1973-07-06

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
[ English]

Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I wish to propose a motion of importance and urgency. It arises from the visit to Cuba, just concluded in the last hour or so, of the family of Ronald Patrick Lippert. I trust that on humanitarian grounds, hon. members will consider giving unanimous consent. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling):
That this House requests the Prime Minister to give consideration to using his high office toward seeking the possible release of Ronald Patrick Lippert on compassionate and humanitarian grounds from the Prime Minister and the government of Cuba.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent. The motion cannot be put.


HARBOURS
Mr. John Harney (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to present a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the great public concern expressed recently over the possible construction of ports for supertankers in the lower St. Lawrence, particularly in view of the recent reported accident in that area, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes):
That this House instruct the Standing Committees on Transport and Communications and Fisheries and Forestry, to study together the ecological and economic aspects of the establishment of the ports of supertankers in the lower St. Lawrence, to hold public hearings on the question and prepare a report for parliament on the matter within the year.


Mr. Speaker:: This motion also requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent. The motion cannot be put.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Acting Prime Minister whether he has been in touch with the Prime Minister regarding the allegations relating to fund raising practices. If so, can the Acting Prime Minister tell the House what the government intends to do to clear the air on this subject?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I have not been in touch with the Prime Minister on this subject because I did not feel the circumstances outlined warranted any such emergency conversation.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I want to make it very clear I am not dealing with the broad subject of parties accepting donations from foreign controlled corporations or unions. I do not think this is a matter in which any party leader can be holier than thou. However, I do ask the Acting Prime Minister whether his answer means that the government is going to take no action in relation to allegations of harassment involving fund raising practices with regard to companies that have received government contracts and grants. That is my question.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I must say I find the use of the word "harassment" in these circumstances rather ludicrous. To suggest that a couple of phone calls-


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


An hon. Member:: Phone calls!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: To suggest that a couple of alleged phone calls to a corporation the size of ITT constitutes

July 6, 1973
Oral Questions
harassment indicates a much more tender attitude toward the corporations than I have. If I may comment on a further aspect of the hon. gentleman's question, namely that a particular corporation has been doing business with, or has received grants from the government, I would say that in this particular case it ought to be a healthy sign that this corporation, despite its doing business with the government, turned down flatly a request made apparently by members of the Progressive Conservative party as well as by officials of the Liberal party.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


ALLEGED HARASSMENT OF CORPORATIONS BY POLITICAL PARTIES SEEKING FUNDS-POSSIBLE RESIGNATION OF MINISTERIAL AIDE
Robert Lorne Stanfield: There is no indication of any harassment or persistence on the part of any other party than the hon. gentleman's. With his hard-boiled attitude toward corporations he might make a good fund raiser. Perhaps there is one subject on which he might enlighten the House. There was conflicting reports as to whether or not the assistant to the Minister of State for cultural affairs has resigned. Could the minister clarify that position?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I am not in a position to clarify that question. The customary method of securing information about ministerial aides has been to place questions on the order paper, and if the hon. gentleman would do that with respect to this or any other aide, the government will answer those questions.


Mr. Speaker:: I might say that the second supplementary was not necessarily related, and not necessarily supplementary. The hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre has a supplementary to the first question, I believe.


LEGISLATION TO CONTROL ELECTION EXPENDITURES- SUGGESTED DISCLOSURE OF DONATIONS BY PARTY OFFICIALS WHEN BILL BEFORE COMMITTEE
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister? Following the authorization I have received from my party leader, and having regard to the legislation which is presently before the House, namely the bill to control and limit election expenditures, may I ask the Acting Prime Minister whether he would agree to consult with the leaders of all parties and get agreement from them or their representatives to appear before the appropriate committee, when the bill is before that committee, to disclose and discuss contributions made to all political parties in the election last fall?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Well, the bill will go before the standing committee, and the standing committee, in this case as in other cases, will determine its own business. If, under the terms of reference, they wish to call witnesses to comment on the bill, that is the prerogative of the committee. I have nothing further to add to that.
[Mr. MacEachen.)


LEGISLATION TO CONTROL ELECTION EXPENDITURES- AGREEMENT ON DEBATING TIME
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Acting Prime Minister in his more important capacity as government House leader? In view of the intense interest being displayed in this matter by the Official Opposition, is the government House leader making good progress in getting an agreement to have the election expenses bill debated for a limited length of time so that the committee can get to it?


An hon. Member:: Why limit it?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: have not had any recent conversations with the Official Opposition. I concluded from the remarks made yesterday by the hon. member for Peace River that the bill would be dealt with very quickly on second reading stage.


Mr. Baldwin:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Don't get sucked in.


