1973-07-18

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Fourth report of Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates-Mr. Leblanc (Laurier).
[Editor's Note: For text of above report see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) laid upon the table the government's green paper on proposals for a policy governing conflict of interest in relation to members of parliament and senators. In considering the problem as a whole, the government gave special attention to standards which would apply to cabinet ministers.
The government believes that no higher standards should be demanded of anyone than of ministers themselves. They would, of course, as members of parliament or Senators, be subject to all the provisions that would apply to members of those bodies, whether by law, by resolution or by custom. Because of their unique duties and responsibilities, ministers should, however, be required to conform to a series of guidelines which impose added restraints, particularly in relation to pecuniary interests. The government has concluded that guidelines are preferable to additional legislation specifically relating to ministers since certain aspects of conduct cannot readily be defined except in relation to particular circumstances. An element of discretion, to be exercised by a minister on the basis of discussion with the Prime Minister of the day, seems the best solution.
Our policy leaves each minister with a heavy onus to conduct his personal affairs in a manner which must not conflict or appear to conflict with his public duties and responsibilities. We recognize, however, that in some cases persons who may be invited by the Prime Minister to join the cabinet may be men and women who have property or holdings of some magnitude. This should not of itself exclude anyone from service in the government. The question is how to ensure that business, commercial, financial
or professional interests do not conflict with the public interest which must be the prime responsibility of every minister.
It is important that a minister not be called upon to take decisions in a private capacity which would place him in a situation of appearing to use inside information to the advantage either of himself or of any associates in corporate or other business activities. A minister, therefore, will be expected in future, as is the policy today, to resign any directorships in commercial or other profit-making corporations that he may hold before becoming a minister. In certain circumstances it may be necessary for a minister to discontinue service on boards of philanthropic or charitable organizations, but normally these are considered to be compatible with ministerial office and will so be considered, as a general rule, in the future.
Because of potential conflicts and also because ministerial office is and must be a full-time job, ministers are being asked to sever all active business, commercial or professional associations during the time that they remain members of the cabinet.
With regard to a minister's ownership of corporate shares or other financial interest, great caution must be exercised, not only in the making of investments but in the management and control of them. In some cases because of the nature of a minister's responsibilities in relation to particular categories of business or property, it may be required that a minister totally dispose of an investment. In other cases, ministers will have the option of placing in trust their holdings of a business, commercial or financial nature and particularly their holdings in commercial entities that could be directly affected as to value by decisions of government policy.
Two forms of trust will be permitted. The first will be one in which the trustee will be instructed to maintain the holdings precisely as they were when the trust was established. This may be desirable because of the particular nature of some property. The second kind of trust will be one in which the trustee will be empowered to make all investment decisions with no direction or control by the minister. In this type of trust, to ensure freedom from conflict, there will be no information to the minister except for information that would be required to permit an annual evaluation of the trust or the filing of any information required by law. In both cases, the minister will be empowered to receive from the trustee the income earned by the trust. If the second form is used, he will be able to add to or withdraw capital funds as he sees fit.
[ Transla tion]	.
Ministers' spouses and their families are not being required to follow the strict rules that are being set out for ministers themselves. This is simply not practical and may not even be just. However, it is recognized that the rules or principles with regard to conflicts of interest could be

July 18, 1973
Conflict of Interest
evaded by transfers of property to a spouse or dependant child. The only solution appears to be to make clear the individual responsibility of a minister with regard to the handling of his affairs in order to avoid conflicts of interest. It is up to the minister, within the spirit of the guidelines, to have regard for the possibility of a conflict of interest arising or appearing to arise from dealings, as regards the ownership or management of property, in which his spouse or dependant children may be involved. This responsibility is being made clear and specific.
Finally, a minister has an obligation to seek the advice of the Prime Minister on any matter concerning a conflict of interest about which he may be in doubt.
In all other respects ministers will be governed by whatever decisions Parliament arrives at with regard to members of the House and senators. It is our belief that, by combining the requirements of law and of parliamentary resolution with the guidelines, a clear standard will be in place against which the conduct of members of the gover-nemnt can be measured.
Much of what I have outlined with regard to the conduct of ministers has been the policy of the present government and that of my predecessor for several years. Individuals on becoming Ministers have been urged to give up directorships in commercial intities and I referred in August 1968, to the basic policy of disposal or of the establishment of trusts in cases where conflict could arise. What is being done now is to give greater precision to this and especially to the requirement that there be either disposal or one of the two types of trust to which I have referred. Ministers are being asked to ensure that any arrangements that do not accord at the present time with these rules will be made to accord with them in the course of the next few months. The rules themselves will be put in the form of precise guidelines just as soon as Parliament has had an opportunity to consider the green paper with regard to members of parliament and senators and the legislation that might be made applicable to them. It is quite possible that the general views of Parliament on matters of principle and the specific provisions that are judged necessary or desirable for parliamentarians should influence the final formulation of the guidelines.
[ English]
We recognize, Mr. Speaker, and I am sure members in all quarters of the House will agree, that the measures which the government has announced may not be the entire answer to a very perplexing problem. This is why the government has placed its proposals related to members of parliament and Senators before the House for its consideration. We would hope that after study of the problem in committee and after receiving comments from hon. members, an independence of parliament act will be introduced and passed in this House. The announcement of the government's policy is, then, a first step only.
The government is at the moment actively considering the proper steps to be taken with regard to the public service and those appointed to various offices by the Governor General in Council. This is a complicated matter because the situations can be so varied-all the way from the holders of judicial or quasi-judicial offices to clerks or

stenographers in government departments. I hope to announce measures applicable to these groups in the near future.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I do not propose to make any reference to the green paper which was tabled yesterday, although obviously it is the basis upon which the Prime Minister's statement today must be considered. There are some aspects of the green paper which seem to be a little murky and which require clarification, but we shall have an opportunity to look into that question in due course. I shall direct my comments today entirely to the statement made by the Prime Minister.
I welcome the Prime Minister's statement regarding standards and guidelines for cabinet ministers in relation to possible conflicts of interest. I believe this is a very important matter, one in respect of which I have previously declared what my own general approach would be. Thus, it could be said I have taken a position on the matter. Having taken that position I wish to assure the House that I feel there is so much at stake, and so much of importance is attached to this general subject, that to adopt a rigid, partisan posture in order to defend my own position at the possible expense of eroding public confidence in our system would certainly not be appropriate.
Within the framework of that assurance, I intend to make one or two brief comments which might be regarded as critical of the Prime Minister's statement. There are a few questions I wish to put forward for the purpose of clarification, and I hope these will be received in the spirit in which they are put before the House, as an attempt at constructive submissions to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and members of the government.
I am, of course, in general agreement with the philosophy and the background provided by the Prime Minister as to the need for guidelines. I believe the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) made a significant step forward in his government by requiring ministers to resign directorships. This policy has continued in subsequent governments and I am pleased that the Prime Minister perpetuates it in his guidelines.
The severance of all business or commercial association activities by Cabinet ministers is also a very straightforward and appropriate step.
On other broader lines, as I understand it, the Prime Minister has established rules for his ministers which are now coming into effect or are in effect under which ministers will have a few months to adjust and organize their affairs in line with these rules and guidelines. The option provided by the Prime Minister of either disposal, or the choice of one of two trust options in respect of ministers' commercial or financial holdings frankly leaves me a bit puzzled, and I will want to study that further. The option of disposal is, of course, simple enough and would do away with the problem. To a lesser, but still to a very substantial degree, the blind-trust option is fairly easily understood. The other option the Prime Minister mentioned, the frozen trust, is worth examination, but I do not think it is effective without the complementary element of disclo-
July 18, 1973

sure of holdings in such a frozen trust, and public disclosure at that.
Some would argue for full public disclosure going beyond this kind of situation, but I would suggest that public disclosure should certainly be considered very seriously in light of the kind of frozen trust the Prime Minister is suggesting as one of the options. At the very least, there should be disclosure to the Prime Minister when this option is selected, and I would hope the Prime Minister would clarify as to precisely what he intends in respect of this option referred to as a frozen trust. As a general rule I would not insist on full disclosure, with the exceptions I have mentioned. It would be my attitude that a minister, as a general rule, should have the option of selecting a blind-trust or making full public disclosure.
I am not pleased that there is not some real extension of some stringent rules in respect of spouses, at least of ministers, and I would suggest this should also apply to dependent children. I see no reason why the requirements in respect of a blind-trust should not be extended to spouses and dependent children. I do not believe the guidelines will be fully credible or, perhaps more accurately, fully acceptable to the public without some such provision, and surely public acceptance is a very important consideration.
There is also nothing in the guidelines announced today respecting ministers' senior staff people. In Mr. Pearson's letter of 1964 he covered the staff situation in more detail and with very heavy emphasis. Surely, senior ministerial staff should be covered by some sort of guidelines along the same line.
The sum of the proposals put forward yesterday by the government House leader and the guidelines issued today by the Prime Minister do not, of course, cover the whole field in terms of protecting the public interest. There are still to be covered all senior public servants, members of federal boards and commissions, Crown corporation officials and businessmen-I would emphasize this-temporarily coming into government service on exchange programs. I understand there is a committee composed of Privy Council and departmental representatives which has been discussing conflict of interest policy for senior public servants. I believe this policy should be announced in working paper form as soon as possible. I would then hope that a joint committee of this House and the other place would be set up to study and make recommendations on both the proposals put forward yesterday and those relating to senior public servants, although I do not make anything of the point about it being a joint committee or a committee of this House.
This committee should also consider the matter of persons in the other categories I mentioned which have not been covered to date. I have said on previous occasions- and I shall quote myself if I may be excused-that "I do not think anybody could devise a system of regulations or guidelines which would eliminate altogether the possibility of conflict of interest". There will always be some imperfections in any guidelines that may be devised. I recognize that but I believe we can go a good deal further in terms of coverage than the measures produced and
Conflict of Interest
proposed thus far by the Prime Minister. I commend the Prime Minister and the government on finally taking a first step in this process, and I trust that we can move on quickly from here to improve and implement a system which will carry the confidence of the Canadian people.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Prime Minister for having made available during the noon hour a copy of the statement he has just made to the House. We welcome in particular his assertion that in this area of conflict of interest the standards which apply to cabinet ministers must be the very highest that can be devised. We are aware of the fact that this is a problem that has been considered for many years, and any attempts to resolve it, any steps forward, are welcome even though some of us may feel that we should go still further.
The first comment I wish to make is that if the Leader of the Opposition can say there are murky areas in the green paper that was tabled yesterday I think that same word "murky" applies even more strongly to the statement that has been given today. The very fact that the proposal so far as cabinet ministers are concerned is that there be only guidelines, only a statement promulgated by the Prime Minister, leaves this whole matter in a vague and uncertain situation. I believe the position of cabinet ministers should be very clear and the way to be sure it is clear is to write some of those rules and regulations which must apply to cabinet ministers into the law. I would hope, therefore, that when there is brought before parliament the proposed independence of parliament act there can be a part in that act that will apply directly to cabinet ministers. There could also be appropriate provisions in the Senate and House of Commons Act or in the Salaries Act, which is the act that determines the salaries of members of the cabinet.
The second thing I want to say is that, just as yesterday in the green paper it was established as a first priority that conflict of interest should be avoided if at all possible, I would say that in respect of cabinet ministers it should be avoided, period. This means, in my view, no directorships at all, no shares directly held. I am prepared to agree to trusts, blind trusts or frozen trusts, but I think it must be made very clear that cabinet ministers must not know where their investments are so that there can be no conflict of interest at all.
I also want to support in this connection the suggestion made by the Leader of the Opposition that the Prime Minister's statement is too weak with respect to spouses and the families of cabinet ministers. When I refer to families, I refer particularly to dependant children. I do not like the suggestion in the statement that spouses and dependant children are to be exempt from the strict rules that are being set out for the ministers themselves. I think that that area of the whole matter should be tightened up.
I agree with the Leader of the Opposition that if there are any areas of conflict at all there must be full disclosure, and one particular point of disclosure that I emphasize has to do with the connections that ministers had before they became ministers. I am particularly conscious of this because in every parliament in the last three decades I have placed questions or notices of motions on the order paper seeking information about cabinet minis-

July 18, 1973
Conflict of Interest
ters and their company or corporation connections. Every time I have tried to ask from what directorships cabinet ministers had resigned just before they became cabinet ministers I have been told by the table officials that the rules being what they are that is an inquiry into the minister's private life before he became a minister. Therefore, I could not even ask a question, let alone get an answer. I think that one of the rules or regulations that should be put into our law is that when a member becomes a cabinet minister he should be required to disclose the directorships and the holdings that he had, at least up to a period within a year before he became a cabinet minister.
I should like to say also, as I said yesterday, that we are concerned in this whole area of conflict of interest not just about the dollars that a person might make because a company with which he is connected does business with the government. We are concerned about the direction which legislation takes, and that direction is largely determined by the point of view of members of parliament and particularly of those who are in the cabinet. I confess that with my background I am bothered by the bland assumption that cabinet ministers will always be individuals who have business, commercial, financial or professional interests. I am bothered by the bland way in which the Prime Minister can say:
We recognize, however, that in some cases persons who may be invited by the Prime Minister to join the cabinet may be men and women who have property or holdings of some magnitude.
I do not quarrel with the Prime Minister's suggestion that this should not exclude anyone from service in the government, but I quarrel with the assumption that those who are to lead this country throughout all time are those with business, commercial and financial connections.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: In my view it is time for the cabinet to include a few farmers, industrial workers, housewives, consumers, and ordinary persons who know what life is really like for most Canadians.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):: We'd have to be eunuchs or monks.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We have not got that today. We did not have it under some of the previous administrations. It is up to the voters in the end, but surely we have a responsibility to make known what are the positions and the interests of those who sit as members of parliament, and particularly of those who seek to be cabinet ministers.
Finally, Sir, I endorse the statement of the Leader of the Opposition that very soon there must be brought down a third statement, namely, one having to do with senior public servants. We had a green paper yesterday about Senators and members generally. We have this statement today about cabinet ministers, but senior public servants in many cases are in positions where they help to decide policy, and I think there must be very strict rules about them as well.

We welcome the fact that this matter is under consideration, and that this subject will be considered by a committee. I was a little surprised at the Leader of the Opposition wanting these matters to go to a joint committee. After all, the last time there was a proposal in this House for a joint committee the Conservatives struck out the reference to the Senate. I hope they will stand by that position.
[ Transla tion]


Mr. Gilles Caouette (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, we heard with pleasure the statement of the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) following that of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) yesterday with regard to conflict of interest concerning members of parliament and senators.
Today, we notice that the Prime Minister wants to elaborate on the instructions to be given ministers with regard to conflict of interest. Where there is greater possibility of conflict of interest-and the Prime Minister is right-the rules or regulations must be much more severe and the situation more closely watched.
On the other hand, I find it a strange proposal that in order to determine whether there really is a conflict of interest with regard to the actions or the rights of a minister, to his duties and possessions, and to decide what measures should be taken, the minister concerned discuss the matter with the Prime Minister, and then finally make a decision which might not necessarily be the most logical one. After the recent events in the United States, one realizes that the fact that one is advised by the president, or, here in Canada, by the Prime Minister, does not necessarily give the expected results.
It therefore astonishes me to see, in these preliminary notes, that no thought has been given to the creation of an advisory committee, outside the political sphere, which would advise the Prime Minister and the ministers on the risks of conflict of interest in a particular field. Furthermore, the same committee might also carry out investigations in various areas, which would then give the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) the chance to obtain answers to the questions he has been asking in this House for years.
Nevertheless, it is still true that, in spite of certain alleged directives, it is indicated further on that it is the minister's responsibility to check on or to take the necessary decisions, with regard to his own as opposed to the public interest.
Here again I believe that it would be preferable to lay down strict rules about such conflicts of interest, and that these rules be supervised by an advisory committee and an investigatory committee. Further on it is stated that ministers can easily put their personal affairs in trust, which would appear quite normal. But when they do not want to check or control in any way what the members of the minister's family can invest in such trust companies, then I believe that individuals are given leaway to go against the law, to go against the spirit of the law, which is quite commendable, that the Prime Minister can have today by presenting his statement.
Finally, this is equally and maybe more important, the fact that when ministers are appointed they must, according to the text of the right hon. Prime Minister, quit their
July 18, 1973

positions as administrators or part with certain assets with regard to industries, business or companies. The establishment of an analysis system might also be suggested to prevent misappropriations which, while leaving the minister free to part with certain rights concerning a company, would give indirectly to the party in power rights to an electoral fund, which once more would go against the principles stated.
Thus, these are things that cannot be left to the judgment of a prime minister or even of a minister. This is why my colleagues and I suggest that, after these remarks, the possibility should be studied of creating an advisory board of committee to watch and advise the public on the seriousness of the decisions taken today.
It is understood that if we want to eliminate conflicts of interest among members of the House, senators and, more seriously, ministers, it goes without saying that it is also very important to eliminate conflicts of interest by similar means with the public servants, the employees of Parliament and the officials of the departments. So, it is most important and, I think, urgent that the Prime Minister or the ministers introduce in the House some regulations or statements of principle concerning the conflicts of interest for the public service.
Again, as a whole, the remarks of the Prime Minister and those of the President of the Privy Council are essentially valuable. But still, one must not content oneself with pious wishes, some fancy skating; we must indeed take the required means in order to assure the people of the seriousness of these statements and I consider that the only course to take is to create an advisory and investigation committee and to appoint to it people who are neither in public life nor in politics.


PROPOSAL TO SEND PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE TO WASHINGTON TO DISCUSS ALASKA OIL PIPELINE- REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43 I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. The United States Congress is about to reach a decision on the Trans-Alaska pipeline. Channels of opposition to this project in the U. S. are almost exhausted, and the Canadian position appears to have been distorted. I therefore move the following motion, seconded by the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon), a motion which I hope can be accepted unanimously without debate:
That this House immediately charge a special parliamentary committee with the task of going to Washington to represent adequately, to the American Congress and public, Canada's position on the movement of Alaskan oil through the Strait of Juan de Fuca.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Some hon. Members:: Yes.
Energy


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity which arises from alleged overpayments by the Unemployment Insurance Commission. I therefore would move, seconded by the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes):
That this House instruct the minister responsible for the UIC to have all present claims of overpayment as well as future claims reviewed for possible errors and that all notices of overpayment be accompanied by a statement explaining in detail how the overpayment was incurred, as well as copies of any evidence to prove the overpayment did in fact occur.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's motion also requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity.

