interest rates for these young people, who would pay the loan back later from their substantially greater yields. This is not a new idea. The hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazan-kowski) moved an amendment to Bill C-5 on June 26, 1972, to the effect that where a borrower under the age of 30 years first obtains a loan under this act, the governor-incouncil shall not prescribe a rate of interest in respect of that loan in excess of 5 per cent.
If the F.C.C. is in theory an adequate means by which to supply those who are willing to farm with the credit to do so, then in practice it fails to do so. The practical proof of what I have said lies in the fact that many young farmers are increasingly turning to small farm loans agencies which some provinces, such as Alberta, are setting up to handle the making of loans to people whose applications have been rejected by the F.C.C. and other agencies.
If we really want to do something effective to counteract the trend toward the dissolution of the small farm, we must institute effective incentives. Prices have increased, but costs have kept pace. With the recent escalation in food and feed shortages, costs to farmers have increased even more markedly. Many of these farmers do not have the collateral base to obtain loans. Perhaps we might consider the actual land, equipment and livestock as collateral and not require a large, previously built-up capital base. I feel the government should adopt the following-
July 19, 1973
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order, please. The hon. member's time has expired.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to reply to the remarks made by the hon. member, because this is an opportunity to explain to hon. members some of the very important things this government has undertaken in order to help young farmers become established in farming.
One of the first things I did on being appointed Minister of Agriculture was to look into the Farm Credit Corporation, and all offices in Canada were to be visited. I think all western offices so far have been covered. We wanted to find out how many requests were coming in from young farmers. I asked farm organizations and provincial governments to make suggestions to me on how we might amend this legislation, or even bring in brand new legislation, so as to make it attractive for young farmers to begin farming.
Amendments have been made to the Farm Credit Act which increased the loan ceiling of an individual's borrowings from $40,000 to $100,000. The Farm Credit Act was also changed to permit the minimum age at which a farmer is eligible for a loan to be consistent with provincial legislation governing the age at which persons may contract for mortgage loans. This amendment was made because several provinces have lowered the age of majority to below 21 years. This change now makes it possible for younger farmers to qualify for loans.
I should like to draw the hon. member's attention to the fact that in 1972-73 over 41 per cent of all Farm Credit Corporation loans were made to farmers under the age of
Adjournment Debate
35. The hon. member turned this fact around; he only used the bad figures. In 1970-71 less than 35 per cent of loans were to this age group. So the number of loans to younger farmers who wish to enter agriculture is on the upswing.
In the province of Alberta, the province from which the hon. member comes, there have been over 1,000 applications to date under the small farms program. These have mostly been made by young farmers.
The small farm development program offers another means whereby young farmers can acquire land or expand existing farming operations. This program seeks to assist farmers in acquiring land at reasonable prices and credit terms. I have also indicated that I and my officals will be meeting with our provincial counterparts in Charlottetown next week to discuss how better we can aid young people who want to enter or remain in farming.
May I also point out that recently the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) made it possible for a father to pass to his son or daughter who are engaged in farming the family farm without paying a tax, something that no other country in the world has done.
I emphasize, in closing, that we believe the best way to retain young people in agriculture is to make sure that farming is put on a paying basis. As farm income reach a level consistent with those earned by other sectors of society, there will be an incentive for younger people to take up farming. I, as Minister of Agriculture and as a politician, intend to do something about this, not just talk about it. I welcome this occasion for making these comments, Mr. Speaker.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.29 p.m.

Friday, July 20, 1973