Gerald William Baldwin: First, I should like to congratulate the government House leader, this being his birthday.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Hees:: Now, for the bad part.


Gerald William Baldwin: One might even wish him happy returns of the day in the same position, Mr. Speaker. However, on the point of order, I must say that the only specific time mentioned to me with regard to this was when the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader suggested that this party might be prepared to let this bill go through on second reading without any debate at all, and I said "no".


Mr. Speaker:: It is possible that negotiations and discussions may take place after the question period.


HOUSING
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I have several questions for the Minister of Finance arising from the information that rents in the city of Toronto and in other cities in Canada are going up very seriously. I appreciate, of course, that rent control is under provincial jurisdiction rather than federal, but I would ask the minister whether the government is considering a program of shelter allowance for tenants on the basis of income to enable the ordinary working family to have an apartment without the terrible difficulties which increasing rents create?
July 6, 1973


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the hon. gentleman prefaced his question with that constitutional observation.


An hon. Member:: Answer the substance of it.


David Lewis: I wanted to make sure you knew it.


John Napier Turner: I am glad the hon. gentleman understands that.


An hon. Member:: He was helping you to pass the buck.


John Napier Turner: Having regard to the direct question of a shelter subsidy, that would, of course, have to be directed to my colleague, the Minister of State for Urban Affairs, who is more directly responsible for that type of matter. What I tried to do, and what the House was able to implement yesterday to meet the problem of rising costs, was an increase in the taxable income available to all Canadians through a substantial tax cut.


SUGGESTED CHANGE IN TAXATION TO INDUCE SPECULATORS TO DEVELOP LAND QUICKLY
David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the minister recognizes the fact that I know something about constitutional responsibility for rent control, but I wish he would also recognize that the fatuous answer he has given just simply does not meet the problem.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the hon. member might now ask his supplementary question.


David Lewis: I intend to, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the Dennis report indicates that about half a dozen developers have in their possession most of the available land for development around Toronto, and the same situation exists in other cities across Canada, will he now consider deleting from the tax system in Canada the capital cost allowances given to developers which enables them to acquire more land, and substitute a real tax on developers which would induce them to develop the land quickly instead of keeping it for speculative purposes?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: I will bear in mind the hon. member's representations, Mr. Speaker.


INCREASE IN MORTGAGE INTEREST RATE BY CHARTERED BANKS-GOVERNMENT ACTION TO REDUCE
David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I have another supplementary question for the minister. He bears these things in mind and does nothing about them. I am serious when I say that, in view of these circumstances. In view of the fact that other banks in Canada have now increased the mortgage interest rate to 9 3A per cent, and in view of the fact that the Canadian mortgage interest rate is the highest in the western world, higher than in the United States, the United Kingdom or anywhere else, and particularly in view of the huge profits-
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will recognize that a question asked in such terms with all the "whereas" clauses goes beyond the natural boundaries of what is recognized as correct procedure. Perhaps the hon. member might now ask his question.


David Lewis: I am not sure I recognize it, Mr. Speaker, but I bow to your recognition of it. I should like to ask the Minister of Finance whether he will take steps to persuade the banks gently, or otherwise, to keep mortgage interest rates down without reducing the allocation of money for mortgage purposes?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman knows, of course, that I have no executive authority under the Bank Act to tell the banks-


An hon. Member:: Change the Bank Act.


John Napier Turner: I have suggested to the banks, the life insurance and trust companies to put as much money as they can into the mortgage market in order to stabilize interest rates. Indeed, as I said to the hon. gentleman's colleague yesterday, if the bill introduced by my colleague the Minister of State for Urban Affairs for residential mortgages were passed by the House that would inject more mortgage funds into the system and stabilize the rates.


FINANCE
Mr. Henry Latulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. Minister of Finance.
Can he tell the House what progress has been made with regard to increasing loans to small businesses, in view of the fact that most of the members of the committee and the majority of the members of this House had thought it necessary to increase loans to small businesses from $25,000 to $50,000?


John Napier Turner: I am not
quite clear as to the implications of the hon. member's question; I said most recently that a statistical study is now being done on the loans made by the chartered banks. I do not yet have the statistics on hand but as soon as I do I will have some idea and I can then inform the hon. member accordingly.


Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary.
Does the hon. minister realize that a maximum loan of $25,000 granted on first mortgage loans to small businesses is far from sufficient to enable them to expand adequately? When can we hope for improvements in this respect?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's question is a
representation.