[ Translation]


FREEZING OF GASOLINE PRICES-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION
Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I should like to move the following motion.
In view of the ceaseless rise in gas price and the fact that Canada exports crude oil, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Rondeau):
That this government order a gas price freeze until an investigation determines what the exact situation is concerning this subject and in order to prevent these increases from being used to inflate oil companies profits.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion of the hon. member. Pursuant to Standing Order 43, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there such unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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

July 18, 1973

Energy


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
[ English]

Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to move a motion under Standing Order 43 for the following reasons. In view of what has become a persistently high rate of unemployment in Newfoundland, which continues to run at more than twice the national average, and in view of the failure of the government's regional development policies to have any appreciable effect on the situation, by leave I would move, seconded by the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Carter):
That in the opinion of this House the government should convene a Newfoundland Economic Opportunities Conference.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


SUGGESTED REFERENCE OF TRANSFER OF HOSPITALS TO OTHER JURISDICTIONS TO STANDING COMMITTEE- REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to move a motion under Standing Order 43. Government policy, directed towards the transfer of veterans hospitals to provinces, municipalities or other agencies, is causing deep concern among veterans groups across the country. They indicate doubt that the interest of veterans is being upheld in line with government commitments.
In order to allay the fears of these organizations and incapacitated veterans, I would move, seconded by the member for Middlesex (Mr. Frank):
That the matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, with the particular objective of the committee visiting the veterans hospitals to determine whether this government policy is in fact in the best interests of veterans, and to report its findings to the House.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity.


COMPENSATED DISCOUNT ON PRICE OF GASOLINE- REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION
Mr. Jean-Marie Boisvert (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 43,1 request the unanimous consent of the House to discuss a most urgent question.
Since more and more Canadians are wondering why there is rationing of gas in the United States and why the price of gas has suddenly increased in Canada, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin):
That the House consider immediately the possibility of issuing consumer discounts on the price of gas in order to contribute to a fairer balance between the gross national product and the gross national income.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the hon. member's motion. Under Standing Order 43, such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity.

[ Transla tion]


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 43, I ask the unanimous consent of the House to discuss a very urgent matter.
Since the REXFOR projects are totally inoperative in the Matapedia area and the Gaspe Peninsula and that immediate intervention by the federal government is essential to ensure to those areas an efficient and constant economic and social recovery, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin):
That the House hold a special debate in order to review the contribution of the federal government to those projects in cooperation with the Quebec government to ensure a new economic impetus to that especially neglected area, taking into account the frightening unemployment and social welfare in that area.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion of the hon. member. Under Standing Order 43, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there such a consent?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent. There- Mr. Speaker: There is not unanimous consent; the fore, the hon. member's motion cannot be put.	motion therefore cannot be put.

July 18, 1973

[ English]


CANADA BUSINESS CORPORATIONS ACT
Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-213, respecting Canadian business corporations.


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

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
[ Text]
Mr. Hellyer: 1.	In 1963, following promulgation of the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act was there a separate administration, known as the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act Administration, established under the Dominion Statistician to administer the Act and Regulations?
2.	Was not the prime reason for setting up this separate administration to ensure that the new legislation would be administered in such a way as to keep it separate and apart from the Statistics Act and from the activities and jurisdiction of the Dominion Bureau of Statistics?
3.	Is it the intention of the government to amend section 15(4) of the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act to eliminate division of responsibility between officials engaged in administering the Act and officials employed under the Statistics Act and, if so, for what reason?
4.	On what authority, and for what purpose, was the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act Administration converted into a Division of the Dominion Bureau of Statistics in 1967?
5.	What is the present status of the former Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act Administration and what purpose does it serve?


Mr. Herb Breau (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Statistics Canada reports that: 1. The Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act Administration was initially an organizational unit within the Dominion Bureau of Statistics dealing exclusively with collection and compilation of reports under the Act.
2.	No.
3.	There is no such intention. Section 15(4) of this act serves appropriately the needs relating to the administration of the act.
4.	After the amendment to the CALURA Act in 1965, when both the publications of Statistics Canada on financial and taxation statistics and the CALURA report were rooted on the same statistical data base (corporations' income tax returns), continuation of organizational distinction would have been detrimental to the co-ordination of activities and the most efficient utilization of the data source. No specific authority was needed for modifying,
Order Paper Questions
expanding or relocating the responsibilities of this organizational unit as the act does not require it.
5.	It is currently a distinct unit within the Business Finance Division of Statistics Canada responsible for carrying out the provisions of the act including the preparation of annual reports.


Mr. Hellyer: 1.	For each of the fiscal years 1963 to 1972, what has been the total operating expenditure incurred in administering (a) the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act Administration (Division) (b) Part I of the Act (Corporations) (c) Part II of the Act (Labour Unions)?
2.	In each of the fiscal years 1963-64, 1967-68 and 1971-72, how many persons were employed in (a) the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act Administration (Division) (b) administering Part I of the Act (c) administering Part II of the Act?
3.	In the same years, how many persons in each of the three categories in Part 2 were receiving salaries of (a) $12,000 to $15,000 (b) $15,000 to $18,000 (c) $18,000 to $21,000 (d) $21,000 to $24,000 (e) over $24,000?


Herb Breau: Statistics Canada reports that:
1.	(a)	(b) Corporations	(c) Labour Unions	Adminis-Year	Total	Parti	Part II	tration1963-64	267,000	242,000	25,000	Not1964-65	371,000	340,000	31,000	available1965-66	442,000	405,000	37,000	separately1966-67	253,000	194,000	44,000	15,0001967-68	271,500	207,700	48,000	15,8001968-69	422,000	321,000	82,000	19,0001969-70	561,000	449,000	89,000	23,0001970-71	490,500	377,500	88,000	25,0001971-72	628,000	495,000	108,000	30,0002.	(a)	(b)	(c)	Year	Total	Corporations Part I	Labour Unions Part II	Adminis- tration1963-64	88	79	6	31967-68	49	38	6	51971-72	58	45	8	5
3. The figures given below pertain to the 1971-72 fiscal year. Corresponding data for the years 1963-64 and 1967-68 are not available.

July 18, 1973
Order Paper Questions
Corpo- Labour
rations Unions Adminis-
(a)	12,000-15,000	Total 2	Parti 1	Part II 1	tration(b)	15,000-18,000	3	3	-	-(c)	18,000-21,000	1	-	1	-(d)	21,000-24,000	1*	1*	-	-(e)	24,000	1*	-	-	1*
* These persons had shared responsibilities tor work performed under both the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act and Statistics Act.


Mr. Hellyer: What was the cost of reprinting the 1968 Annual Report on Labour Unions following destruction of the original report prepared for tabling in Parliament?


Herb Breau: Statistics Canada reports that: The cost of reprinting the 1968 Annual Report on Labour Unions amounted to $2,090.11.


Mr. Hellyer: In view of the adverse criticism to which the government has been subjected, does the Minister propose initiating actions to have (a) the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act Administration restored to its original independent status (b) responsibility for overall policy and the administration of the Act removed from the Chief Statistician of Canada (c) suitable amendments made to the Act and Regulations to bring the legislation into conformity with the original intent of Parliament, including the extension of coverage to embrace all unions as envisaged by the statute and the filing of financial returns by international unions on the basis of their Canadian operations?


Herb Breau: Statistics Canada reports that: 1. (a) No. The work of the CALURA Administration and especially that relating to corporations has become very closely allied with functions performed by other parts of Statistics Canada, making the organizational distinction of a separate CALURA division less useful. Both the administration of CALURA and the rest of the Bureau are involved in collecting, processing and analyzing statistics. Moreover, since the amendment to the Calura Act in 1965, which permitted access to corporations income tax returns, both the report prepared under this act and publications on financial and taxation statistics of Statistics Canada have been based on the same data source. Closer co-ordination and integration of the work performed have made possible a number of improvements to the quality of information presented in the annual reports under the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act and have permitted a more comprehensive statistical and economic analysis; (b) no; (c) amendments to the act are being considered.


Mr. Cossitt: Were there any occasions in the past two years where the Department of Manpower and Immigration refunded cash bonds previously forfeited under section 63(1) of the Immigration Act to those who had posted such bonds and, if so, on how many occasions did this happen and what were the names of the persons involved?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: The present policy of the Department of Manpower and Immigration is that refunds of bonds taken from persons who have overstayed their temporary entry are made only where the individual is subsequently granted landed immigrant status. Between April 1, 1971 and March 31, 1973 there were 56 occasions where cash bonds were refunded under such circumstances. In order to protect the privacy of the persons involved and prevent any embarrassment to them, it is not considered to be in their interests to divulge their identities. The policy described above is at present under review.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Were Mr. Joginder Singh Sandhu and Mr. Lehmber Singh Bhangal, citizens of India, confined to the Don Jail in Toronto at any time during the latter part of 1972 as a result of action taken by the Department of Manpower and Immigration and, if so, what was the exact period of time during which these men were confined and what was the reason for such confinement?
2.	Was a Canadian relation, Mr. Ajit Singh Gill of Smiths Falls, Ontario, absolutely refused permission to visit these persons when confined in the Don Jail?


Robert Knight Andras: 1. These men were confined in the Don Jail between November 24, 1972 and December 17, 1972 to ensure that they would not disappear before their deportation orders could be executed.
2. The Department of Manpower and Immigration had no part whatever to play in any decision taken by the authorities of the Don Jail with respect to visiting privileges for these two men during the time they were detained in that institution.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Did the Department of Manpower and Immigration forcibly deport Mr. Joginder Singh Sandhu and Mr. Lehmber Singh Bhangal from Canada on December 17, 1972?
2.	Were they permitted to take their personal belongings with them on leaving Canada and, if not, what reason did the government have for exercising such treatment?
3.	Were the personal belongings of these men forwarded to them subsequent to their departure from Canada and, if so, on what date?


Robert Knight Andras: 1. Yes.

2.	These men had a number of personal items with them when they left Canada. Their suitcases were locked in an immigration baggage room at Toronto International Airport and the location of the key for that room was unknown to the immigration officers who were on duty at the airport at the time deportation was carried out. Their suitcases did not accompany these men on their departure.
3.	Yes, on January 30, 1973.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	What were the names and addresses of all those persons who applied for summer employment with both Canada Customs and Canadian Immigration at the Port of Lansdowne, Ontario?
2.	How many of these persons were called in for an interview and on what basis was the list of persons to be interviewed selected and by whom?
3.	What were the names of all those who were eventually given summer employment?


Mr. John M. Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: I am informed by the Departments of Manpower and Immigration and National Revenue as follows: 1. The names and addresses of all persons who applied for summer employment with Customs and Excise at the Port of Lansdowne, Ontario, are in the custody of the Canada Manpower Centres at Brockville and Gananoque. The Public Service Employment Act precludes divulging the names and addresses of candidates for positions. However, of all the applications for summer employment received at the Gananoque and Brockville CMCs this year, six specified a preference for employment at the port of Lansdowne. As there was no requirement for summer assistance at the Canada Immigration Centre at the port of Lansdowne this year, all applications were referred for consideration to Canada Customs.
2.	The port of Lansdowne employs 30 seasonal officers during the summer months. This year 22 students returned from previous years. For the remaining eight positions, 29 applicants were referred by the Canada Manpower Centre for interview on the basis of "Procedures To Be Followed for the Canada Manpower Centre in the Recruitment, Referral and Selection for Non-Career Oriented Summer Employment" which are issued by Public Service Canada.
3.	The following is a list of students re-employed who have provided previous satisfactory service:
Name	Address
Cameron, W. H. Moir, L. C. McGuire, B. G. Johnston, B. E. McKenzie, C. L. Swift, P.
Lalonde, R. Noakes, J.
Buell, L. Remmer, P. Presley, B. C. Buttrey, M. E. Delaney, F. R. Gibbons, R. G.
6 James St. W., Brockville 18 Manor Dr., Brockville 12 Victoria, Brockville 86 Keefer, Brockville 217 Reynolds Dr., Brockville 60 Front Ave. W., Brockville 1344 North Augusta Rd., Brockville 169 First Ave., Brockville
14	Willow Place, Brockville
15	Hardy Cres., Brockville 64 Keefer, Brockville
50 Ontario St., Gananoque 450 Stone St., Gananoque 150 Brock, Gananoque
Name
Order Paper Questions
Address
O'Connell, P. Joyce, R. Morton, M. J. McFarlane, R. Tregunna, J. S. Bums, J. Rupners, J. Keyes, C.
74 Garden St., Gananoque 84 Chaffey St., Gananoque Gananoque Box 280, Gananoque 321 Stone St., Gananoque R.R. 2, Gananoque 87 Stone St., Gananoque 160 River St., Gananoque
Students hired for the first time from among those applicants referred by the Canada Manpower Centre, who were assessed against the relevant selection standards are as follows:
Name
Address
Bonokoski, K. Fokes, L.
Loomis, C. Managan, R. McCallum, P. McCulloch, B. Rogers, K. Vanassaldonk, A.
R.R. 2, Lyn, Ontario 170 First St., Gananoque 86 Keefer St., Brockville R.R. 1, Gananoque 16 Dewick Dr., Brockville 175 Ferguson Dr., Brockville Box 757, Gananoque R.R. 2, Addison, Ontario
UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION-OPENING OF OFFICES: SMITHS FALLS, ONTARIO


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	When consideration was given to the recent reorganization of the Unemployment Insurance Commission, was consideration given to establishing an office to be open five days a week in Smiths Falls, Ontario and (a) if so, on what date was this consideration given and by whom (b) if not, for what reason was such consideration not given?
2.	What were the specific reasons that a full-time Unemployment Insurance Commission office was not allotted to Smiths Falls, Ontario during the recent Unemployment Insurance Commission reorganization?


Robert Knight Andras: 1. Yes. Consideration was given by both the Ontario Region of the Unemployment Insurance Commission and subsequently by the Head Office to the opening of a full time office in Smiths Falls, Ontario; (a) this study took place during 1972, when the whole concept of decentralization was being considered; (b) Not applicable.
2. At the present time the clients in this area are served from the Ottawa District Office on an itinerant basis of three days per week. Of the total claimants served by the District Office there are approximately 400 residing in the Smiths Falls area. Due to this minimum number of clients, the present services are considered adequate. These services will be subject to a continuous analysis to determine if any change is required.
UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION-OPENING OF OFFICES: BROCKVILLE, ONTARIO


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	When consideration was given to the recent reorganization of the Unemployment Insurance Commission, was consideration given to establishing an office to be open five days a week in
5744

July 18, 1973
Order Paper Questions
Brockville, Ontario and (a) if so, on what date was this consideration given and by whom (b) if not, for what reason was such consideration not given?
2.	What were the specific reasons that a full-time Unemployment Insurance Commission office was not allotted to Brockville, Ontario during the recent Unemployment Insurance Commission reorganization?


Robert Knight Andras: 1. Yes. Consideration was given by both the Ontario Region of the Unemployment Insurance Commission and subsequently by the Head Office to the opening of a full time office in Brockville, Ontario; (a) this study took place during 1972, when the whole concept of decentralization was being considered; (b) not applicable.
2. At the present time clients in this area are serviced from the Kingston District Office; however, full time inquiry service with assistance for filling application for benefit is available in the Brockville Itinerant Office. Due to a limited number of enquiries and a claimant population of about 1000 residing in this area, the present services are considered adequate. These services, however, will be subject to a continuous review to determine if any extension is required in order to provide the best service for claimants in this area.


Mr. Orlikow: X. Who are the members of the National Energy Board and (a) what are the academic qualifications of each of the members (b) what was their business experience before becoming members of the National Energy Board (c) have any of the members of the National Energy Board had any experience in the fields of economics, ecology or the environment?
2. Do any of the employees of the National Energy Board have training in economics, ecology or the environment and, if so, what are their names and what is the academic record and/or experience of each of these employees?


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, the answer to this question is somewhat long. I wonder if it would be permissible to have it printed in Hansard.
Cb) This part is in the nature of personal information which may be disclosed by the individuals concerned. However, as a matter of principle, information on personnel files has been regarded as not returnable by the government.
(c) Yes.
2. The Staff of the National Energy Board includes 29 employees who have training in economics, ecology or environment and who occupy positions classified accordingly within the Scientific and Professional Group. Several other employees of the Board have also had training relative to the aforementioned fields but fill positions in other occupational categories. Consequently, a large, complex amount of work would be required to identify each such individual and provide an accurate return.


Mr. McKenzie: Since 1965, what financial contributions has the government made for the construction of schools and the purchase of equipment in each of Canada's 264 constituencies and on what dates were such amounts paid?


John Mercer Reid: The government does not maintain financial contribution records on a constituency basis. However, the total capital assistance paid, in Canada by the Department of Manpower and Immigration, pursuant to technical and vocational training facilities from 1965/66 to 1971/72 inclusive was $794,792,471.38.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[ Editor's Note: Answer above referred to follows:] National Energy Board reports:
l.(a) Robert D. Howland, Chairman
Douglas M. Fraser, Vice-Chairman
Neil J. Stewart, Associate Vice-Chairman
Jack G. Stabback, Member
A. Cossette Trudel, Member
C. Geoffrey Edge, Member

Ph.D. (Economics)
B.A., and graduate studies in economics and political science


[Stage Direction]
B.Sc. (Chemical Eng.), P.Eng.
B.Eng., B.Eng. (Mechanical), P.Eng.
B.Sc. (Honours in Economics), RIA.
Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	Have arrangements yet been made between the Export Development Corporation and Chile under which loans are again being made to that country and, if so (a) how many applications for loans were received by the EDC from Chile as of May 31, 1973 (b) in what amounts are such applications for loans?
2.	What programs under CIDA are now being carried out in Chile?