July 6, 1973
Oral Questions
[English\


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. H. W. Danforth (Kent-Essex):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the drastic but not unexpected move of the Nixon administration of placing a further 41 agricultural products under strict export control and since we are a major customer this action could have serious implications for Canadian producers and consumers, can the minister say if the government is prepared to quickly assess the results in Canada and are there contingency plans to assure adequate supplies of food for Canadians?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, we view with real concern the measures taken by the United States and assure the hon. member that we have this matter under urgent review at the present time.


EFFECT OF UNITED STATES EXPORT CONTROLS ON FOOD
Harold Warren Danforth: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Can the minister state, in view of the United States action, whether the government has any plans to enact to prevent excess profit taking should it appear that our inventory of various food commodities could be depleted either through loss of imports or unusual export demand?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Well, Mr. Speaker, I think the area mentioned by the hon. member in his question is one of fiscal policy which comes under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Finance.


SUGGESTED IMPOSITION OF SELECTIVE EXPORT CONTROLS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the action by the United States in imposing further select export controls and the impact this is having on domestic prices in Canada, may I ask the minister whether the government is prepared now to undertake a program of selective export controls in order to protect the Canadian domestic market?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, we will take whatever action we feel the circumstances demand.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Malpeque on a supplementary and then the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi.


INQUIRY AS TO GOVERNMENT ACTION TO ENSURE SUPPLY OF EDIBLE OILS
Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce what action the government is taking to ensure supplies of edible oils for the processors of agricultural and fish products whose operations are completely dependent on an assured supply of edible oils, such as fish-packing and other types of processing?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows we placed controls on the export from Canada of certain edible oils a week ago today. We did so to protect the Canadian interest at stake and in response to the action taken by the United States earlier in the week. As I indicated at that time, we are reviewing the export applications from exporters in Canada. We are not yet in a position to indicate just what permits will be approved until we have all the information. Midnight last night was the deadline for the receipt of orders and applications as of June 29. I would expect in a very few days to know more about the situation so that we can make a further announcement in due course.


SHORTAGE OF GENERAL PRACTITIONERS AND MEDICAL
Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
In view of the reports coming not only from Quebec but from all parts of Canada that we are faced with a serious shortage of general practitioners and ancillary medical personnel in the rural regions and in areas where people are in the low-income bracket, what immediate action can we expect from the federal government to rectify or remedy the situation?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member has put a question and I shall allow the minister to answer it briefly. The hon. member will recognize that his question is very large in scope. Normally, in answer to a question of this type, information should be given to the House by way of a statement on motions. The minister may, however, answer briefly the question of the hon. member.


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the problem raised by the hon. member has already been discussed at meetings held at the level of ministers and senior officials. Now, the question of posting physicians to various regions within the provinces comes under the exclusive jurisdiction of provincial administrations.
As to the second point raised by my hon. colleague, I shall simply refer him to the very considerable amounts made available to the provinces under the Health Resources Fund for the development of medical schools
July 6, 1973

and the necessary institutions for the training of physicians.


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question.
Although, as the hon. minister has indicated, this is generally a problem under provincial jurisdiction, what steps may we expect the federal government to take in the near future to provide these areas with more free clinics, and increase the number of general practitioners and ancillary medical personnel?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, for the information of the provinces, there exists a proposition concerning a new type of financing health services in Canada which is aimed directly at favouring such development. Moreover, I have discussed with my colleagues the opportunity of helping develop free clinics throughout Canada, but again I can do nothing more than exert moral pressure and encourage my colleague to give his support.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Northwest Territories.


Mr. Wally Firth (Northwest Territories):: Mr. Speaker, I had a question for the Acting Prime Minister, but I see the Acting Prime Minister has left the chamber.


AIR TRANSPORT
Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport of which I have given him fairly short notice. Perhaps he might be good enough to tell the House, and tell me for my constituents, whether, in view of the fact that the Thunderbird Airline has discontinued its service to northern British Columbia and northern Alberta and the committee on air transport has rejected applications for interim service, thereby causing great concern and anxiety to the people in those areas, any reason can be assigned for that, or would he have an inquiry conducted into the matter because of the pressing problems which have been created?


Hon. dean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I just read the letter. Thank you very much for the notice. I shall inquire at the CTC to ascertain if there is something that can be done.


PROPOSED MACKENZIE VALLEY OIL PIPELINE-GOVERNMENT POSITION IF CONSTRUCTED AS ADDITION TO ALASKA TANKER ROUTE
Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and
Oral Questions
Resources. In view of the statement of the United States government and some senators that when the Alaska oil pipeline is approved they will want a second oil pipeline from Alaska through Canada to supply the midwest, and in view of this government's position that it would look favourably on a Mackenzie oil pipeline in order to avoid oil spills off the B.C. coast, can the minister tell the House if this government would look favourably on an oil pipeline through Canada which does not replace the Alaskan pipeline and tanker route but which would be in addition to the Alaska pipeline and tanker route?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: No, Sir.


ADULT TRAINING PROGRAM-POSSIBLE AMENDMENT OF ACT
John Allen Fraser: As a supplementary question can the minister inform the House whether the United States State Department has made any recent inquiry as to whether the Canadian government has any strong, current interest in the construction of a Mackenzie Valley oil pipe line? I emphasize recent.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Yes, Sir. On behalf of members of the United States Congress the U.S. State Department, through its embassy here, has submitted questions to the government of Canada, not only the question mentioned by the hon. gentleman but a series of other questions, to which the government of Canada has replied in detail. We are hopeful that the U.S. State Department will make certain that that message is received by the senators and congressman before any decision is taken within that legislative body.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL AFFAIRS ALLEGED STATEMENTS BY MINISTERS CONCERNING WESTERN PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENTS-FEDERAL POLICIES TO SOLVE WESTERN PROBLEMS
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister. In light of a recent statement by the Minister of Justice to the effect that the provincial governments are creating provincial kingdoms in western Canada, and also the recent statement by the Minister of National Health and Welfare that the provinces are becoming duchies in western Canada, can the Acting Prime Minister say whether these ministers were stating government policy and, if so, can he elaborate on these policies?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the use of what might be described as descriptive language is not usually a matter of government policy.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Justice. In view

July 6, 1973
Oral Questions
of the fact that he has charged the western provinces with adopting short-term policies can he tell us what long-term policies the government will implement in order to alleviate some of the long-standing western problems?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, the government is in the process of the most thorough going investigation and examination of national policy as it relates to western Canada that has been undertaken in a century in this country. I should say, Mr. Speaker, that it was not a matter of charging provincial premiers particularly with creating kingdoms or short-sightedness in any way, but rather of warning them that this great opportunity to move ahead with forward-looking policy changes should not be defeated by that kind of attitude.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Minister of National Health and Welfare rises on a question of privilege, after which I will go to the next question.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege in light of the statement attributed to me by the hon. member. I want to make it quite clear that what I stated was not what he has attributed to me. I did declare that the provincial governments in the west are not the only spokesmen for the west, and that the members of parliament elected from the west, irrespective of the party to which they belong, are allowed to speak for their citizens just as are elected members of provincial governments.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Again I bring to the attention of hon. members the futility of asking questions based on statements made outside the House, which result in points of order and questions of privilege. I urge hon. members to recognize that there is not much that can be achieved by this kind of questioning. Obviously, the minister has no question of privilege, although I understand very well that he would want to rise when he disagrees with the reference made to the speech that he delivered outside the House.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Now that it has become quite obvious that the annual reports of the CNR and Air Canada will not be referred to the appropriate standing committee before the House rises for the summer recess, can he explain to the House and the country why the government has refused to make this reference?


Jean Marchand: It is still under consideration, Mr. Speaker.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary to the President of the Privy Council. Having regard to the fact that he is involved in the deliberations and discussions with respect to this very important matter, can he tell the House why the referral has not been

made? Is he concerned about the possible embarrassment that these proceedings might cause to the Minister of Transport-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. A question asked in those terms is out of order.

[ Translation]


MANPOWER
Mr. Roland Godin (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
Since the Adult Occupational Training Act provides for the payment of allowances for only 52 weeks, would the minister consider tabling amendments to this act in the near future so that those who have to follow pre-high school courses may do so without loss of time?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, we are not contemplating amendments to the act at this stage, certainly not before the summer recess, although the whole subject is under examination.


SURVEY OF DEMANDS FOR UNIVERSITY GRADUATES- REQUEST FOR PUBLICATION
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration related to the survey taken earlier by his department regarding opportunities for university graduates. Has the minister decided not to permit the publication of this very useful document, which is the annual survey of demands for university graduates, and which has been completed? If not, is he prepared to instruct his officials to make the survey available to the press and the public?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, this information and these statistics, as a matter of practice, always have been made available to the public as soon as they were made available to the department unless the department is not satisfied that they are complete. On this occasion, in the immediate situation for example, there was some incomplete information, and that is the very simple reason the figures were not released at that time, but they will be released shortly.