John Mercer Reid: I am informed by the Export Development Corporation and the Canadian Development Agency as follows: 1. Notwithstanding the fact that Chile has had to reschedule certain of its debts and is presently seeking further accommodation from its creditors, EDC has recently made arrangements to extend a modest additional amount of financing to support certain outstanding applications which the Chileans have designated as high priority; (a) there were four outstanding applications at May 31, 1973; (b) the amounts involved are $4,000,000, $4,500,000, $2,000,000 and $500,000.
July 18, 1973

2. One bilateral grant of $87,000 for mining research and two $4,320,000 loans administered by the Inter-American Development Bank in university level engineering education and telecommunications are presently being carried out in Chile. The mining research project involves four one to two-month visits of Canadian experts to Chile and one expert for one year to work with the Centre for Mining and Metallurgical Research in Santiago. Five scholarships are also being offered for periods from four to twelve months for staff of the Centre. The $4,320,000 IADB loan to the State Technical University of Chile under CIDA's 1964 agreement with the IADB, will provide some $3,240,000 of laboratory equipment, $540,000 for scholarships in Canada and $540,000 for the services of Canadian professors in Chile. The $4,320,000 IADB loan ENTEL-Chile under CIDA's 1964 agreement with the IADB is for the purchase of telecommunications equipment primarily for a microwave link from Temuco to the Chiloe Islands.


Mr. Forrestall: Is the government giving consideration to eliminate the present inclusion of severance pay from the calculations of earnings with respect to the Unemployment Insurance Act?


Mr. Mark MacGuigan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: As indicated at the time of the tabling of Bill C-125, the government is giving consideration to amending the regulations by eliminating from the definition of "Earnings", moneys received as severance pay.


Mr. Stackhouse: 1.	How many inmates of federal prisons escaped during each year 1970, 1971 and 1972 and, of these, how many have been returned to custody?
2.	How many inmates on day parole or temporary absences failed to return in each year 1970, 1971 and 1972 and, of these, how many have been returned to custody?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: 1970	1971	19721. Inmate population	7,108	7,572	8,350Escapes*	194	239	351Recaptures	191	230	3292. Permits granted	18,008	30,224	64,033Failed to return	99	246	333Recaptures	97	236	309
* Escapes reported include escapes from maximum and medium security institution, walk-aways for minimum security conditions, and escapes from outside hospitals or other custodial jurisdictions.
The following is a breakdown of escapes in each category for the years 1970, 1971, 1972.
26446-73J
Order Paper Questions
1970	1971	1972Maximum security	30	23	40Medium security	65	106	163Minimum security (walk-aways)	91	96	127Other jurisdiction	8	14	21Total	194	239	351


Mr. MacKay: Can the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs indicate when the Competition Act or its successor will be introduced?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Instead of bringing forward legislation concerning competition policy in a single complex bill, the government has decided to implement the policy in stages. It is our aim to introduce the first stage during this session of parliament.


Mr. Dinsdale: Will the Post Office Department be issuing a stamp during 1973 honouring the 4-H Clubs' service to Canadian youth and, if not, for what reason?


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, the answer is as follows. For many years consideration has been given to issue commemorative postage stamps on the fiftieth or multiples of the fiftieth anniversary. The year 1973 marks the sixtieth anniversary of the 4-H program in Canada. It would have been more appropriate to have had a stamp issued in 1963 for the 4-H Club.


Mr. Marshall: 1.	During the period January 1 to May 15, 1973 inclusive, how many cases of benefit overpayment were discovered by the Corner Brook, Newfoundland, Unemployment Insurance Office?
2.	(a) How many of the applicants so involved were informed in their notices of overpayment that they had the option to negotiate repayment of overpayment (b) how many were not so informed and for what reason?
3.	How many of the above cases were resolved through the use of the "agreed upon deduction" form?


Mark R. MacGuigan: 1. One thousand three.
2. (a) 165. These were for persons who did not have an active claim and therefore contact is made with them with respect to the overpayment by letter, asking that arrangements be made for repayment of the amount; (b) 838. These overpayments were for claimants who receive a notice that they have been overpaid while continuing to be active claimants. The repayment is made from the benefits payable until the total amount is recovered. In these cases, if the claimant requests that special arrangements be made while he is claiming benefit the commission will

July 18, 1973
Order Paper Questions
accept any reasonable offer of repayment. Many of these overpayments are for very small amounts and occur because the commission, in order to effect immediate payment to claimants, accepts information with respect to money received by the claimant following or just prior to separation. Subsequent verification of these amounts sometimes results in adjustments to the amount the claimant is entitled, giving rise to these small overpayments.
3. About 170. These are the persons whose claim was not active when the overpayment was discovered and some who did not repay the full amount as an active claimant and subsequently made arrangements through the use of the form. It is planned to amend the system associated with overpayments in August to permit even greater flexibility to all claimants in the repayment of amounts owing to the commission.


Mr. Mather: Is consideration being given to creating a catalogue listing of all grants or other aids available from federal departments?


John Mercer Reid: Information Canada is currently assembling one publication briefly outlining federal services and programs available to the individual citizen and another dealing with federal services to business. Although not an exhaustive listing of federal grants and/or financial aids, these publications will refer to a number of such programs. The Privy Council office is presently working on a booklet that will list and briefly describe all federal programs which make provision for payments to provinces and municipalities. It is intended that this booklet will be made public.


Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): Is the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development studying the possibility of some form of public transportation within one or several national parks and, if so (a) what is the reason for the study (b) what is the cost of the study (c) what park or parks are concerned (d) who is conducting the study (if they are outside consultants, what are their names) (e) will the results of the study or studies be published?


Mr. Len Marchand (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Yes; (a) to investigate alternatives to private automobile access and reduce the environmental impairment of transportation modes; (b) as the study is being conducted in-house it is not possible to determine the exact cost; (c) special attention is being given to specific possibilities in Banff, Pukaskwa and Gros Morne National Parks. The progress of the trial project in the Point Pelee National Park is also being carefully evaluated; (d) Parks Canada professional staff; (e) study results will be integrated into park master plans and published in that form. These studies are not sufficiently advanced to permit publication at this time. It is intended, where the results lead to consideration of major changes or are incorporated in the development of park master plans, that these studies will be published as

part of the documentation distributed for public information.
GRANITE QUARRY OPERATIONS Questions No. 2,348-Mr. Beaudoin:
1.	Does the government grant any form of aid to granite quarry operators, particularly in the areas of construction or monuments?
2.	Are these types of granite considered by the government on the same footing as metals such as copper, iron, gold, etc. for assistance purposes to industry?


Herb Breau: 1. The incentive and development programs for Canadian industry administered by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce apply to granite quarry operators providing they meet the qualifying criteria and activities set out for these programs.
2. Yes.


Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): 1.	Was a telegram or other communication sent from the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to any official or representative of that Department in Banff, Alberta, in connection with a public meeting called by the Advisory Council of Banff for the evening of Friday, June 8, 1973, to discuss housing problems in Banff townsite and, if so (a) did any such communication instruct any such official or representative not to attend the public meeting (b) to whom was that communication directed (c) for what reason was that person instructed not to attend?
2.	Was it the position of the Department that no official or representative of the Department should attend that meeting and, if so, what was the reason?


Len Marchand: 1.
Yes; (a) yes; (b) superintendent, Banff National Park; Director, Western Region, Parks Canada; (c) recognizing the role of the Banff Advisory Council, not to influence the process of the meeting by our presence, but rather to await the council's recommendations.
2. Yes, for same reason given in 1(c).


Mr. McKinnon: 1.	Is it the intention of the Solicitor General to set up a Community Correctional Institute in the City of Victoria by September 1 this year and, if so, has he any plans for a community education program to try to gain the cooperation of the community?
2.	Can the Minister give assurance that he will not impose this project on the community until he has gained its cooperation?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, it is the intention of the Canadian Penitentiary Service to set up a community correctional centre within the limits of the city of Victoria and to have this centre in operation early this fall. The Penitentiary Service has been in contact with the authorities of the city of Victoria

who have been made aware of such plans. Our intention is to locate this centre in an area of the city which is zoned for other than strictly residential purposes.
Investigations are now being carried out for such a location and there has been communication, and will continue to be, with the local authorities. In establishing this centre, as with all eleven such centres across Canada, we will seek the support of all levels of government and local citizens. The latter participate as members of the Citizen's Advisory Council. This centre, like the others, is designed to assist offenders, who are from the local community and are approaching the end of their sentence, to reintegrate into society.


Mr. Godin: As a help to students who must go through grade 7 to grade 12, is the government considering an amendment to the Adult Education Act to allow an extension of the courses presently limited to 52 weeks?


Mark R. MacGuigan: The Adult Occupational Training Act limits individual training courses to a maximum duration of 52 weeks. This does not preclude a trainee being given more than one course, either consecutively or interspersed with periods of work experience. Within the AOT Act it is a policy that trainees may receive a maximum of 104 consecutive weeks of training including: -up to 52 weeks of educational upgrading in one or more courses; -up to 52 weeks of skill training in a specific occupation. 52 weeks of educational upgrading are normally adequate to provide for entry to most skill courses, which in general require the equivalent of grade 10. Trainees with very low educational level or learning handicaps may require longer periods of educational upgrading, but these can be provided over an extended period by interspersing training and related work experience. It is the experience of the Department that such a recurrent pattern of training and work is better adapted to the needs of low-education clients than lengthy periods of continuous training. The needs of special groups are under active study and specific approaches will be developed if it should appear that such groups are not adequately served under existing policies.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Godin: 1.	How many local initiative projects were approved during the years 1972 and 1973 in the constituencies of (a) Langelier (b) Montmorency (c) Portneuf?
2.	With regard to each project, what were (a) the title (b) the site of operation (c) those in charge (d) the number of jobs created (e) the amounts invested?
Return tabled.
Orders for Returns



GRANTS FOR HEALTH CARE RESEARCH

Mr. Paproski: 1.	Which government departments supply grant moneys for health care research?
2.	What are the different types of grants available?
3.	How much money has been spent on each one of these grants in the past three years?
4.	What are the objectives of the grant philosophies?
5.	Have any grants been used to carry out operations research into ways of reducing health care costs relating to hospitals?
6.	Have any grants been used to investigate alternate types of service in hospitals to reduce costs and/or provide better care?
Return tabled.



APPOINTMENT OF LIBERAL CANDIDATES

Mr. Cossitt: 1.	How many persons who were candidates for the Liberal Party in the election of October 30, 1972, have been appointed, as of this date, to any positions whatsoever by the government?
2.	What are their names, what are the positions and what are the annual salaries in dollars in each case?
Return tabled.



NUMBER OF LIP PROJECTS APPROVED IN CONSTITUENCY OF PORTNEUF

Mr. Godin: 1.	How many projects were submitted under the Local Initiative Program for the winter 1972-73 in the constituency of Portneuf?
2.	For each project, what was (a) the title (b) the name and address of the person in charge (c) the estimated cost?
Return tabled.



STATISTICAL SUMMARY AND ANALYSIS OF INFORMATION ON CORPORATIONS AND LABOUR UNIONS

Mr. Hellyer: 1.	Is the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce required to table in Parliament a report containing a statistical summary and analysis of information on corporations and labour unions and, if so (a) under what authority (b) on what date?
2.	On what dates were the annual reports under the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act tabled in Parliament for each of the years 1962 to 1972 (a) in respect of Corporations (Part I) (b) in respect of Labour Unions (Part II)?
3.	As of March 15, 1973, for what years has the Minister not tabled an annual report on Corporations and Labour Unions as required by law, and when does he plan to discharge his responsibility in this regard?
4.	For each of the years 1962 to 1972, how many corporations have filed returns as and when required by Part I of the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act?
5.	For the same years, how many corporations have failed to file returns as and when required by the Act and in what asset-size groups?
6.	How many corporations have been prosecuted for non-compliance with the reporting provisions of the Act, what are the names of the corporations convicted, and what was the amount of the fine in each case?
7.	How does the Minister reconcile the long history of default in administering the legislation with the intent of Parliament that this Act should constitute a fact-finding instrument for assessing

July 18, 1973
Orders for Returns
the extent and effects of foreign-ownership and foreign control in the corporate and labour fields?
Return tabled.


Mr. Bill Knight (Assiniboia):: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I have raised before in the House the fact that I asked a number of questions in February relating to the overtime expenses of senior civil servants and to overseas travelling expenses. These questions relate to different departments. That information was normally provided a decade ago through the public accounts. I think the government ought to provide this information. The parliamentary secretary should assure the members of this House that we will be given this information, so that we may know how much money is spent in this area.


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, I said in the House on Monday when this matter was raised last that I would be making a decision by today. A decision has been made, and the questions will be answered on Monday.


Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I want to refer again to two starred questions, Nos. 2061 and 2062, which have been on the order paper since May 31. They refer to the Opportunities for Youth program about which little information is made available to the House. I must confess the suspicion the government is delaying the release of this information until the House has entered upon a recess.



MOTION TO ADJOURN UNDER S.O. 26

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

Mr. Henry Latulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the great number of protests from citizens who see that a large proportion of the funds allocated to the Opportunities for Youth program is simply being wasted, under Standing Order 26 I move, seconded by the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Allard):
That this House adjourn immediately in order to pass the necessary amendments to the eligibility requirements for the Opportunities for Youth program.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Compton gave the chair the notice required by the provisions of Standing Order 26, which gave me the opportunity to give serious consideration to his suggestion.
The hon. member suggests to the House that an urgent debate be held to consider certain aspects of the Opportunities for Youth program. The numerous questions that have been put concerning this matter in the past few weeks, particularly by the hon. member for Compton himself, are enough to convince me that this is not a problem of sudden urgency such as would require the immediate attention of this House.

In view of the provisions of Standing Order 26(16), I do not think that I can possibly put to the House the motion moved by the hon. member.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call notices of motions for the production of papers Nos. 223, 226 and 229.



COPIES OF STUDIES AND REPORTS REGARDING UPGRADING OF THE PORT OF CHURCHILL

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 223-Mr. Mazankowski:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies af all documents, studies, reports and plans regarding the upgrading of the Port of Churchill and the projected utilization of the Port.
Mr. Joseph-Philippe Guay (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: I appreciate members opposite making noise, but I was hoping that it would be much louder than that. The papers requested are of a voluminous character and would require an inordinate cost and length of time to prepare. We have ascertained from the hon. member that it is a copy of the most recent economic study, prepared by the National Harbours Board, that he more particularly wishes to receive.
The document in question is an internal departmental study of a confidential nature. I would therefore ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Mr. Mazankowski:: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.



COPIES OF REPORTS BY MCKINSEY CONSULTANTS LIMITED FOR AIR CANADA

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 226-Mr. McKenzie:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of reports of all consultant work done by McKinsey Consultants Limited for Air Canada.
Motion stands.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 229-Mr. Beattie (Hamilton Mountain):
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the permission to transfer shares of Northgate Cable Company to the Royal Bank of Canada.
Mr. John M. Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to
President of the Privy Council): Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Radio-Television Commission has received no applica-
July 18, 1973
[Stage Direction]
tion for permission to transfer shares of the Northgate Cable Company to the Royal Bank of Canada and has, therefore, given no such authority to transfer shares.
I would therefore ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.
Mr. Baldwin:: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate. Shall the remaining motions stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD

[Stage Direction]
[ English]

Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. In view of the concern of all members of this House about the danger of the proposed TAPS oil tanker route to the interests of Canada, and in view of the fact that almost all channels of opposition to that route have been exhausted, is the Prime Minister prepared to consult immediately with other party leaders to organize a special parliamentary delegation to go to Washington to re-assert our position with the United States executive, congress and the American public?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly consider the matter further. I am sure the question was asked in great earnest. I must say my first reaction is the same as hon. members on this side who said no to the earlier suggestion. If there were an invitation issued to members of parliament to go there, it might be a different matter. I put myself in the position of ourselves if a delegation of Congress just landed in Ottawa without any invitation. I think it would be a preposterous situation. I think the reverse would be exactly the same.


John Allen Fraser: I remind the Prime Minister that some of us put ourselves in the position of those who will suffer from the dnager of the tanker route. In light of allegations that the United States state department distorted Canada's position, will the Prime Minister advise the House whether the government has inquired about this, is about to make a protest on the matter and has any plans to effectively and decisively express our position while there is still time?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, on the first part of the question, I must assure the hon. member and the House that the danger of the TAPS route is something about
Oral Questions
which the government has been aware. Statements have been made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and the Minister of the Environment. Representations have been made to the American government' on all these matters in an extremely forceful way. In answer to the first suggestion, it is not a question of not feeling there is a real need that the Americans know our view. I am just talking about the propriety of a bunch of parliamentarians landing in Washington, without being invited, and starting to lobby the American congress. If the reverse were to happen, I think members opposite would find it preposterous.


John Allen Fraser: In view of the Prime Minister's objections to a bunch of parliamentarians going there, is he prepared to make a special visit to Washington to clarify our position and reassert our opposition to the oil tanker route in order to rally support before the final decision is made by the U.S. congress?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member suggests a visit to Washington. To talk with whom? If it is to talk to the president, I did talk to him about this very matter. When he visited me in Ottawa, I made very strong representations. Therefore, I do not see the exact need for me to repeat that same trip in the reverse direction. The hon. member might want to hear the answer to the other part of his previous question. If so, the Secretary of State for External Affairs might want to report on the matter of Washington actions.


PROPOSED TAPS TANKER ROUTE-IMPACT ON CANADA-UNITED STATES RELATIONS
Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. The government has stated on several occasions recently that its key concern is about the tanker route and, particularly, the location of the southern terminal at Cherry Point. Will the Prime Minister indicate what steps have been taken or are about to be taken to impress on the United States that their present plans are unacceptable and are of major significance with regard to future Canada-U.S. relations?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I repeat the same answer. This has been our firm position for many months and, indeed, even years. I do not yet accept the proposition the tankers will necessarily have to enter into Cherry Point.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, there is of course, no other place they can enter at the present time other than Cherry Point. Has the government advised the United States government that Canada is not prepared to separate concern for co-operation on energy and trade problems from concern for co-operation and mutual respect on such environmental matters as the TAPS tanker route and, if not, is the Prime Minister now going to make a clear statement on the matter?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am not clear about the import of the question. Is the hon. member suggesting we bargain other subjects against this one? I am not clear on this.

July 18, 1973
Oral Questions


PROPOSED TAPS TANKER ROUTE-ALLEGED MISREPRESENTATION OF CANADIAN POSITION TO UNITED STATES SENATE-GOVERNMENT ACTION
Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: In view of the clear indication that the Canadian position on the transportation of Alaskan oil has been misinterpreted by certain segments of the United States Senate, and in view of the fact that this will be the last opportunity for Canada to make its position known to the United States, would the Prime Minister consider either making representations himself or causing strong representations to be made to the United States outlining clearly the Canadian position on this matter?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: So that there may be no misunderstanding as to the representations which were made, perhaps I ought to supplement what the Prime Minister has said. According to my information the State Department sought a report on the views of the Canadian government through its embassy in Ottawa. The United States embassy in turn submitted a questionnaire to officials of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. We gather, however, that before the Canadian reply was received the embassy sent forward its own assessment of the Canadian attitude. This was reflected in the initital response provided to the United States Congress by the State Department.
Subsequently, the U.S. embassy here received from the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources answers to the questions they had submitted. These were subsequently passed on by the State Department to the Congress. I would note that an additional paragraph elaborating the Canadian reply was made available to the United States authorities-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I would hope that the minister's statement is coming to a close. He will recognize, I am sure, that r reply which is so much longer than usual ought normally to be given to the House by way of a statement on motions. Perhaps the hon. minister might wait for a supplementary to be asked; this might give him an opportunity to make additional information available to the House.


Randolph Harding: A further supplementary on this important matter, either to the Secretary of State for External Affairs or the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Would the government spell out the essential points in its position with regard to the modes of transportation of oil from Alaska and other Arctic fields to southern markets in order that the Americans may at least get this information from the House of Commons.


Mitchell William Sharp: I was about to end the answer I was giving, Mr. Speaker. We have no reason whatever to doubt that the Congress of the United States was fully informed as to the Canadian position on the basis of the answers we had given.


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: A supplementary to the Prime Minister regarding the answer he gave in reply to the request by my hon. friend from Vancouver South to send a delegation from the Canadian

Parliament to the Congress of the United States. If a committee of the United States Congress wished to come to Canada to see the government and advise it about the position of the United States Congress on a matter of great importance to the United States, would the Canadian government not welcome such a committee and, therefore, could we not send a similar committee-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sure the hon. member will appreciate that a question asked in those terms is hypothetical. The hon. member for Kootenay West has a supplementary.


George Harris Hees: On a point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. We should try to proceed in an orderly fashion. The hon. member's question was not in order. I recognize the hon. member for Kootenay West, but I will return to the hon. member in a moment.


PROPOSED TAPS TANKER ROUTE-REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE OF FEDERAL RESPONSIBILITY IN EVENT OF OIL SPILL
Randolph Harding: I have a further supplementary for the appropriate minister. In the event of the construction of the TAPS route, would the hon. gentleman be willing to give an unequivocal guarantee to the people of British Columbia that any environmental and economic damage resulting from oil spills consequent upon the transportation of Alaskan oil along the Pacific Coast will be fully borne by the federal government or by agencies or funds set up for that purpose?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: I am not sure whether we could give such a guarantee. Obviously, one of the priorities at this point, assuming that the House of Representatives follows the lead of the Senate, is to secure the maximum possible protection for the island and lower mainland of British Columbia, in particular, and consider the possibility of the utilization of the Trans-Mountain pipeline through Canada to supply the Cherry Point refinery.


George Harris Hees: In view of the fact that the Canadian government would obviously welcome a committee from the United States Congress which sought to clarify an important issue with the government, would the Prime Minister now explain why it is not acceptable to the government to send a committee, as suggested, to the Congress in the United States?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest to the hon. member that this is debate. I think that he will appreciate that a question asked of the minister in those terms is more of an argument than a question.


PROPOSED TAPS TANKER ROUTE-SUGGESTION PRIME MINISTER SEEK INVITATION FOR PARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION TO ATTEND AT WASHINGTON
Mr. Frank Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: A supplementary to the Prime Minister. In the light of the admission by the Secretary of State for External Affairs that the Canadian submissions were made only lately, and
July 18, 1973

then only at the request of the Americans, and in the light of the Prime Minister's reservations about sending a bunch of parliamentarians to Washington, will the Prime Minister send a communique to Washington requesting an invitation to Canadian parliamentarians?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Does the hon. member suggest I should ask them to invite me, Mr. Speaker?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


AGRICULTURE
Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the fact that Canadian farmers are being driven into panic selling of hogs, even pregnant sows, because of the catastrophic rise in the price of soybeans which in turn will result in sharp increases in prices paid by consumers for pork, has the minister any concrete proposals to put forward to prevent this happening? If he has any plans would he give us an inkling of what they are?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: I am sure the hon. lady has all the facts and figures in support of what she is saying. There is some evidence of an increase in the slaughter of hogs in Ontario. However, the official count shows no increase yet for the last year. The situation is doubtless the result of the good prices the farmers are getting, and they are culling their herds. There is no evidence of a similar situation existing in Manitoba, Alberta and Quebec. It may be of interest to the hon. member to know that weaner pig prices dropped from $25 to $18 last week. She did not say anything about that. Last week, 178 hogs were slaughtered-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I should like to get just a little bit farther than the weaner if I can.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Winona Grace MacInnis: In view of the fact that the Canadian farmer cannot afford to keep a stock of hogs under present conditions without taking a financial beating, is the minister considering a policy of price support for hogs which would prevent further increases in price to the consumers?


Eugene Whelan: I am considering a feed grain policy for this nation. I am also considering other policies which I hope the hon. lady can get her party to approve when legislation is presented to this House. If I can judge from my experience with that party in connection with the crop insurance bill-it has been before the House for six months and it has not received third reading yet-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I seek the co-operation of hon. members. We should attempt during the 40 minutes at our disposal to at least complete one series of questioning. We are not making very good progress today.

[ Translation]


SOCIAL SECURITY
Eudore Allard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
With regard to the proposals concerning family allowances, will the rate of the allowance payable to a child vary from one province to the other? If so, will there be a maximum?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: The reply to the first part of the question is yes, but I should like to point out to the House-and I am sorry in this regard that the information given by the media has at times been erroneous-that there will be no maximum. We are proposing that the act provide for an average of $20 per child, in every province; but, if a province uses its prerogative of decreasing that amount to the minimum stipulated, that is $12, that will automatically mean that the other children will receive much more than $20 in order to arrive at the average, in each province, of $20 per child.


FAMILY ALLOWANCES-PROPOSAL THAT BILL BE DEALT WITH BEFORE SUMMER RECESS
Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I would like to ask the hon. minister whether he has revised his position in order that this piece of legislation be examined before the summer recess and that new provisions become part of it so that this measure comes into effect by September 1, 1973, at the re-opening of the schools?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, as for the first part of the question, I have already said that this is outside my scope. As for the second part, the answer is no.


AGRICULTURE
Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I had not quite finished, and as I did not get very far with the Minister of Agriculture I will try the Prime Minister.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
5752

July 18, 1973
Oral Questions


An hon. Member:: Explain.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Just give me a chance.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Winona Grace MacInnis: Will the Prime Minister teil the House whether he intends to make any concrete proposals to the western provinces next week which will assure a satisfactory supply of Canadian produced foodstuffs to consumers without forcing the farmer to bear the whole burden of feeding Canadians at a reasonable cost?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the subject of agriculture will be very much on the agenda, and I am sure the western agricultural ministers will get pretty far with our Minister of Agriculture who has their great respect.


FEED GRAINS PRICES-REQUEST FOR GOVERNMENT ACTION TO CONTROL
Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Frontenac-Lennox and Addington):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to that asked by the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway and is also directed to the Prime Minister. Will the government not take action to control farm feed prices at a level economic to farm pork producers, and thus to consumers of the end product as well?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker, not now.


LABOUR RELATIONS
James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Labour. In view of the fact a rail strike could legally take place on July 21, and in view of the fact that parliament will probably be adjourned on July 20,-


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


James Aloysius McGrath: I am only going by what I have heard through the usual channels, Mr. Speaker-may I ask the minister whether he is prepared to tell the House what the government proposes to do in respect of this national strike which could have such serious economic consequences across the country, and perhaps thereby take the House into his confidence?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, the government intends to do everything possible to bring the parties together in order to solve this dispute.


George Harris Hees: In due course.


John Carr Munro: I would ask the hon. member whether he would recommend any other course.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, in view of the minister's statement, may I ask whether he is prepared to adopt the practices established by his predecessor and personally intervene in order to settle this dispute which could have serious consequences across the country?


John Carr Munro: Of course I am.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister when he proposes to personally intervene to bring the two parties together, since the strike could take place three days hence.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the parties do not meet until tomorrow to make their findings known in respect of the conciliation board report it seems highly unlikely the hon. member would recommend that I intervene, particularly when the parties have not invited me to do so, unless he hopes that my intervention will fail.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Harris Hees: What a mean thing to day.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence and arises from a highly regrettable series of incidents involving Sea King helicopters on the east coast. In view of the most recent grounding of these aircraft, and the safety checks that have been made, I wonder if the minister can reassure those who fly them, and their wives, that these particular pieces of air equipment are indeed airworthy and safe?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, it is correct that one of our Sea King helicopters did have a technical difficulty, but this turned out to be an isolated incident and does not reflect in general on the airworthiness of the Sea King. We did ground them all until there was an opportunity to establish individual engineering clearances, and I can assure the hon. member that none of these helicopters will fly without such clearance.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that these particular pieces of equipment are at or beyond their normal life, can the minister indicate whether the government is giving any consideration now to the replacement of this equipment?


James Armstrong Richardson: Not specifically, Mr. Speaker.
July 18, 1973


LABOUR RELATIONS
Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to a previous question to the Minister of Labour. In view of the unique position of Newfoundland in respect of water transportation needs, is it possible that the minister would make a recommendation to the CN and the unions to co-operatively arrange some sort of interim or contingency plan which would provide essential transportation services for that province in the event of a strike?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, that sounds like a reasonable suggestion, but I think it more appropriately falls within the jurisdiction of the Minister of Transport. To the degree that labour is involved I would be pleased to discuss it with him.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the minister for his answer, and ask the Minister of Transport whether he would consider taking this matter under advisement, in view of the' fact that tourism and all the essential industrial needs, including food supplies, of the island are dependent on water transportation? Could he arrange, not with any heavy-handed involvement, but with co-operation between the unions and the CN, to have essential services provided in the event of a strike?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, not speaking for the unions, as I have no mandate from them, if there is anything I could say-


An hon. Member:: Did you lose your card?


Jean Marchand: If there is anything to be done in this regard I am quite sure the unions will take care of it. It is very difficult to pinpoint one part of the country because there are other regions that might face very difficult situations. We will have to wait until we see what the situation is, at which time I will make a decision.


AIR CANADA
Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of Transport and is on a more positive note than perhaps the last couple of questions regarding the problems of the railways. I have given the minister notice of this question and I hope he will be as co-operative as he usually is, and not as pugnacious and negative as the Minister of Labour just was. Is the minister now in a position to announce to the House improved transportation services, especially in the Atlantic area where all the communities in the four provinces will be on Zenith toll-free lines directly to Air Canada reservation desks, and also codephones, so we will know when planes are coming and going?
Oral Questions


Jean Marchand: Yes, I think this will be achieved very shortly, mainly for the towns of Kemptville, Truro, New Glasgow, Wolfville, Bridgewater, Windsor and Antigonish.


COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Communications.
Last Friday his Quebec counterpart made known that the parliamentary commission on communications would meet on Thursday, August 9, to study the proposed cablevision regulations. Since after that meeting the Quebec National Assembly would have jurisdiction over cablevision at the beginning of September, is the minister prepared to meet with his Quebec counterpart before August 9 to discuss that question or will he, as he mentioned before, let the courts solve that problem?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, I had with my Quebec counterpart the meetings which seemed possible until now and up to August 9. As to the conclusion that can be drawn from the meeting of the Quebec parliamentary commission on communications, I differ in opinion with the member for Joliette. That will confer no new jurisdiction to Quebec besides that which it holds already by virtue of the constitution.


LABOUR RELATIONS
Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, my question is really supplementary to that of the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate and is directed to the Prime Minister. In view of the difficulty which could be experienced by the isolated province of Newfoundland as a result of the impending strike, is the Prime Minister today meeting with the premier of Newfoundland and, if so, will he discuss this very serious problem with him to see whether anything can be worked out to relieve the situation?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I am meeting with the premier of Newfoundland and we will discuss a whole series of matters.
5754

July 18, 1973
Oral Questions EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


POSSIBLE INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON INFLATION-CANADIAN POSITION
Mr.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the recent statement by the OECD in Paris that the nature of today's inflation requires an approach at the international level so as to deal effectively with inflation, is the government of Canada considering taking the lead in respect of convening a conference of the affected nations so as to deal with this urgent matter?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. gentleman for the suggestion. My answer is that we are considering such an initiative. I might add that the Minister of Finance with whom I have discussed this subject will be at the forthcoming meeting of the Group of 20 at Washington on July 30-31. Inflation is a problem which is not confined to any one country; it is world wide and is contagious.


FINANCE
Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. In view of fact that the Minister of Finance has said many times in the House of Commons that it takes a while for changes in economic policy to work through the economy, and in view of the fact that in May retail sales were off by 3 per cent, housing starts on a year to year basis were off by 5 per cent and that manufacturing orders had declined since January, is the Department of Finance as well as the Bank of Canada considering reversing the present monetary policy and the high interest rates which follow therefrom?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Department of Finance and the Governor of the Bank of Canada are following a monetary policy sufficiently expansionary to accommodate the strong rate of growth in the economy. When the hon. gentleman is quoting those figures he ought to remind the House he is quoting them against a large first quarter basis.


James McPhail Gillies: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Minister of Finance. As I prefaced my previous question I think we must all watch the indicators. The question I raised is whether the Department of Finance and the Governor of the Bank of Canada are concerned enough with these indicators to believe the time has now come for a change in the present monetary policy?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. gentleman will be satisfied when I tell him that the monetary policy of the Department of Finance and the Governor of the Bank of Canada will continue to accommodate the expansion of the economy. I also wish to assure him that the current high rate of expansion over

the last six months has been at a compounded rate of about 12 per cent and will plane down and re-enter the long term growth potential of the country.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Don Valley may ask a supplementary after which the Chair will recognize the hon. member for Comox-Alberni.


James McPhail Gillies: Again my question is addressed to the Minister of Finance, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister assure the House we will not follow a monetary policy in this country determined by the monetary policy in the United States, that is that we will not have an increase in our prime rate because there has been an increase in the prime rate in the United States.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I can give the hon. gentleman the assurance that our monetary policy is independently determined.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Thomas S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Prime Minister. It really arises today because of certain earlier questions. I should like to ask him whether he can advise the House when it is the intention of the government to introduce some legislation to extend our pollution control boundaries on the Atlantic and Pacific to at least 100 miles seaward in light of suggestions which I understand have been made along this line by a member of the government at a recent conference in Vancouver.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, there is no intention at this time of the government contemplating such legislation, but we have taken various measures, particularly international in character, to ensure that there would be as much control as possible of pollution off our coasts.


REQUEST FOR SUSPENSION OF COURT ACTION BY WHEAT
Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice who speaks for the Canadian Wheat Board. Having in mind the financial difficulty experienced by many northern farmers last winter and fall, has the minister consulted with the Canadian Wheat Board with regard to halting the hundreds of actions taken by the Wheat Board involving thousands of dollars in costs and bailiff's fees, and will the minister request that the Wheat Board suspend any further action against these people until at least this fall?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member is referring to cases of failure on the
July 18, 1973

part of farmers to repay cash advances which were issued on the strength of a pledge that the grain was available to pay for those advances, and who then did not subsequently deliver grain, I did discuss this matter with the Canadian Wheat Board some time ago and was assured that most of the cases involving defaults had existed for a period of years and not just in very recent times. So in the circumstances it seemed quite appropriate for collection action to be continued.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. If the minister will not act for equitable and humanitarian reasons, will he take steps in light of the western economic conference to see that this deliberate badgering and harassment of farmers who cannot pay their bills for reasons beyond their control is stopped.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member knows that a question in those terms is not in order.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr.   Terry@: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the minister's denial on Monday of any knowledge of the Unemployment Insurance Commission's practice of seizing bank accounts to collect overpayments, and in view of the fact that I wrote the minister on February 27 about such a case involving $490, which letter he acknowledged and stated that such practice is necessary, does the minister now admit that he knew and condoned this deplorable practice?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's question certainly is not in order. The hon. member might like to ask another question but certainly the question asked by the hon. member is not in order.


Mr. O'Connor:: Mr. Speaker, was the minister not aware on February 27 of this year of the practice which he denied he knew of on Monday this week?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I was referring to a specific case which I believe the hon. member for Wellington referred to me, and who subsequently discussed with me the details of it. I said I was not aware of the details and wanted the evidence of it. I am investigating this whole practice to see what should be done. I want to refer to the act to see what the powers and obligations are. I do not condone the practice and if there is any way to change that policy I intend to do so.


Terrance Patrick (Terry) O'Connor: Mr. Speaker, has the minister obtained an opinion from the Minister of Justice concerning the legality of this practice prior to judgment being obtained for the amount allegedly owing?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, that will be part of the exercise of determining what should be done.
Oral Questions FISHERIES


ALLEGED KILLING OF SALMON AS RESULT OF FISH TAGGING PROGRAM-SIZE OF NETS USED
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of the Environment and Fisheries. He has had notice of the question. Did federal fisheries officers in New Brunswick bury hundreds of Atlantic salmon killed during a fish tagging program as alleged, and are his officials using nets of approved size for the fish traps so that salmon can survive?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, the answer is that about a dozen salmon were buried. That is a dozen as compared to nine hundred which were also caught in those traps, counted and released again. The net meshes were regulation size and the operation, so far as I can determine, has been carried out as it has been for many years.

[ Transla tion]


INQUIRY RESPECTING CONTINUATION OF OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH PROGRAM
Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a question of the hon. Secretary of State.
Will the Opportunity for Youth program go on being subsidized for the coming years and will further credits be affected to it?
[ English]


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: That matter, Mr. Speaker, is under examination now.