ALLEGED DROP IN DEMAND FOR UNIVERSITY GRADUATES-GOVERNMENT PLANS TO RECTIFY
Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: In view of the fact that the survey has been completed, as indicated indirectly by officials in the minister's department, does it indicate that the demand for university graduates is down substantially from last year, by the order of 40 per cent-
July 6, 1973


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is conveying information to the House rather than seeking information through his question. A question asked in those terms is irregular. An hon. member should ask a question, not convey information in support of his question.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: May I rephrase my question, Mr. Speaker? In light of the fact that the Science Council has indicated a decline in the demand for science graduates, and further that there is a decline in the demand for all university graduates, can the minister advise the House if he has any new and co-ordinated programs in mind to employ graduates?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I think that on numerous occasions in this House we have set forth very beneficial programs for student employment and graduate employment, and generally speaking I think we are all happy to see the improvement in employment conditions all across the board in Canada.


INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY
Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Water-loo):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of State for multiculturalism. Can he confirm or deny to the House the report that Mr. Mel Mclnnes-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. A question cannot be asked in those terms. A member cannot ask a minister to confirm or deny a report in the press.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, may I rephrase my question. May I ask the minister whether Mr. Mel Mclnnes is still a member of his staff?


Hon. Stanley Haidasz (Minister of State):: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Walter (Wally) Firth: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. Can he tell the House whether Her Majesty, the Queen, has transmitted to the government comments made to Her Majesty in Regina on Wednesday by Chief David Ahena-kew, President of the Federation of Saskatchewan Indians, to the effect that her Canadian government has made an attempt to break treaties signed by her ancestor, Queen Victoria?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I cannot be explicit in my reply to that, but I am sure that any brief or message that was given by the Indians to Her Majesty the Queen will be considered by the government. I understand also that the reply which
Oral Questions
Her Majesty made at one or other of the meetings in which she expressed a very sympathetic interest in the situation affecting the Indians, was made on the advice of the Canadian ministry.


FISHERIES
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries. Have his departmental officials completed their assessment of the losses suffered by lobster fishermen in Nova Scotia in the recent disastrous storm? Further, is the Premier of Nova Scotia, or other officials of that government, co-operating with his department in regard to this very serious situation? May I further ask how soon will monetary assistance be made available-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Robert Muir: -to these men-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The questions should be asked one at a time. The minister may try to reply to all three questions, but I think this is bad form.


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of the Environment):: The
hon. member is quite correct, Mr. Speaker. There are investigations under way jointly between the federal and provincial officials into this matter, and I expect to know the results of the survey within the next week or so.


Robert Muir: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the minister how long after he has received the report will moneys be made available to the fishermen.


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, arrangements have been made to make some nets and other equipment available to the fishermen. As for cash advances, this is a matter which has to be worked out between the provincial and the federal governments.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Keith Taylor (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State. In view of representations made to the Secretary of State requesting funding of native communications programs, I wonder if the House could be advised of the government's policy in this respect.


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I have met with some members of native communications societies in discussing a proposed communi-

July 6, 1973
Oral Questions
cations policy. The commitment I made to the members of those societies is that I would try to work out a policy which would be mutually satisfactory to the government and to the people involved, and that process of discussion is going on now.


Charles Keith Taylor: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the Secretary of State advise the House as to what disposition has been made by his department of the application of the Native Communication Incorporated in Manitoba for a grant for communications purposes.


James Hugh Faulkner: As agreed with the society, we made an interim grant to them which we hope will carry them through the period while we are discussing what our long-term communications policy will be.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I remind hon. members that there are about five minutes before the end of the question period. If all hon. members insist on asking one or two supplementaries to each question, many will be disappointed.


Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I apologize for the time I took when I first rose. I ask the minister if he will give the undertaking now that he or some other minister will make a statement on motions before the House rises for the summer recess outlining the government's intentions relating to OFY or any successor program.


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, the answer is, no. Regrettably, that will not be possible.


MONTREAL OLYMPIC GAMES, 1976-ARRANGEMENTS FOR MINTING OF COMMEMORATIVE COINS
Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the President of the Treasury Board. Has the Royal Canadian Mint already made extensive preparations for the minting of Olympic commemorative coins, despite Bill C-196 not having been passed by this House?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member refers to the minutes of the Miscellaneous Estimates Committee of yesterday, he will see in detail precisely what arrangements have been made.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. In view of persistent reports that the government is planning to replace naval ranks and titles with their army equivalents, would the minister assure the House of the government's intentions in this regard. I sincerely hope that there is no such plan.


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I will be making a statement concerning naval rank titles in the near future.


George Harris Hees: So, the reports are right. Shame!