COMBINES
William George Knight: My question, Mr. Speaker, is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In view of the statement by the United States federal trade commission that large oil companies in that country have obtained profits and returns on investments substantially in excess of what they would receive had there been fair competition, can the minister inform the House whether he intends to order an inquiry into the gouging of consumers by these same companies which are operating in Canada?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I have already informed the House that as a result of a formal complaint under section 7 of the Combines Investigation Act by the Consumers Association of Canada the director of the combines branch has been carrying out a formal inquiry under the act into the petroleum industry.

July 18, 1973
Oral Questions


William George Knight: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the anti-combines legislation in Canada is totally ineffective, could the minister inform the House whether he would be prepared under the Inquiries Act to conduct an inquiry into the whole operation of all companies in Canada and the price mechanism which they are using in the closed market in which they are operating?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I do not accept the hon. member's premise regarding the effectiveness of the existing act, although I hope it presages support by himself and his party for new legislation in this area in due course. I think that the points he has mentioned are of the kind that could be covered in the inquiry to which I have already referred.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member will be recognized for a last supplementary question, after which I will recognize the hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte.


SUGGESTED ESTABLISHMENT OF NATIONAL PETROLEUM COMPANY-GOVERNMENT POSITION
William George Knight: In view of the fact that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources is missing from the House, I will direct my question to the Prime Minister. Could the Prime Minister inform the House if the government is continuing to study the idea of establishing a national petroleum company which would venture into the market in Canada and create competition, thus bringing down price levels?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the government is studying many matters, but I do not care to go into details about what precisely is occupying cabinet at this time.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Has he received a telegram from the Institute of Edible Oil Foods in respect of the shortage of supply of edible oils for the Canadian food industry?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, it has not crossed my desk.


Fred Alward McCain: I should like to ask a supplementary question. Since there is a shortage of supply of this material I should like to ask the minister what measures he feels might be taken to ensure an adequate supply of edible oils for the food industry's requirements in baking, frying, packaging, processing, manufacturing, and other operations which require these oils in the preparation of foods for the consumer market.


Mr. Speaker:: I think that the information sought by the hon. member should be given to the House, if it has to be given, by way of a statement on motions.


CITIZENSHIP
Mr. Bill Jarvis (Perth-Wilmot):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State. Two weeks ago I asked the minister about the plight facing many thousands of British subjects who have been long time residents of Canada but have not taken out citizenship. Specifically, I asked the minister what steps his department had planned to take to inform these British subjects of their disenfranchisement and, second, what steps will be taken to expedite any applications for citizenship on the part of those who desire to apply.


James Hugh Faulkner: Mr. Speaker, there are several elements in response to that question. I have signed a letter to the hon. member today which is rather complete. If he wishes, I can summarize it now, but perhaps he would like to wait until he receives the letter.


FISHERIES
Mr. Walter C. Carter (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment and Fisheries. Can the minister tell the House if he has received a request from the government of Newfoundland for assistance to fishermen who have suffered severe losses as a result of the storm on June 17.


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, yes, and I believe a further submission along these lines is being made today by a minister from Newfoundland to the Department of Finance in Ottawa.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Ron Atkey (St. Paul's):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the right hon. Prime Minister. Would he indicate now whether he would be willing personally to intervene on humanitarian grounds on behalf of Ronald Patrick Lip-pert, a Canadian who has now served ten years of a lengthy 30 year sentence as a political prisoner in a Cuban prison, in view of the possibilities of amnesty for this man as part of the forthcoming celebrations in Cuba to mark

the twentieth anniversary of the Cuban revolution on July 26?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State for External Affairs has answered this type of question before and indicated that many representations have been made by the Department of External Affairs and by our embassy and that we continue to make such representations.


Ronald George Atkey: Is the right hon. gentleman taking into account that the prisoner himself, through his family, has personally requested the intervention of the right hon. gentleman?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I was made aware of that fact.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL AFFAIRS WESTERN ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITIES CONFERENCE-RESPONSE OF ATLANTIC PROVINCES TO INVITATION TO ATTEND
Mr. Tom Bell (Saint John-Lancaster):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister received any response from the Atlantic provinces regarding the invitation to those provinces to attend the western conference, particularly to Premier Regan who was most outspoken of the Minister of Transport's understanding of the transportation problems which will be discussed at that conference?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the invitation was made to other than the four western provinces to send representatives. I do not have a tally of the various decisions that were made by the various provinces, particularly the province of Nova Scotia so ably led by Premier Regan-


George Harris Hees: You have a great sense of comedy, Pierre.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I will certainly get the answer to this question and perhaps give the details tomorrow.


Thomas Miller Bell: My question is for the Minister of Transport. Has the minister replied to the able premier of Nova Scotia and his very severe criticism of the transportation understanding that the minister has?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that the hon. gentleman was in the House yesterday, but I think I answered this question put to me by the Leader of the Opposition.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will recognize the Leader of the Opposition on a supplementary question, and then the hon. member for New Westminster.
Oral Questions TRANSPORT


ATLANTIC PROVINCES-INQUIRY AS TO REPORT OF FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL COMMITTEE
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, can the Minister of Transport tell the House when he expects a report from the committee of officials, of which one of his officials is the chairman on the matter submitted to that committee by the minister and the four Atlantic premiers?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I know that there is supposed to be a meeting of officials before the end of the month. The fact that the chairman of the committee is a federal civil servant does not mean that he decides by himself when the report will be submitted.


INQUIRY AS TO GOVERNMENT POLICY ON ATHLETIC PARTICIPATION IN SOUTH AFRICA
Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of the telegram sent by the Minister of National Health and Welfare to the Canadian Squash Rackets Association congratulating them on their decision not to participate in the international tournament in Johannesburg, South Africa, would the Prime Minister advise the House if this telegram represents government policy regarding athletic participation in South Africa?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I will have to make myself aware of the text of the telegram, and then I may be able to ascertain whether it is from a squash rackets fan or from a member of the government as such. I will have to look into it.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members will appreciate that we have reached the end of the question period. I will allow the hon. member for New Westminister a supplementary and then recognize the hon. member for Charlevoix and perhaps another hon. member before calling Orders of the Day.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: The telegram, in substance, was circulated to all hon. members. In view of the recently revealed facts about the exploitation of black labour in southern African countries by large corporations based in Canada, namely, Ford of Canada, Aluminum Company of Canada, Falcon-bridge-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Will the hon. member resume his seat. He was recognized for the purpose of asking a supplementary. I hope he will do this now.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: I will get to my question, Mr. Speaker. Would the Prime Minister indicate to the House whether or not the government intends to cut off those corporations based in Canada from the federal dole until they

July 18, 1973
Oral Questions
start behaving in a more responsible manner internationally?


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

[ Translation]


AIR TRANSPORT
Gilles Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport.
After the crash of a Cessna last Saturday on a house in Templeton West, will the minister take the necessary measures to stop pilots of small aircraft from performing stunts over farm homes in this area or this municipality?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, it is a well known fact that Department of Transport regulations in this field are very strict. When an accident occurs, there is an investigation; as soon as we know the results of the investigation, we will see what is the responsibility of the pilot and what measures will have to be taken.


REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE MOVEMENT OF GRAIN NOT IMPAIRED BY RAIL STRIKE
Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Justice as the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board. It arises out of a question posed by the hon. member for St. John's East regarding the impending rail strike. Can he advise the House if he has had any discussions with the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Transport regarding the effects which a strike would have on the movement of grain, and can he assure the House that adequate steps will be taken by the government to ensure that the delivery and movement of grain will not be impaired by reason of a strike?


Otto Emil Lang: Yes, we have had discussions, Mr. Speaker. I would not speculate on the impact of any hypothetical event except to assure the hon. member that, as always, we will do everything we can to see that the farmers of the country are protected.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


Mr. Benjamin:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the government House leader. In view of the answer given by the Minister of Agriculture to a question by the hon. member for Vancouver Kings way, and his complaints about the crop insurance bill which was reported back from the Agriculture Committee on

June 8, some five weeks ago, will the government House leader advise why it has not been called forward, if the Minister of Agriculture is-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member knows that that is not a point of order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I rephrase the point made by my colleague, the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre. I address this to the government House leader. In view of the belief I have that the House would quickly pass order No. 12, the crop insurance amending bill which is posted for report stage and third reading, could that item be called now ahead of order No. 54?


Eugene Whelan: If I had not said what I said, you would not be saying what you are saying.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the 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.
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Peel South) moved:: That Bill C-208, An Act to suspend the operation of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, be amended in clause 4 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:: Would the hon. member indicate the seconder of the motion?


Donald Alex Blenkarn: The hon. member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon).


Mr. Speaker:: There may be some difficulty in this respect. The hon. member is not in his seat.


Thomas Miller Bell: Then I will second it.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few things, prior to getting into detail on the amendment, to indicate why the House should adopt the amendment. It took a long time for Parliament to get around to passing the Electoral Boundaries Re-adjustment Act which was finally passed in the 1964-1965 session, and became chapter 31 of the statutes of that year. It set up a non-partisan commission. It strikes me that, if anything is going to be done in terms of the re-adjustment of electoral boundaries, the concept of a non-partisan commission would have to be considered by the House.
July 18, 1973

The act provided that any redistribution must reflect population changes. It provided for the setting up of commissions. It provided for area hearings, to be attended by people who are interested in communities. It provided that a report with maps must be presented to the House of Commons, and it provided for debate in the House on the divisions within a province. Thus it provided for political input in the reconsideration of electoral boundaries.
Really there is not a great deal that could be added by a new Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act except to have it deal with some of the specific problems that have come to the attention of the House. I want to refer to those problems briefly under three separate headings, and I suggest there is no reason why the House could not solve them no later than July 1, 1974.
We will never get unanimous consent to the approval of redistribution because populations in some areas increase and in other areas do not increase. Thus those areas may lose members of parliament. In any event we all have the desire to maintain the status quo, to maintain what some people have referred to as our comfortable pews. None the less redistribution is always mandatory in a democratic system. If not effected the system becomes less and less representative, less and less democratic.
I wish to address myself to the specific problem that has come to be known as the Alberta problem, and perhaps in some cases as the New Brunswick problem. It concerns the situation where the commissions in those provinces failed to pay attention to section 13(c) of the statute. Indeed, in Alberta rural ridings were given more people than city people.
Clearly, this situation can be cured by this House. It is not a difficult situation to deal with. This House should not need 18 months to cure that problem. It is easy to handle. Why not direct the redistribution commission to pay attention to the statute? I was suggesting to an hon. member the other night that perhaps this could be corrected by someone bringing forward a court motion. If that is not possible, surely the government could work out a minor amendment for dealing with the problem. Clearly, since it is suggested that members need to travel around large rural areas, the populations of rural ridings should be somewhat smaller than those of urban ridings.
It may also be said that the commission in New Brunswick did not pay attention to sociological factors, as suggested by the hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte (Mr. McCain). Again the provisions of subsection (c) of section 13 are clear, and there should not be any great difficulty in dealing with this type of problem in a short time. We do not need to wait 18 months.
Another problem that has been brought to the attention of the House is the one I prefer to call the hiatus problem. It has been created because the two major parties in this House are almost the same size. The party I support has 107 members and the government party has 109 members. There is always a possibility that we could be required, in the interests of this nation, to go to the country, and my party or the government party would then ask for a mandate from the people of Canada to conduct the affairs of this country.
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension
One of the problems connected with the existing act is that when the act was passed nobody visualized such a tight situation occurring in the House of Commons. The Chief Electoral Officer has said, "I must have time after redistribution to get new returning officers and to set up the machinery for an election." So there could well be a period of, say, six months during which an election could not be held. But that problem is not difficult to solve. We do not need 18 months to find an answer. That difficulty could be overcome pretty quickly. We could deal with it in one month, indeed, in one week.
Surely we could introduce a system under which the effect of redistribution is held in abeyance for six or seven months. There could be two sets of returning officers who might be active during that period. If an election were called before a certain date, it would be fought on the old boundaries; if called after that date, it would be fought on the new boundaries. There is not much difficulty there. I see no reason for deferring the effects of redistribution.
If the government really wanted to act sensibly, it could say, "There is a problem with regard to the statute, and there is another in the administration." Those difficulties could be handled by a government that is willing to act. This bill, which merely delays the effect of redistribution, will not solve that problem at all. Surely the government does not need 18 months to find an answer to this problem.
The third difficulty is that alluded to by the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), that of the provinces. I have learned from my researches that in the 1873 election, indeed in all elections until 1908, the province of Prince Edward Island returned six members to this House. Not too long ago Nova Scotia returned 18 members, Saskatchewan 21 members and Manitoba 17 members. It was arranged, when certain provinces entered into Confederation, that the representation of certain provinces would never slip below the number of Senators coming from those provinces. That guarantee was included in the original confederation deal.
I am told by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) of another important provision. To illustrate, let me take the case of Manitoba. There is provision for six Senators to be appointed from that province. Apparently if the population of Manitoba exceeds by one the population of New Brunswick, it will get ten members. On the other hand, if someone dies in the province or there is one person less, Manitoba's number of members will go right down to six. There are lots of peculiar issues like this which must be considered. They relate to the arrangements made under the British North America Act but they are not serious issues. It should not be difficult to bring forward an amendment that says, "Aside from the province of Newfoundland and aside from the province of Prince Edward Island, all provinces shall return at least ten members to the House of Commons. That would not be difficult and would not need 18 months to figure out. It would not even need 12 months to figure out.
My amendment suggests that the government should be given until July 1, 1974, to come forward with new proposals. It should not take until 1975 to look into this. Delay really will not solve the problem. If the government wants to act in these three small areas of real concern to do with

July 18, 1973
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension
the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, it could do so in one week, even less. Why, I have seen bills introduced and go through all stages in one day. Do we need 18 months for dealing with a little difficulty like this? Certainly not. These problems are not big. They have been elaborated on by hon. members speaking in the second reading debate. Members have spoken about them in caucus, and have talked about them with others in the halls. We do not need 18 months to work out these concerns.
The only justification for Bill C-208 is that the government wishes to bring forward concrete proposals for cleaning up the three items of concern I have mentioned. These could be handled pretty expeditiously if the government really intended to act. The truth probably is, as we shall find out by the way my amendment is handled, that the government does not intend to do anything. It intends to suspend redistribution until 1975. It does not intend to solve the problems connected with the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act. It itends to do nothing at all.


Mr. Stewart (Cochrane):: We will not let it do nothing.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Hon. members opposite say they will not let it do nothing. The government has done nothing at all in lots of other areas of concern. It has done nothing about inflation and the high cost of living. They do not think the government will act on this problem, do they? The government does not intend to bring in representation by population. It does not intend to cure the provincial minimum representation problem, or to worry about the hiatus problem, and it certainly does not intend to get tough with the redistribution commission and say, "Look, obey section 13 of the act." If the government intended to act, it would not need 18 months. Surely by July 1, 1974 we could have proposals from this government, if the government really intends to intervene in this matter. We need not wait until 1975.
Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, what the problems are. The commission has done a great deal of work. Hearings were held all over Canada. They had people prepare briefs and represent themselves at the hearings. They prepared maps in numerous quantities and sent them to members. Now they are told, "Stop work boys, stop the clock". This is a stop the clock bill. Why do we have to stop the clock until 1975? If there is a real interest in stopping the clock, stopping it until July 1974 is plenty long enough.


An hon. Member:: There is no newspaper man up there.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Those fellows do not pay any attention.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Order.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: They only talk to the press gallery. They have no intention of debating in this House.
We can be honest and develop some fairness. We do not have to thwart democracy. If we want, we can get at the problem of redistribution very quickly. The government will not do anything until July 1974. It has no intention of doing anything. However, if that commission gets into business in July, it can probably finish its work by the end

of October 1974. It takes six months to get organized in this country.
The people of this country do not like elections in December, January, February or March because it is too cold and hard to get around. If the commission finished its work in October 1974, we could have an election on new boundaries in the spring of 1975. However, if we pass this bill the way it is and do not get down to business until after January 1, 1975, we cannot have an election on new boundaries until 1976. That is a long time for this House to be denied representation by population.
We do not normally have elections in July or August. The weather is hot. It is no time to talk politics because the weather is hot and sticky. There is no reason to wait until January 1, 1975 other than the desire of this government to hold on. There is no requirement in the statute in terms of dates whereby the government must establish a committee within a certain time and that committee must report within a certain time. There are no time limits. It is like everything else. If something is required in 18 months, you do not have to start until 17 months have past.
I feel 12 months is long enough. I am told it is not quite 12 months but 12 months less 20 days. It is a full parliamentary year. If this Parliament cannot get down to business and solve the three small issues that have legitimately been raised in terms of redistribution, it is because this government is not interested, is not serious. The people of the growth areas of Canada must understand this government does not believe in representation by population.


Mr.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member who just spoke would be as interested as he claims to be in this particular matter, he would have taken the trouble last week to come to the committee hearings when this bill was being debated. He would have listened to the evidence and the testimony given by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) in the morning and the evidence submitted in the afternoon by the Chief Electoral Boundaries Commissioner, Mr. Nelson Caston-guay, who explained at great length the complexity of this procedure. He did it so well and so extensively that all members of the committee who in the morning felt this matter could be resolved in a short time agreed with him that the time limit imposed by this bill was reasonable and that it was reasonable and wise to put it in those terms.
But the hon. member for Peel South (Mr. Blenkarn) prefers not to be confused by the facts. He stayed away from the committee hearings. He prefers to come in to the House and make irresponsible statements, such as he just made. He claims the government does not want to do anything. He has put forward a half-baked motion that is not based on any fact or knowledge of the complexity of this issue. If he does not want to be confused with the facts, he could at least give some indication as to what kind of formula he would produce in a short time. Perhaps that might have been a constructive contribution to this debate. He did not tell us what kind of compromise he would like to strike between geographical size and population.
Perhaps he could tell us what some of his colleagues in his party would like as a formula to resolve this dilemma whereby certain provinces will lose a number of seats as a

result of the proposed measures. Instead, he put forward a motion that did not even have the benefit of being examined in committee. The hon. member does not know what was debated in committee. He has no knowledge of the evidence that was produced. He preferred the typical approach of one who does not want to be confused with the facts. What a sham!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I am taking part in this debate unnecessarily because I spoke for 40 minutes on this bill about a week ago. However, I am moved to speak today on the amendment of the hon. member for Peel South (Mr. Blenkarn), who represents Mississauga in the southern part of this great province of Ontario.
I agree there is definitely a problem facing members who represent urban centres where a great deal of growth is taking place very quickly. I sympathize with anyone who has to look after the needs of 200,000 constituents. I find it a challenge to look after 75,000 people in my constituency.
I cannot agree with the hon. member for Peel South that the problem is so simple that there are but three matters to be resolved. I feel the issue is broad enough to be treated with a great deal of respect by the Canadian House of Commons, we should thoroughly investigate all avenues that can be explored to bring about a change in our representation in the House of Commons in a way that will take care of the needs of all Canadians.
The hon. member talked about representation by population. If that concept were strictly adhered to at the present time, I think it would ruin this country. I think the idea of representation by population is old and antiquated, the type of thinking which went out at the turn of the century with the research my hon. friend talked about in 1873.
That is about the vintage of representation by population: it is a hundred years old. I do not think we should look upon the House of Commons in this narrow sense. For example, the hon. member mentioned that at one time Prince Edward Island had six members. I believe he mentioned that Nova Scotia had 16 members, and today they are down to 11 members. By his very research he has proven the point we are trying to make. I admire anyone who takes the time to do some research. But the hon. member has really proven to me by the use of his figures that there is need for us to be concerned about what is happening to provinces which are losing their representation. There is something radically wrong when one of the founding provinces, Nova Scotia, which at one time had 18 members speaking for it in the House of Commons, today has 11 members and would have only 10 if this bill were to pass.
Herein lies the burden of the argument which is being presented by members from all over the country. We all want to see some system arise under which no member has to bear the responsibility of representing 200,000 souls. This is not fair to the people, regardless of the adequacy of their member. I am sure my hon. friend is capable of
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension representing 200,000, or even half a million, but certainly those people would not be getting the representation and the voice in our affairs which they have the right to expect.
I should like to say again for the record, bearing in mind that my hon. friend was not here the other day, that there are a variety of factors which must be considered when we address ourselves to the question of redistribution. One of them is the size of a constituency. If anybody doubts the validity of this point of view he should visit the riding of the hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador (Mr. Rompkey). As a matter of fact, I am going there this weekend. I shall be in Labrador on Saturday, and I might say it is almost as far to fly to London as it is to fly to the northern part of Labrador from here.
Labrador has an area of more than 100,000 square miles containing some of the greatest amounts of natural resources left in the world. The population is approximately 30,000. One member has to represent all that land mass plus a good chunk of Newfoundland as well. I sympathize with him for having to represent the largest constituency in Canada represented by one member outside of the Yukon and the Northwest Territories. Circumstances like this must be a major factor in reaching any decision on redistribution.
I talked last week also, as my hon. friend may remember if he has read my speech, about resources as a base for considering the broadening of representation. Today we hear a great deal of argument and discussion about tanker routes, exploration for oil and gas and the shipment of these resources. Among those taking part in all these inter-related arguments and discussions are the members from British Columbia, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield), the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) and others. I do not think we would ever get ourselves in a bind if there were eight or ten members from these areas who could consistently, year after year, day after day, week after week, bring problems of this kind before the House of Commons. But with only two members representing approximately half of Canada, how can we see that these resources are adequately protected and managed? We need people here from these areas who can stand up in this chamber and guard against abuses of the land itself.
The other day I mentioned the development at Churchill Falls. A billion dollar project was carried out there through private business-Brinco. At one time, 6,600 men and women were working on this project. It was the largest project in the world in 1971 with the exception, I believe, of the United States space program which employed somewhat more people. While this project was going ahead there was a half of one member in the House of Commons representing the area affected by this huge development. The consequence is that today all this power is being exported. And we are beginning to wonder whether we should not have held this power in reserve for the development of the great iron ore and mineral masses of Labrador, as is being done in Iceland through cheap water power. Today this power is being exported from Labrador and there is nobody here in the House of Commons except

July 18, 1973
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension
half of a member to represent this great resource development.
This is one of the factors which must be borne in mind when we talk about representation. It is not only the question of the people who are served. I am sure, for example, that in the run of a year I get as many letters and telephone calls as all the Ottawa members put together. This is basically because in cities such as Ottawa citizens have access to all the provincial members and to a municipal structure which is almost as heavy in bureaucracy as the average provincial government. Certainly one does not find the average citizen phoning up the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) in his capacity as the member for Ottawa-Carleton and complaining because a main line sewer is blocked, or because snow clearing is inadequate, or because parking space is not available at the local wrestling arena. There are other structures which can handle questions of this kind. Yet in the rural parts of the country people depend heavily upon their member of parliament to fulfil service or ombudsman roles.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I think the hon. member's remarks constitute the type of speech one hears on third reading of a measure such as this rather than being directed toward the proposal presented by the hon. member for Peel South (Mr. Blenkarn) and dealt with by the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia). They addressed themselves, really, to the question of the time formula which ought to be used in dealing with this legislation. The hon. member is not really dealing with that question at all; he is dealing with the over-all, broad issue. I think that in fairness to the member who has presented the motion which is now before us, hon. members who take part in the debate at this stage should try to make their contributions relevant to the question whether the time limit should be one date or another.


John Howard Lundrigan: I miss the days when Your Honour was sitting on the back benches with lowly characters such as ourselves. I am sure you would like to take part in this debate, and I would be willing to give up five minutes of my time for that purpose. But I cannot for the life of me see why my remarks are not relevant-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Will the hon. member please resume his seat? I think it is the custom in the House, whether the Chair is guided or misguided in the suggestions it makes, that the Chair should be listened to. I asked the hon. member whether he would direct his remarks to the motion before us, the issue of the time limit.


John Howard Lundrigan: Would Your Honour be good enough to cite a rule out of our Standing Orders? Your Honour suggests we should address ourselves to the question of the time limit. The suggestion before us is that consideration in committee be curtailed, that the involvement of the House should be diminished, that the period be shortened from a year and a half to approximately one year. I am trying to show that this issue involves more than just two or three simple propositions. I am seeking to call attention to certain factors which I consider to be important if redistribution is to be carried through successfully. So I cannot for the life of me continue my remarks unless I am

able to proceed along those lines. Perhaps I should not reflect on Your Honour's ruling since Your Honour is trying to keep the debate in hand. I will go along with that.
The fact of the matter is that redistribution is much more complex and complicated than has been suggested this afternoon, or will perhaps be suggested later on. I was using the argument that we must consider a number of factors, one having to do with population, one with geography, one with resources and one with governmental structures in our system to serve the population.
I want to conclude my remarks in the next five, 10 or 15 minutes by touching upon something mentioned by the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner). A couple of evenings ago in the House that hon. member brought the province of Newfoundland into the debate when he talked about the alienation which frequently exists in the minds of people because needs in certain areas are not being met by the government in power. I think perhaps what he was doing was misplacing his own feelings in Western Canada by referring to Newfoundland in order to make his point. I am sure what he suggested in respect of western Canada is equally as relevant to eastern Canada.
There is a growing feeling of alienation in various regions of this country, I would suggest particularly in British Columbia, the three prairie provinces and certainly the Atlantic region. There is a growing feeling that unless there is some political issue at stake as a result of which the government recognizes the need for political support, these regions will not get the attention they deserve under our political system. This is a feeling that has been growing in the last decade and it is manifest in western Canada and the Atlantic provinces.
Since 1867 we have suffered economic disparity, and no government since that time has been able to overcome it. Today my colleague, the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath), talked about the need for an economic opportunities conference to consider the problems faced by Newfoundland. The unemployment rate in Newfoundland has constantly been twice that of the national average. These unemployment rates range from as low as 9.6 per cent in the summertime to as high as 20 per cent in the wintertime.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I would again ask for the co-operation of the hon. member for Gander-Twil-lingate (Mr. Lundrigan) in addressing himself to the substance of the bill before us. The subject matter has reference to certain provisions in Bill C-208. If the hon. member feels he cannot do that at this time I would ask his co-operation in presenting his contribution at the third reading stage.


John Howard Lundrigan: Thank you, Your Honour. I will try to oblige the Chair by keeping to the point. I am trying to make the point that in the Atlantic region and the Pacific region there is a growing feeling of alienation and concern about the fact that there is not numerical representation in the House of Commons, at least in terms of the power that various members have to bring to fundamental governmental changes.
July 18, 1973

I was trying to suggest that we have policies, and have had them in this country for 100 years, which have debilitated the economic situation in the eastern and perhaps western parts. I was trying to suggest that there is no way we can consider a redistribution bill in the sense of having areas represented only by the number of people qualified on the basis of population. We must not only maintain but increase the power of representation in various regions of this country.
If the government was concerned about the direction of political feelings in the Atlantic region, and concerned about the people sending members back to support the government, we would get basic and fundamental changes in policy. But without that there is no way the government will change its position. If you carry the argument to its extreme and reduce the number of seats in the Atlantic region to that number based on Senate representation, we would lose the little bit of power we have now under the federal system. If we increased the seats in other parts of Canada on the basis of population we would accomplish essentially the same thing.
I would like to think that in the next few months the committee set up by this House of Commons will explore a number of avenues in respect of maintaining present representative power which the various regions have under our federal system. If this means that we have to increase the number of members in the House of Commons, I contend we must give equal consideration to regions such as the Atlantic provinces.
I should like to say something else that is perhaps supplementary to the views expressed by the hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador (Mr. Rompkey). Newfoundland is a province of roughly 150,000 square miles. We have seven members representing that province in the House of Commons. We had seven members here in 1949 when Newfoundland had a population of just over 300,000. Under the proposed redistribution plan this representation would be reduced to six members, and we now have a population of approximately 532,000.
I should like to think that during our discussion of redistribution some consideration will be given to increasing the number of seats for the province of Newfoundland to eight. I should think there is ample precedent in the history of Canada for such an increase, and it might even be supported on a constitutional basis.
Consideration should be given to the suggestion that Labrador be considered as a single riding. It has a population of nearly 30,000 people and a land mass of more than 100,000 square miles. I am sure members of parliament will agree in view of the fact that Labrador is a resource frontier with a tremendous geographic area, that it should have that kind of representation.
The gist of the suggestion before us is that we have a delay of one year instead of the year and a half proposed by the government. I think a year and a half should be the minimum time, particularly when we consider the magnitude of this issue and all the factors I have tried to place on the record. That should be the minimum time, bearing in mind also the alienation existing in various parts of Canada as a result of the lack of responsiveness on the part of successive governments.
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension
This is an issue which has to be explored in detail. I hope when the committee is struck and given terms of reference it will travel throughout Canada to discover the feelings of the people of Mississauga, Yellowknife and other parts of the country. I am sure members of that committee will find that people in various parts of Canada feel basically the same as we do in Newfoundland.
During the five years I have been here I have come to the conclusion that the people in the cities have received excellent representation here in the House of Commons. I believe most hon. members are doing an adequate job, and I am sure the general public will not be impatient when we postpone this matter so as to give proper consideration to redistribution. This is long overdue. The subject requires consideration so that we will have a proper representative system for at least the next half a century.
I had a couple of other points in mind, but with your frequent interruptions, Mr. Speaker, I have become apprehensive so I will take my seat.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, just to make it clear, may I say we are debating an amendment put down by the hon. member for Peel South (Mr. Blenkarn) in which he suggests one change to Bill C-208. As I understand it the amendment of the hon. member does not challenge the principle of the bill, namely that there should be a review of the current redistribution process. He merely proposes that the time limit for that review be 11 months rather than 17 months. I know he likes to say he is proposing 12 months rather than 18 months, but I am a little more forthright. After all, we are in the latter part of July, and July 1, 1974, is only 11 months away.
During the debate on second reading stage of this bill there were differing views by members of most, if not all, parties of this House, including my own, and it is quite possible that in respect of this amendment there may be a difference of opinion. Those who are opposed to the bill may feel it would be more acceptable if the time limit were reduced to 11 months, whereas those of us who favour the bill feel 17 months is not too much time to ask for its purposes to be carried out.
May I say that for my part, anyway, as a supporter of Bill C-208, that support is in no way a criticism of the principle we established in 1964 which called for independent commissions to draw the boundaries within the provinces. That principle must not be altered. It is also in no part a criticism of the job being done by the commissions of the various provinces, although I recognize that some members have voiced that kind of criticism.
The purpose of supporting Bill C-208, so far as I am concerned, and therefore my purpose in saying there should be 17 months if necessary to do the job, is in the first place to get over the uncertainty which exists at the moment concerning the boundaries on which another election would be held. In the second place it is to make it possible to take a look at the injustice which now obtains among certain provinces because there are established floors for some of the provinces but no floors for some of the others. The hon. member for Peel South (Mr. Blen-

July 18, 1973
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension
karn) referred to the amendment in the British North America Act which established senatorial floors for certain provinces. I remind him that that provision was not in the British North America Act in 1867; it was brought in in 1915 when the problem of representation from the maritime provinces came to the fore.
At this juncture in history that problem has arisen in respect of provinces like Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia to an extent, and certainly Newfoundland. I submit that even those of us who favour representation by population have a right to say that, if there are floors that protect certain small provinces, consideration should be given to floors to protect other provinces. This is what we are asking.
I submit that the hon. member for Peel South is not really facing up to the situation when he says it is so simple a matter that it can be decided in a few months' time. If we are to amend the constitution, if we are to try to solve this problem of fairness among the provinces, I think we will have to give whatever committee or body does that a reasonable amount of time. I would hope it could be solved in a very few months. Indeed, I could suggest a solution this afternoon in my 20 minute speech which, if the House accepted it, is all the time we need. But when one is speaking of the kind of floor that is necessary and fair for provinces like Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland, I think in all fairness the matter should be adequately canvassed and that we must take a look at the rights of the larger provinces like British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec. I submit that this sort of an operation could take a bit of time.
I argue, therefore, that to make it a requirement that the matter be disposed of within the next 11 months would jeopardize the whole operation and make the thing quite impracticable. In fact, we could have a situation develop, even if we were to pass a deadline making it July 1, 1974, under which the problem would not then have been solved and therefore we would have to extend the date still further. Although I think the job could be done within six or seven months, and I hope it will be done when the House meets this fall, I believe it is an important enough issue that we are obligated to give the amount of time stipulated in the bill.
The hon. member for Peel South says we should not wait forever. The bill says nothing about waiting forever. The bill says that if Parliament has not reached a decision by January 1, 1975, the process which at the moment is being interrupted would be reinstated. I suggest the bill not only is one which gives an opportunity to cope with the problem, but that the bill stipulates that the delay cannot go on forever and that by January 1, 1975, unless Parliament has acted, the process which now obtains in the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act would be revived.
I regard the issue that leads me to support Bill C-208 as a serious one, namely the matter of a formula as among the provinces that is fair. So far as I am concerned, that is what is at issue, not the issue of independent commissions. That principle must be maintained. Neither do I like criticizing the work the commissions have done. But I believe it is unfair that Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick with their small populations are protected by

floors without any consideration having been given to such a floor for the protection of Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, Manitoba and Saskatchewan. Because that issue is important, and because I would not expect the House to accept my solution without adequate study of it, I believe we should give Parliament a reasonable length of time to deal with it.
I say again that I hope it will be dealt with this fall and that new legislation can be passed and machinery put in operation so that the new boundaries may be in effect sooner than anticipated. However, let us not jeopardize the operation and make this impossible by expecting it to be done in the next 11 months. Therefore, it is my intention to vote against the amendment of the hon. member for Peel South, and I express the hope that Bill C-208 in the form in which it came back from the committee will be passed on third reading.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few comments on the amendment before us.
Like the previous speaker, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), I admit that it is important that the commission responsible for the project we are considering, namely electoral boundaries readjustment, be independent. I suggest that the idea of proposing an 18 month deadline is not overrated in view of such important factors and so many problems. While I fully support the bill before us, it seems impossible to me to pass the amendment if we really are to make a serious examination of all the problems involved as regards the readjustment of electoral boundaries.
We will have to re-assess population factors, which have already been assessed by the commission. In my opinion, all hon. members seem to reproach the commission with taking into account only this factor, that is the number of constituents in each riding.
We hope that during this six-month period, the commission will make an in-depth analysis of economic and social factors. I suggest that the commission has a lot to do and that it will require as much time as possible. If we really want to readjust electoral boundaries in a fairer way than was proposed, to have a much more equitable representation, I suggest that it is important that we take all necessary time and, in my opinion, 18 months will certainly not be too much.
I hope, Mr. Speaker, that when during this 18 month period, the Commission studies the importance of maintaining the present number of members, in each province, it will also consider the increased numbers needed in some provinces. I am thinking in particular of Quebec where, taking into consideration the special situation that exists there, we would not lose two members, as the commission had foreseen.
In order to make this assessment, which is based on a number of very important criteria and factors-and I stress this point-we must not limit ourselves to the time factor, but rather we must take all the time needed to redefine the number of constituencies and the number of members so that each region can be as fairly represented as possible. I hope that this will fill some of the gaps which were restricted to the number of voters.

Some regions are important because of their natural resources, others because of identical or different outlooks; the commission must study all these factors in order to give varied populations equal and fair representation. If the commission truly wishes to get to the bottom of the problem-and it will have the time to do so-it will have everything to gain by meeting with the regional organizations and county councils in certain regions.
I believe, for example, that we must seriously consider and evaluate the advice that could be had from county councils; these still exist in our regions, since regionalization is being talked of more and more. Of course, in some ridings in which one city is more prosperous than another, municipalities are gradually uniting; this is often the result of planning by the provincial government. The commission should listen to the representatives of the provincial governments on the question of regionalization; it might thus submit far more satisfactory proposals than it has to date. I admit that the commission has done its best, but I have reason to believe that it limited itself to the demographic factor, and that is why I feel that it has everything to gain by considering other organizations and inviting them to discuss this possibility of regionalization of new or future electoral constituencies, which is, I believe, the original purpose of the government of giving the best representation possible.
Therefore, I believe that it is absolutely necessary to keep all the time needed for the study of this question. Therefore, the 18 months' delay does seem exaggerated to me, and I hope that it will be used by the commission but not only to freeze its work and allow the tabling of a nearly similar bill in 18 months. I hope, on the contrary, that sufficient research will have been done to ensure that the amendments wanted by some members will be adopted in due time, and that the new electoral constituencies will reflect perfectly the thoughts and desires of a population that always expects a better revamping of the electoral map.
Mr. Speaker, I want to limit myself to these few comments and repeat, once again, that I do not approve this amendment in the least, which is limited to one year, on the contrary, I hope that the government will take care that this commission will have the time required to evaluate all these criteria and to propose much more adequate, and much more practical solutions than the ones proposed until now.


Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak on the amendment before us with respect to Bill C-208 I would like to make it clear, first, that I believe the sponsor of Bill C-208 and the government owe this House an explanation why they feel that they cannot do whatever has to be done in their postponement bill within the one year suggested by the mover of this amendment. I think it is unforgivable that a situation that was known to exist since May of last year has been allowed to continue. There have been misgivings, and yet we find today that the government is not in a position to offer any concrete amendments to the present act or suggestions as to how certain of the problems that many hon. members in
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension
the House feel now exist with regard to the distribution of our seats in this country can be solved.
Let me be the first to say that in Canada we have a problem ensuring fair and equitable representation bearing in mind our large geographical areas and the continuing exodus from many of those areas to our urban centres. But I would also point out that we have had this problem since confederation, since 1867, and that it was dealt with very fully 10 years ago, in 1963, when, incidentally, the forerunner to this government first took office. They came to this House very bushy-tailed. If you read Hansard you will find that they made very gushing, grandiose statements as to how they would settle this problem once and for all. They decided that they were going to institute a new form of redistribution which, in their opinion, would save us from the problems with which we had been plagued since confederation.
In 1963 they were not successful in proceeding with the legislation, but they did bring in a bill which finally was passed in 1964. I would recommend that members of the House read Hansard for that period. If they did they would find that there were literally hundreds of pages of debate touching on the question of redistribution.
I remind the government, and in particular the leader of the government in this House because he was a very active participant in the debate which ensued in 1964, of the remarks made by the then minister of transport, Mr. Pick-ersgill, on behalf of the then prime minister of this country. I refer to Hansard of March 10, 1964 at page 739, where Mr. Pickersgill stated:
I would say there were two general principles that were accepted by the House. The first and by far the most important of these was that we should not follow the pattern that had been followed in the first 90 years since confederation-
Mr. Pickersgill, of course, was introducing at this point Bill C-72 the measure which we are now proposing to postpone. He continued:
-of having the readjustment of representation in this place done in this place by its members directly, but that it should be done by somebody which would be as impartial as we in our collective ingenuity could provide and who would be as competent as we could find means to provide through legislation and subsequent appointment.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Will the hon. member allow the Chair to raise again the point of order that I raised previously with the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Lundrigan). The speech on which he is embarking is really a speech which should be made on third reading rather than on the somewhat limited point that has been raised by the hon. member for Peel South (Mr. Blenkarn). Perhaps, if the House is of the opinion that the debate on the point raised by the hon. member for Peel South is concluded, I could put the question and then hon. members would be much more free in what they could state by way of their contributions on this measure. Is it agreed that I put the question on the point raised by the hon. member for Peel South?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the point of order. May I state with all due respect that I feel my remarks are relevant, since I am in the position of not being sure

July 18, 1973
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension whether I will vote for or against the amendment. I believe it is important that this amendment be debated by the House and dealt with promptly. I believe that an 18 months' hoist is unduly long. One of our members has suggested that he feels the task could be done in 12 months. I was endeavouring to point out to the government that when the act was considered in 1963-64 many statements were made. Members of the government at that time felt they were settling matters.
Bearing in mind that over a year elapsed since the government again realized it had a redistribution problem, it should at least give the House the benefit of its views on why the period of one year is totally unacceptable, why it is not possible to do in the next 11 months plus, what it suggests could be done in the next 17 months plus. That is why I suggest that my remarks are in order.
I am endeavouring to speak to this amendment and to put certain arguments to the government that I hope, in due course of debate on the amendment, it will endeavour to answer. It is an important question. We must bear in mind that what we are toying with here is a fundamental principle in any democracy, that of representation by population.
I am pleased that the government house leader has returned to his seat because in my earlier remarks I tried to draw his attention to the fact that he was instrumental in steering through committee of the whole the original act that we are now proposing to hoist. Having done that, he is well aware of the problems of which I am speaking. Certainly the government of that time felt it was taking a constructive step ahead with the act. If that was the feeling in 1964, then Parliament in 1973 should have a full explanation as to why a postponement has to be arbitrarily given until January 1, 1975.
If I may continue, Mr. Speaker, I would like to put on the record the full remarks, from which I was quoting, delivered by Mr. Pickersgill when he introduced that act, the provisions of which we are now considering postponing. Mr. Pickersgill went on to say:
It was also agreed that in this process the government should have no more voice than any other part of the House, because this was a business which was peculiarly the business of parliament, of all of parliament, where we all have an equal obligation and, I hope and think, an equal desire to see that the people are fairly represented.
That is the end of my quotation from Mr. Pickersgill on his first principle. What Mr. Pickersgill was emphasizing was that for 90 years the Parliament of Canada had decided how representation would be handled, and he indicated that, after 90 years of this haphazard approach whereby members decided how representation would be structured, Parliament had an opportunity to settle the matter in a fair and equitable way, and could ensure that we would no longer be able to toy with this sacred representation principle.
Now only nine years later we find the successor to that government is proposing that implementation of the provisions of that act be postponed for an 18 months period. I suggest that before we go further the amendment placed before the House by my colleague from Peel South should

be dealt with in its fullest sense. Let us hear the reason why 18 months-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Seventeen.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Let us hear the reason why everything can be done in 17 months, but there is no way anything can be done in 11 months. Is it due to the fact that there could be an election in 1974? This is something on which some member of the government should clear the air. But in clearing the air the government has also to explain why certain provinces are being denied representation. Ontario is one. It would have 91 seats if the act had been allowed to take its course, but if not it will be restricted to 88 seats.
That is one reason I believe the amendment that has been proposed should be given some consideration by the House, if nothing more than a serious explanation from those on the government side why an 11 month period is unacceptable but a 17 month period is acceptable.
Having mentioned that the province of Ontario is one province that is being sacrificed, I would emphasize it is not only the whole province but in particular the southern part of Ontario that is being sacrificed. We in southern Ontario are being unrepresented to the extent that redistribution is not allowed to come into effect. Take my own area, for example. At the present time, defining the boundaries as you will, that area has four seats in this House. After redistribution it will have approximately six seats. In other words, it would have 50 per cent more representation in this House if the operation of the act were not stalled.
Here again I would emphasize that we are owed an explanation as to why the amendment is unacceptable to the government. We have been asked through first reading, second reading and in committee to accept the 18 month period proposed by the government. I have already referred to the fact that on May 1, 1972, the apparatus under the existing act commenced its work. It was on that date that the statistics were released and conveyed to the Chief Electoral Officer, Mr. Castonguay. From then on we had a complicated process under way in which commissions were established. They held hearings and arrived at conclusions, and it is certainly relevant to this debate that there was no suggestion that their conclusions would be postponed until the preliminary reports were handed in by most of the commissions. As a matter of fact, the bill now before us was only introduced after the final commission report was in hand. Isn't this a little odd?
If you read the remarks made by Mr. Pickersgill when he introduced the act, you find he felt it was going to do exactly what we are now proposing that it should not do. In short, he indicated that his Act would take away from this House, unless there was a serious error, the question of how seats should be distributed. Now, some nine years later, really the first time we have had an opportunity to see redistribution based on new census figures, the government throws up its hands and says, "Let's postpone it." Perhaps this is gerrymandering in the 1970's style, but I do not like it. I want some explanation why the government has not been able to come into the House and say, "We feel there are certain situations that should have been anticipated with respect to this question; these are our suggested amendments and, in effect, we wish to rectify
July 18, 1973

the mistakes that exist in the act." It should not propose an 18-month delay without explaining why the matter cannot be rectified in a shorter period. That is the question which ought to be answered before we are asked to deal with this amendment to the bill. In short, as we are dealing with something so fundamental to democracy as the actual representation of people in this House, we want to know why it will take so long to rectify whatever the errors may be. In short, let us get the answers.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Is the hon. member for Davenport rising to ask a question?


Mr. Caccia:: Yes, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the hon. member a question?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I would be pleased to entertain a question, especially if I can obtain an answer, too.


Charles L. Caccia: Mr. Speaker, will the hon. member explain to the House why he could not attend the committee meetings and ask the very questions that he has asked now and obtain the answers he is seeking; and, if he did not attend the meetings, could he indicate whether he has read the transcript of those hearings?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I will be pleased to answer the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia). I am on three other standing committees. I have read the transcript to which he refers, and I still feel my questions have not been answered.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege or point of order, as the case may be. The hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) has been suggesting that members on my side of the House do not pay attention to their committee responsibilities. May I say that both I and the hon. member for York Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) were tied up all day that day on another committee of this House. We have gone over the committee transcript. Indeed, we were surprised that the matter was pushed through committee so quickly. We would have attended, if that had been possible.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, I will try to be brief and direct my attention to the amendment before us. We may consider one of three options. There is the 17-month hoist, the 11-month hoist and the zero-month hoist. I think the third is the most logical. A number of straightforward questions were asked of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen), both in the second reading debate and in committee. The hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) referred on two occasions to members who have not been able to attend those committee meetings. I might say I attended part of one meeting. All members of the House must meet serious commitments, and it is most unfair to cast aspersions on any member for failing to attend committee meetings, especially as the transcript of the proceedings is available.
The hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett), as recorded at page 12 of the committee meeting held on July 12, 1973, said in part:
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension
The question I raise, really, is: why is it necessary to set the whole process of boundary redistribution in operation again with new commissions?
I have read the transcript of that committee hearing but have not found a satisfactory answer to that question.
We should ask the President of the Privy Council why it is impossible for a committee of this House to make recommendations for constitutional change and for solving the anomalies that obviously abound in the Canadian electoral system without the introduction of this hoist. Perhaps I misunderstand the issue. I would be happy for information on the subject. I do not see why we need the hoist and why we cannot allow the redistribution commission to make its report.
I suspect the reason is political. I suspect that the political water for some members is too chilly because the boundaries have changed, and therefore it is necessary to suggest a freeze, so to speak. Their best answer is jumping back a little bit, going backward. I suspect that this bill will be a backward step in terms of equity and justice, certainly for Ontario and British Columbia.
The hon. member's amendment reduces the hoist from 17 months to 11 months. I support the amendment, since half a loaf is better than no bread at all. However, it seems that those who oppose the bill will have trouble in getting their point of view accepted. I submit no proper answer has been given regarding the necessity of the hoist.
I am well aware of the need for delay after the commission reports in order to allow us to set up new electoral machinery. All the same, I am distressed because we cannot go through the business of constitutional correction and of introducing electoral fairness without, apparently, compounding injustices suffered by two areas of this country.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the amendment proposed by the hon. member from Mississauga.


An hon. Member:: Is it not Peel South?


Allan Bruce McKinnon: I should have said Peel South, of course, Mississauga being a much larger and densely populated area that is generally referred to in that part of the country as being "out in the woods".
We are now considering an amendment to the bill; the bill, in turn, seeks to amend the act. One needs to think back ten years, to the time when the Parliament of the day thought that redistribution should be taken out of politics. It is interesting to see that many supporters of that movement now occupy the front benches opposite, and it is difficult to understand why they are now deserting the act that they so readily accepted in 1964. Editorial comments described the passing of the act as a milestone in our electoral reform.
Of course, the present government's outlook on political reform is that it is always reform in the future. It is like promising your small boy a car when he grows up. He grows up before you know it, and wants to know where his car is.
This act has now reached maturity and must be put into effect in the next election. But, as the hon. member for

July 18, 1973
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt) said, the political water feels cold to the people who formerly supported this act.
Having listened to the debate on this bill for several days, I am surprised that the act has never been criticized; only the bill has been criticized, as well as the performance of the commissioners. Nobody has said that there is anything wrong with the act, which leads me to believe that no matter whether we take 10 months, 12 months, 17 or 18 months in reviewing it, we will not come up with anything much better. I have yet to hear any member that this or that is wrong with the act. Instead, hon. members have been saying, "There are 200,000 people in my constituency whereas there are only 45,000 in another fellow's". The faults they point to are the faults of independent commissions. If there were something seriously wrong with the act, of course we could amend it and bring in a better act. That is not the case. I predict, if this bill is passed, that 18 months from now we shall either find ourselves operating again under the act of 1964 or face another bill that will again postpone the operation of this act.
I was surprised that the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) should raise, on a personal note, the fact that hon. members who were questioning the bill had not been at the committee hearings on a particular day. I know the hon. member for Davenport attends that committee faithfully. However, hon. members have heavy duties and must attend other committees. The hon. member for Peel South was attending the economic affairs committee that day. I was at the committee, and I am not certain that the hon. member for Davenport and I were attending the same committee.
The hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) implied that Mr. Castonguay was in favour of this procedure. I did not get that impression. At the committee hearing he talked about how long the 1964 bill took. He said;
If you recall, that bill was introduced in 1963, it got first reading in December 1963, and it was not passed until November 1964. That has become the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act. You are opening up the same can of worms now.
I was amazed how much Mr. Castonguay was against that. He went on to say, and I quote;
Yes; you are opening up the same can of worms now. I am in no position to know whether you parliamentarians can find a final solution to this but I wish you lots of luck. On this particular score we will leave it there.
Later in the day he had several things to say along the same line. He pointed out the difficulty of getting commissioners. He stated that certain commissioners were selected by the Speaker of the House of Commons. He said the difficulty was to get new commissioners within 18 months. These people do not want to sit around for 18 months without anything to do. They have a trained staff. Are they also to sit around for 18 months at the expense of the taxpayer? Most of these commissioners want to be let go; they do not want to be a drain on the taxpayers for the next 18 months. Some suggested they go to the food prices review committee which also does not have anything to do.

Mr. Castonguay said, and I quote;
Now next time around I wonder how many Chief Justices are going to get these chaps to agree to do it again. I do not know. This is the first time it has happened that in one province the chief justice of that province was not able to convince any of the judges of his court or other courts to accept this job. . ..
So I am going to go to Joe Blow, the Speaker is going to go to somebody and say, "Would you fill a job as a commissioner of the Electoral Boundaries Commission for Manitoba?"
With all respect to the hon. member for Davenport, I would say that Mr. Castonguay was not in favour of the action contemplated in this bill. I got the distinct impression he was furious about it.
The hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett) raised a very interesting point in committee. Nothing has been adduced to show that the commissioners and the commission have to stop work and the redistribution act stopped. He pointed out that if we postpone this act for 18 months, we would be ready to have an election in 1976 under a new act. An election in 1976 would be on the 1961 boundaries. Fifteen years ago our cities did not look like they look now. Whole new cities have been built in that time. There are new constituencies in what was formerly vacant land. It would be totally unacceptable for British Columbia to have an election with the 1961 boundaries.
We in British Columbia have been waiting patiently for this act for many years. The hon. member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Lundrigan) talked about the alienation of voters in Newfoundland and other far reaches of the country. British Columbia cannot be ignored in this regard. We have 23 seats but are entitled to 26. That represents a gain of 14 per cent. We are being robbed of 14 per cent. Vancouver and the Fraser Valley are the main areas of concern. My constituency of Victoria has 62,000 voters. This is large because of the particular age group for which Victoria is noted. We have far more adults in relation to other cities. South Vancouver, Burnaby and the start of the Fraser Valley are entitled to additional seats. They are now being deprived of their entitlement.
The reason for postponing the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act is to produce another plan. Does anyone have any idea what this new plan will be? If the members of this House are as provincially minded as they are at the present time, there will be 10 plans. Each plan will ensure that that province does not lose anything. It is like Alice in Wonderland where the Red Queen said that everyone who runs will receive a prize. I understand the Liberal party accepted that philosophy for the 1972 election. Whether they ran or not, everyone received a prize. That should not apply to this act unless we want to have an enormous House. Every province can't win; some must lose. As I said the other day, if British Columbia had the equivalent of Prince Edward Island on a per capita basis, we would have 78 members. If the House had the equivalent number of members, there would be 760 members.
When we talk about adding two or three or 20 or 30 members, we are not being realistic with regard to rep by pop. Rep by pop almost seems to have become a dirty word in this House. I remind hon. members that rep by pop is one of the things that almost destroyed this country before confederation. Confederation came about as an answer to that problem. But representation by population does not have to be adhered to slavishly.
July 18, 1973

The people who drafted this act in 1964 must have made a great deal of effort as well as had a great deal of tolerance to come forward with an act as fair as this. I have read the 1964 debates. I was impressed with the statesmanship of those who wrote that act and managed to get it through the House. It was impressive indeed. It hurts my sense of efficiency to think we are going to throw it away and start over again. We will probably end up with something not very much different.
I do not see how we can possibly bring forward a new Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act that will be any more fair than the pesent one. The present one went wrong because some of the interpretation of it by the commissioners was faulty. Instead of giving 25 per cent to the rural districts in Manitoba, they looked ahead 100 years and gave the additional seats to the urban areas in the expectation these cities would grow at some later time.
In Alberta, the commissioners seemed to think the country had been running east and west for long enough, and that now it should run north and south, and they drew up the constituencies accordingly. There was little complaint from British Columbia. I have not heard any member come to me complaining bitterly about his riding, about having people cut off from the main centre of the riding. I would suspect that the hon. member from Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser) got jogged about as badly as anybody, but he is going to accept the position. The north end of Vancouver Island ends by being half of a constituency, which will present difficulties. But the overriding factor is that British Columbia was to get a fair break for the first time, which was enough to encourage us to accept these smaller problems.
To sum up, I feel we are doing a great injustice to British Columbia and, to a lesser percentage, to Ontario. Not only are we doing an injustice but it is apparent to everybody in this country that we are doing so. When other controversial issues are discussed in this House, such is the Xerox age in which we live that people continually pass around editorials to reinforce their views. There may be dissenting points of view in Burk's Falls, but I have not heard the hon. member from Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling) refer to any editorial from there which is in favour of the postponement of redistribution. Editorial comment throughout Canada, as far as I can see, has been in favour of allowing the act to go forward. Boundaries should be readjusted in accordance with the 1964 act. I feel they should be readjusted.
In conclusion, I suspect, judging from the general feeling in the House, that our amendment is not likely to be successful. No doubt the same people who will vote against the amendment will vote for the bill. In doing so I feel they are committing an offence against democracy and against the country, one which will be long remembered. I advise them not to do this. Hon. members worked hard ten years ago to bring forward an act which seemed fair to almost all Canadians and now we are throwing it away because we are afraid to carry it to the final stages.
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension [Translation]


Jean-Marie Boisvert: Mr. Speaker, in my opinion the mover of this amendment feels it is quite urgent to have the province of Quebec lose two members.
We are opposed to the current election map not so much because it includes redistribution as the fact that some constituencies are eliminated, mainly in Quebec, and because the date is January 1, 1975. I do not think this date should be maintained because if an election took place between July 1, 1974 and January 1, 1975, we would certainly be more willing to keep 74 members rather than 72 as proposed by the Electoral Boundaries Commission. Of course, it is not that I do not welcome the citizens from parishes added to my constituency; it is not that I regret the fact that I lose some of them but only that I am concerned about the number of voters. It is said that the province of Quebec is not like the others; therefore, because of those specific problems, the government is not justified in provoking it by reducing its representation.
The first thing we noted when going through the committee report is precisely the fact that it advocates fewer members for Quebec whereas its population has been increasing for the last ten years even though not at the same rate as in other provinces. If its population has increased in spite of the meager services we are allowed by the government to provide in our ridings it is not by expanding the ridings that we shall be able to give better services to the people we represent.
Once this bill is adopted so that the same boundaries will be used until January 1975, I hope they will introduce another legislation which will permit to believe that the number of Quebec members will not be decreased or, if need be, that a new similar bill be presented in order to preserve at least the status quo. If the number of members cannot be increased, then let the status quo be maintained and let the reducing be stopped.
It is evident that certain political parties which enjoy less popularity in Quebec will rejoice at the reduction of seats in certain areas and their increase elsewhere. But, it is here more a matter of equity towards the people of Quebec who, after all, are part of the Canadian people. There must be justice for everyone and not only for some areas of this country.
With this, Mr. Speaker, I will leave the floor to another member, while wishing that the status quo be maintained at least until 1975, if it is impossible to do better. And if in 1975, no decision has been taken or no more serious results obtained from the inquiry committee, another bill should be presented and the status quo maintained for many years, or else there will be much protest in Quebec, which would certainly be justified because they would be rising against what I consider an injustice.