MANPOWER
Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: I regret I have only a supplementary to direct to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration having to do with youth unemployment. In light of the apparent intention of the government to phase out the Opportunities for Youth program by absorbing it in another program, does the government intend to announce a specific jobs program for young people, and will that program or any program replacing OFY be administered by the Department of Manpower?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, since none of the decisions in the preamble to the question have been made or announced, I do not think I can elaborate on what the ultimate disposition of this matter will be.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker-


SUGGESTED USE OF FOUR DESTROYERS BY DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES-POSSIBLE PURCHASE OFFER FROM OTHER COUNTRIES
Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the present Minister of National Defence, not the former minister. Has he made any decision yet regarding the four destroyers that we hope will be used in the surveillance of our marine resources. Can he further indicate whether any offer has been made by any other fishing nation to purchase these destroyers.


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, no, we have not reached any decision. To my knowledge, there has been no offer to purchase these ships.


FISHERIES
John Howard Lundrigan: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps the minister
July 6, 1973

could check the last answer he gave. Could I ask the Minister of the Environment whether any offer has been made by another fishing nation for the purchase, for coastal surveillance purposes, of the whalers that were put out of business by the minister's decision.


John (Jack) Davis: Not to my
knowledge, Mr. Speaker. However, the fisheries service has been considering the leasing of these whalers for our own domestic purposes.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Jean-Marie Boisvert (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Minister of Justice. Could he tell us if he is aware of a document whose authenticity was admitted yesterday by the Quebec Minister of Justice and which proves there has been collusion between influential members of the provincial Liberal party and the underworld?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I have no information on the subject to which the hon. member refers, nor about the facts.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. In view of the fact that the government is unwilling to sell the 38 acres of Jericho defence land at Jericho Beach to the city of Vancouver for one dollar, even though it is giving $33 million to Toronto for a waterfront park, would the government be willing to lease the defence lands to Vancouver for one dollar on a 99-year term?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, a lease is one of the possibilities that is being discussed with the city, but there is also the possibility of trading that land for another piece of land owned by the city. As I have indicated before, these discussions are continuing.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, could I ask-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps we should allow the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway a supplementary. Again, I point out to hon. members that all these supple-mentaries, to my way of thinking, take too much time.
Oral Questions


Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. I ask the minister if he could make a statement before the House rises on this matter.


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, there are two sides to these negotiations and I could not possibly give that assurance.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. When can we expect a progress report on the government's plans concerning the report of an inquiry on the coasting trade of Canada and related marine activity, as submitted to the Canadian Transport Commission by Mr. H. J. Darling in October, 1970?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, we are trying to fix a date in July for a meeting between the officials of the federal and provincial governments, so that we can communicate their discussions concerning the Darling report. I hope that before the end of the month we will know where we stand on this.


MERCHANT MARINE-REQUEST FOR MINISTER'S SUPPORT OF MEMBER'S MOTION
Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Lancaster):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In connection with the matter of marine activity, would the minister be prepared on Monday to speak in the debate on my motion on the merchant marine and put on the record of this House his support of the merchant marine, which has been spoken of so many times outside the House.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I will try to listen to the speech of the hon. member and if it inspires me, maybe I will speak.

[ Translation]


LABOUR RELATIONS
Mr. Gilles Marceau (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour.
For several months a deplorable dispute has been going on between radio-station CKRS and its employees. Is the minister prepared to intervene directly and to appoint a mediator to help solve this problem, which affects not only the station and its employees but also the public.
5368

July 6, 1973
Oral Questions


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we have offered mediation services over a fairly protracted period of time. I understand now that one of the parties to the dispute is prepared to accept our offer of mediation services, and I anticipate that the other party will accept also.


Mr. Forrestall:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Gilles Marceau: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has a supplementary question.
[ English]
After the hon. member for Lapointe has been recognized, I will recognize the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East.

[ Translation]


COMMUNICATIONS
Gilles Marceau: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Communications.
Since he is responsible for the CRTC, can the minister tell us whether he is also prepared to help solve the dispute at radio-station CKRS in Jonquiere?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Minister of Communications):: Certainly, Mr. Speaker, but it would be up to the CRTC to decide whether it would be appropriate to intervene if and when, as the hon. member has said, the public were to begin suffering because of inadequate service.