Mr. Craig Stewart (Marquette):: Mr. Speaker, my remarks this afternoon will be brief. I spoke on second reading and at that time supported this legislation. I still do. As for the motion before us this afternoon, I believe we need the full 18 months to review the situation, and I cannot support it.
My main reason for speaking this afternoon is this. There seems to be some misunderstanding among some

July 18, 1973
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension urban members as to the reasons for which rural people oppose the present proposals for redistribution. The reason rural members are concerned is that they feel the act has not been adhered to. They feel that the proposals which were put forward by the various provincial commissions failed to pay attention to the tolerance figures.
Since I am a member from Manitoba, I will use Manitoba as an example. The redistribution act states that to establish a population quota for a riding one takes the total population of the province concerned and divides it by the designated number of seats in that province. In the case of Manitoba one divides 12 into the total population, and the quota for a riding works out at approximately 82,000 people. The act states that because there is a greater concentration of voters in a metropolitan riding a tolerance of 25 per cent above this quota is allowed. Rural ridings are allowed a tolerance of minus 25 per cent below the 82,000 quota because of the large land area covered by most of them.
We are against the redistribution proposals because they completely disregard the tolerance figures allowed in the act. In the case of Manitoba we can consider the different rural ridings an example. The new proposal for the riding of Brandon-Souris gives a population of 84,000, or close to
85.000,	which is 3 per cent over the tolerance allowance, yet it is a rural riding in all respects. Another example is the riding of Churchill, Manitoba, which is only 18 per cent below the allowable tolerance figure, yet Churchill is the second largest riding in Canada.
We have huge rural ridings in Manitoba, such as Dauphin, Provencher and Portage, which are anywhere from 6 per cent to 4 per cent below the tolerance allowance. I think in respect of any riding as large as these we could come up with a proposal that would give at least a 20 per cent tolerance. This is the way the act was written, to give protection to these rural areas.
In respect of an urban-rural riding the situation is far more extreme under the Alberta proposal. In that province we can see as an example that there are five ridings in the city of Calgary with an average size of 85,000 people. The riding of Calgary Centre has a population of only 81,000, and we know it is difficult for a riding to increase its size in the centre of a major city like that.
The same is true of the city of Edmonton, which has five ridings with an average population of 85,000. Let us look at the rural riding proposals for Alberta. We have the Banff-Drumheller riding which is completely rural and has a population of over 87,000. We have the Battle River riding which is completely rural with a population of close to
95.000,	about 12,000 larger than the average Calgary riding. One could go right down the list of proposals for Alberta. The proposed Wetaskiwin-Yellowhead riding would have a population of over 91,000.
I think it is obvious that the commissions in the different provinces have completely disregarded the protection which is accorded the rural areas by the 25 per cent tolerance allowance.
When speaking at the time of second reading of this legislation I pointed out that Manitoba ends up with only three really rural ridings. Only three ridings in Manitoba

under the proposals do not touch the greater Winnipeg area, namely Brandon-Souris, Churchill and Dauphin. There are nine ridings which come completely within the boundaries of greater Winnipeg. This means that nine of our 12 ridings are connected to greater Winnipeg, and it means also that it is quite possible that nine of the 12 members from Manitoba would be living in the greater Winnipeg area. This is not right when you consider that half the population of Manitoba still lives in rural areas. These rural areas are entitled to six rural seats, and I mean truly rural seats. The commission has completely disregarded this in its proposals.
When this legislation is passed, as I am sure it will be, I would hope that the committees set up to review redistribution will have a long look at Canada's population growth in the last 30 years, and also its growth ratio to the number of seats in the House of Commons.
The 1941 census showed Canada with a population of just over 11 million. At that time there were 245 members in the House of Commons. The 1951 census indicated our population was over 14 million and the membership at that time was increased to 265 members. The 1961 census showed we had a population of over 18 million and at that time the membership was 264. The 1971 census showed a population of over 21 million but we still have only 264 seats in the House.
Other countries of the world have made adjustments in their parliamentary representation, and I believe it is very necessary at this time for Canada to increase its membership in the House so each area in this nation has fair representation.
There is one other point I objected to strongly having to do with the different commissions set up across the country, and I hope there will be amendments to overcome this. In the case of Manitoba, when the electoral boundaries commission was set up there was not one representative from a rural area. From the results I think this is obvious, because the rural areas were definitely ignored. The rural areas will have three representatives out of 12, yet half the population of Manitoba lives in the rural areas.
The rural areas in Canada are not asking for special status. We are asking to be given the representation to which we are entitled under the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act. I hope my few remarks will give the urban areas a better understanding of our concerns. Because of the concerns I have expressed I am opposed to the amendment and I intend to support the bill.


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, I just want to make a very few brief remarks as to why the time of 18 months was outlined in the bill. The reason for 18 months, or 17 months in actual fact because of the delay in passing this bill, is quite simple. When the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) appeared before the Parliamentary Committee on Privileges and Elections, he indicated that when this bill was passed he would be prepared to make a formal statement to the committee, in the fall, giving the government's position on a possible package for redistribution. That means there would be proposals for the committee to discuss at that time.

After that the committee would be seized of the issue, and according to the President of the Privy Council it would be necessary for that committee to make a report to the House, he would expect by early spring. There would then be an attempt to take that report and test the will or the mood of the House. Upon that being done the government would undertake to produce legislation to present to the House of Commons, and depending upon the degree of agreement among all parties the legislation would be debated in the normal course in late spring, June, or in the fall.
With a minority House of Commons I think it unreasonable to assume that a major piece of legislation like this could be rushed through the House. Therefore the House would probably want to take a considerable amount of time on the measure both at second reading and committee stage. That is the reason for the 18 months.
In his evidence before the standing committee Mr. Cas-tonguay, who at that time was the Chief Electoral Officer and not the representation commissioner, indicated that he felt 18 months was a very reasonable time. He made the comment in his evidence that he wondered, because we are opening up a can of worms, whether we would be able to come to a satisfactory solution to this very difficult problem in the short period of 18 months. He pointed out that the production of the present act took in excess of 18 months, that we were trying to solve a problem that had been bedevilling the Canadian Parliament since the beginning of confederation, and that we had never come up with a satisfactory solution. It was pointed out as well that we will have to seek a constitutional amendment, probably to the British North America Act, if we presume to increase the membership in the House of Commons to a figure larger than we have now.
Not only that, but we would have to reconcile the irreconcilable. The smaller provinces in particular do not wish to lose any of their current representation, and the larger provinces wish representation more in proportion to population than they presently enjoy. These matters were all thoroughly canvassed in the committee. Indeed the focus of the activities of the committee was on why we required 18 months, what would happen if we could not come up with an act to replace or amend the existing act, and how the process would work if we were unable to reach an agreement.
It seems to me that we might accept the principle that the existing act is not fair to Ontario, to large provinces or to the smaller provinces, which I think is the case. Surely the province of Ontario will not be equitably treated if it ought to have more seats than it will get under the present formula. The smaller provinces may feel they are not being equitably treated if they will lose seats. Therefore, this act might seem to be an unfair act. The mistake was made in the sense that the solution first brought forward in 1964 was not considered to be a final solution but merely a point on the road of finding a way to satisfy the desire of the people of Canada to be able to provide a representative House of Commons.
I think any member who reads the committee report will understand that the question of time was canvassed,
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension that an explanation was given, and that 18 months was considered the minimum amount of time in which to attempt to do something we have been unable to do. It was not an attempt to lengthen the process. I think all members feel that when we become involved in the process of dealing with redistribution 18 months will be found to be an extremely tight time schedule indeed.


Ronald George Atkey: Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the amendment put forward by my colleague the hon. member for Peel South (Mr. Blenkarn). Some time ago I had reservations about the reason for the delay in respect of redistribution. The remarks just made by the parliamentary secretary have confirmed my worst suspicions.
The parliamentary secretary spoke of a package of proposals being put forward by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) because, in his words, the present act is not fair. He suggested it is not fair to the large provinces. I question that. He also suggested it is not fair to the smaller provinces, that in effect, it is not fair to anybody. He called the legislation that will be forthcoming as a result of the proposals to be put forward by the government next fall a major piece of legislation. I do not accept that premise. I have looked very closely at the present legislation. I think the legislation that was first enacted in 1964 was a fair piece of legislation. With all due respect to some of my colleagues, I think it was one of the significant achievements of the Parliament which existed at that time.
When we deal with redistribution we are dealing with a very complex and difficult process which will not satisfy any single member of the House to a very full degree. There will be many members of the House who will be unhappy. I defy any government or any member of this House to come up with a scheme of redistribution that will satisfy every member of the House. Obviously there will be hardships. There is a price to be paid.
Let me point out some of the features of the 1964 legislation which, until this bill is passed is the law of the land. One feature is that the act removes partisan political considerations from redistribution, at least on the surface. It provides for the appointment of high quality, high calibre commissioners in each province to review the situation objectively and impartially. I think that is good.
Second, the act was very specific as to timing. The whole process of distribution was to be prompt, regular and not characterized by the sort of delays which so often characterize the political process in this House and elsewhere.
Third, the act really for the first time is very specific about criteria. Whether we like it or not, the act provides for a form of representation by population with variations. It allows a 25 per cent variation either side, which I believe is fair. It was a happy compromise in 1964 and is now. It directs the commissioners to take into account certain factors when applying the variations.
I should like to remind hon. members of those criteria because I thought they were good at the time and still think they are good if properly applied. First, the commissioners were to take into account geographical considerations, including in particular the sparsity, density and the

July 18, 1973
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension
relative growth of the population of various regions in the province, the accessibility of such regions, and the size or shape thereof when they appear to the commission to render such a departure necessary or desirable, or any special community or diversity of interests of the inhabitants of various regions of the province which appear to the commission to render such a departure necessary or desirable. I think those are good criteria when applied properly.
As to what was done in the last redistribution by the present commissioners and the sort of performance we witnessed in the various provinces, I have not had the benefit of viewing province by province an analysis of the performance but I am somewhat familiar with what has gone on in the largest province, namely, Ontario.
First, there was the publicity. The commissioners were very responsible in outlining the nature of the process in which they were engaged and in giving members of parliament and members of the public full knowledge and advance warning of the nature of the process and what rights were open to them. All of us will remember the initial call for submissions, and the maps that were published, at great public expense I might add, in the newspapers across this land at the time when the various commissioners came in with their reports.
Another feature of the system is that there is full public participation. I was impressed by the manner in which the commissioners conducted their public hearings, the way in which they attempted to go out to members of the public and to say to them that it is their right to come before them to express their views on how the boundaries should be juggled and what would be better for their region. I know that there are many thousands of people in this country who feel that they have participated in the process of redistribution as the result of practices followed by the commissioners in various provinces.
I think that is healthy for democracy. Moreover, I think there is some evidence from some of the second reports of the commissioners that they have listened to members of the public. I am impressed by the number of occasions on which the commissioners have accepted recommendations in a non-partisan way and have attempted to accommodate the needs, not only of the sitting members of the House, but of defected members, of new candidates, or of ordinary members of the public. I think that too is healthy.
Finally, I would suggest that there is a reasonable timetable for the implementation of the process. While we cannot pin it down to a specific week or month, with a reasonable degree of anticipation we and the public can learn when the process will be complete, when the new boundaries will take effect, and when Canadians will participate in an election according to the new boundaries with some degree of certainty, far greater certainty, I believe, than if the whole system had been left to the political process or to some new process that may be devised by the government and presented to the House next fall.
I am concerned that this move to delay is because there are some members of the House who are not happy with

some of the basic premises of the present legislation. I suggest-and I will say it boldly-that there are members of the House who, even admitting the variance of 25 per cent, will deny that representation by population has any place in the law of Canada. I think that is wrong and I feel compelled to stand up in the House and say so.
One of the fundamental rights of the individual in a free society is to be able to participate with others in the political process on an equal basis. Whether that individual is located in a rural or in an urban setting, whether he lives on a farm or in a high rise apartment, whether he lives in a fishing village or in a three storey mansion in the middle of Toronto, he is a Canadian and has an interest in the decisions that are taken in Ottawa. His interest as an individual is important. The extent to which the House perpetuates the system which lessens the weight of his vote to any greater degree than the 25 per cent that is now permitted either way is, in my view, unhealthy for democracy and unhealthy for Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ronald George Atkey: Let me speak as an urban member. I will be very honest. My riding in the middle of Toronto, one of the largest cities in the country, is one of the smallest ridings in the city, both geographically and in terms of numbers of people. To be quite candid, I do not have the individual problems of the hon. member for Peel South (Mr. Blen-karn), the hon. member for York Scarborough (Mr. Stan-bury), or the hon. member for York North (Mr. Danson). They have serious problems of an individual nature in their ridings.
What I am concerned about is the people living in cities generally, about urban politics, and the fact that if we were to derogate from the principle of representation by population, the political process here in Ottawa would become increasingly irrelevant to those people in the cities. I think that is unhealthy. I think that this House is becoming more and more irrelevant to the real power processes in the cities. We see the advent of municipal government, and that the quality of municipal politicians is improving.
I think provincial governments have far more relevance to the problems of the city than does the central government in Ottawa. To the extent that this government and this political process become increasingly irrelevant to the people in the cities, we take one step farther toward the disintegration and fragmentation of this country. Again I say that is unhealthy.
The problems to which I have referred-and there are problems with the redistribution under the present law- were outlined very well by some hon. members in relation to the provinces of Alberta, New Brunswick and Manitoba. There may be some problem in terms of provinces which are losing seats, and there may be some accommodation that can be arrived at to achieve some sort of justice in the minds of the people in those provinces, but I will not let those types of problems be used as an excuse to change the fundamental premise of the 1964 act, which in my view is still one of the most significant political achievements of the Parliament of that time and should be given a chance to operate. It operated in a non-partisan way, generally speaking, and I think all of us in the House should have
July 18, 1973

the courage to say: Let the process operate. This is only the second time around. Have we given it a fair chance, a fair break?
The types of changes that have to be made are minor and can be accommodated in much less than 12 months. I thank the parliamentary secretary for fully explaining to me the government's intention to make major changes. I can assure him that so long as I am in the House they will not make major changes easily, and there are others in the House who feel like me.
In closing, may I raise one last problem which may not be obvious to the people of Canada or to some members in the House. I refer to the problem of representing a riding in the city. In the brief time that I have been an elected member in the House I have been concerned about the question of access to the people, and access by the people to the member in the city. I witnessed the situation of some of the members representing ridings with many small towns who have access to local newspapers, access to radio stations at little or no cost, and access on an almost regular basis to television stations. Then I consult with some of my city colleagues and consider my own experience, and I ask myself: What sort of access to the people do we have? Sure, I can walk from one side of my riding to the other in five minutes and I can run from one end to the other in 15 minutes, but I do not have access to the major Toronto newspapers, to the radio stations that are listened to, or to the television stations.
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension
In many respects it is a real difficulty for the people living in the city to even know who their member is. I think this is a problem that is sometimes overlooked. I do not denigrate the rural members who take advantage of the features of accessibility that are open to them. That is part of their job and I am glad they do that. But accessibility is a major problem in the city, and this fact goes at least part way to meeting the point expressed by rural members that their problem of accessibility is exacerbated by geography. I want them to know that we have problems too.
I think the 1964 bill would provide the compromise that we as members need. I am disappointed that some of my colleagues and some hon. members on the opposite side of the House are willing to give up and say that we have to start afresh. I do not agree with the parliamentary secretary that the 1964 bill was just the first step forward, a tiny step leading to something greater. I am sure that members of the House at that time were proud of their achievement, and I think that we too should be proud.


Fred Alward McCain: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the hand of the clock shows that it is six o'clock. May I call it six o'clock?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: It being six o'clock, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m.
At six o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.


END OF VOLUME V