TRANSPORT
J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. It arises out of a question I asked two or three weeks ago with respect to anticipation on the part of some members of his and other government departments of a proposal from Germany with regard to the extraction of resources and the related construction of polar icebreakers. Is the minister now in a position to indicate when the government believes it will receive from Germany, a proposal for the development of polar icebreaking cargo carriers?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, we are expecting no reports from Germany.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. Would the minister care to check written replies to questions that have been asked with regard to this very serious and urgent matter and at least get straight what he has been advised and what he is telling me?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Acting Prime Minister. It arises from the fact he was the only member to refuse unanimous consent to a motion on behalf of Ronald Patrick Lippert imprisoned in Cuba.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has no right to preface a question in this way. Even though we have reached the end of the question period, the hon. member was recognized for the purpose of asking a question. The hon. member is reflecting on a vote. Any member asking a question could preface it in the same way. It is unfair to other members of the House. I recognized the hon. member for the purpose of asking a question.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Will the Acting Prime Minister convey to the Prime Minister the situation with regard to Mr. Lippert? Also, is he prepared to recommend to the Prime Minister that negotiations on the highest level be undertaken to attain the release of Mr. Lippert?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: On
this point, Mr. Speaker, I was aware of the import of the hon. member's motion earlier. It is the view of the government that the most effective way to assist in this particular case is through normal diplomatic channels. That is in the best interests of the party concerned, rather than through other methods which the hon. member is suggesting.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Leeds on a supplementary, the hon. member for Scarborough West and then call Orders of the Day.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: In view of the fact negotiations through regular channels have not succeeded for a period of 10 years, does the minister not think some other method might now be considered and undertaken?

[ Translation]


TRANSPORT
John Paul Harney: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Transport.

In view of the growing public interest in the possibility of building a supertanker port in the Lower St. Lawrence, as well as the growing public concern over the damages to the St. Spyridon, does the minister intend to broaden the mandate of the inquiry on the accident that occurred Wednesday to include the study of the advisability of constructing a supertanker port in that area?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I believe the right hon. Prime Minister answered that question the day before yesterday; he said that the over-all problem of deep water ports was now before the cabinet. To my mind, this has nothing to do with what happened on the St. Lawrence. This type of accident can occur anywhere along our shores. Its repercussions on the St. Lawrence would be the same along our shores. In any event, the situation is the same and I doubt that this accident will alter the position of the government.


Harold Warren Danforth: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I apologize for feeling it is necessary to raise this point at this time. During the question period, I directed a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs pertaining to the effect of the United States embargo on food imported into Canada and its effect on consumer prices. The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, and I am sorry he is not in his seat, directed me to the Minister of Finance saying that it was his responsibility. Even though the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs has set up a special commission for the very purpose of safeguarding the prices paid by Canadian consumers, he directed me to the Minister of Finance. This shows both a lack of concern for the consumers of this country and a sense of irresponsibility-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure the hon. member is not seriously suggesting that is a point of order. The hon. member, of course, is arguing with the minister. This argument could be continued for some time. I have to rule it is not a proper point of order.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If I had not been recognized today, I would not be raising it. I say that because I would not want it to be understood that I am making a representation on behalf of myself. This is the third occasion in the past three months on which I have raised this question.
I wish to again point out there are one or two rules in the House of Commons which I and most members feel supersede any specific rule that might exist. One is freedom of speech which is referred to extensively by all of the great writers on parliamentary procedure. It is frequently pointed out in Beauchesne that the rule of absolute rigidity has no place in the House of Commons. It is important to remember these paramount rules and call them to mind once in a while.
The House of Commons today is governed by a number of rules with regard to asking questions and the parameters of the question period. One would almost have to be a criminal lawyer with years of professional training in order to conform to the rules which govern asking questions. If Your Honour were to apply to the letter the rules that exist, no member would be able to ask a question. I
Oral Questions
am not reflecting on the Chair, but on the application and the interpretation of the rules.
It is now seven months since the matter was raised. Since the new rules were brought in four years ago, there have been dozens of representations in an attempt to eneble members to ask their questions in a way that does not frustrate them, their constituencies or the country. To date, we have not received a report. I do not know if there have been discussions among the various House leaders.
I am convinced that the rules of this House of Commons are making it very difficult for members to carry out their duties. We are constantly reminded of the fact there are too many supplementaries. There are not too many supple-mentaries. The problem is that we are confined to a 40 minute question period. Consequently, members feel guilty for pursuing a matter because it prohibits their colleagues from asking questions. It is necessary to pursue many questions in detail in order to keep the government on its toes. This is the responsibility of the opposition. We are cut off in the middle of our pursuit because of the 40 minute limitation.
I see no reason why it should take several months to make some minor adjustments to the rules regarding the question period. I am firmly convinced that if the question period were extended, members would find their own level of responsibility. After a few weeks, once the momentum of their questions died down, there would not be this problem with the question period. For almost 100 years there was no time limit on the question period. We must assume that for almost 100 years members of parliament were responsible, but for the past four years members have been denied the justice they deserve under the most important rules of this House. I feel guilty every time I try to ask a question. I know that by doing so, my colleagues may be denied the opportunity because of the 40 minute limit.
As things now stand, we could go on from twelve o'clock until five this afternoon killing time for most of the day with only 15 or 20 members in the House, often not even a quorum, without anyone in the country knowing what is going on. Yet this most important aspect of the work of the House of Commons, holding the government accountable for its actions, is cut off after 40 minutes. I should like to think I am speaking for all members, including members of the government party, when I say we can wait no longer for the results of the long drawn-out process of considering this matter in the committee on procedure. I think the House leaders, with some feeling that members are being gypped, must get their heads together, perhaps accept an interim report from the committee and bring about an immediate change in the rules.


Mr. Speaker:: I hope we will not become involved in debate on a matter which is before a committee. The hon. member suggests it is taking the committee too much time to bring in a report. This may be so. Perhaps it is not so. In any event, the fact is that the matter has been referred to a committee and I hope we will not become involved in a lengthy procedural debate in the House at this time on the important matter raised by the hon. member, a matter which I am sure is of interest to us all.
26446-49$

July 6, 1973
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension I would respectfully suggest to hon. members that this is neither the time nor the occasion to get involved in a debate. I assume that the committee, some day soon we all hope, will bring in a report which will give hon. members an opportunity to debate the matter further.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, July 5, consideration of the motion of Mr. MacEachen that Bill C-208, to suspend the operation of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.
Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Nipissing: Mr. Speaker, as I was pointing out yesterday, on the occasion of the preliminary report submitted and published by the Electoral Boundaries Commission it became evident that there was an increase in the total number of Ontario seats by three: unfortunately, the net increase for the southern portion of Ontario was five seats, two being taken away from the northern portion.
To the best of my recollection, every member from northern Ontario made representations to the commission in order to express displeasure not only at the redistribution as effected but also at the loss of two of the 12 seats. I must say that the commissioners were very attentive to the representations made, probably because of the quality of the representations of members from northern Ontario as well as the unity of opinion which they communicated. Indeed, the commissioners suggested that perhaps the commission should return to the drawing board in order to salvage two seats which had been taken away following the application of the principles of the statute as it stood. It took them some time to reconsider the matter, and they did salvage one of the two seats which had been taken away. However, in doing so they produced an abortion of considerable dimensions.
If we look at the redistribution determined under schedule C of the report tabled in the House yesterday, we find that the district of Albany-Nipigon now starts at Hudson Bay and stretches right down to Lake Superior, encompassing roughly 40 per cent of the province of Ontario. And that is one constituency. I am not alleging any bad faith on the part of the commissioners. Indeed, they were very serious in the consideration of the submissions which had been made. Those submissions were basically that northern Ontario is an area in the province which is most apt to be developed in the near future, and that in these circumstances it is essential that it have adequate representation, as was indicated by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Harding). This point was well made, and it was accepted. However, there are inherent limitations imposed by the statute as it exists today. The commissioners were limited by the 25 per cent provi-

sion, one which they could not vary, and they attempted to abide by our request while finding it almost impossible to do so in accordance with the principles laid down in the act. It is therefore a matter of satisfaction to me that steps should be taken by the government to forestall the effect of redistribution at this time for a period of 18 months.
As I pointed out yesterday, if the present trend toward urbanization continues we shall find ourselves by the year 2000 with a concentration of population within large urban centres whose location has now been established. The power of the House of Commons in a federated state is very strong, it is true, but it is a limited power since the provincial governments share jurisdiction. The provincial governments are located in the urban centres to which I have referred; their realm of influence lies within these centres. The civil servants of the provinces are located in the same centres. As a result of the concentration of population in these areas, the media of information must focus attention on them. Those whose role is the formation of public opinion are located in these areas. All economic decisions made by corporate entities are reached in these urban centres. Decisions of the courts are directed toward the interests of those centres.
If we take into consideration the whole gamut of power as exercised in a free society we find that the government is but one level of that power. Public opinion is another. Presentation of the news exercises part of that power. The economic decision-makers exercise another. If the present trend continues we shall find that all decisions are made in our urban centres. I would remind hon. members of the comment made by a member of one of our major urban centres the other day, that he found it remarkable that we only talked about fish and wheat in this House. I suggest to him that with this increase of power in the urban centres, the day will come when we shall not talk about fish and wheat any more; we shall not even be concerned about fish and wheat, much less about such things as the gold mining assistance legislation or legislation to reduce regional disparity. Such measures were enacted, I suggest, because hon. members directly affected by the necessity for them pressed the government and obliged it to place legislation on the statute books.
If we are heading toward a position where all decisions are made by members from urban centres, we shall no doubt develop in Canada the best of rapid transit systems from Ottawa to Toronto or from Montreal to Saint John. But we shall forget about transportation issues; we shall forget about the equalization of freight rates.


Mr. Blenkarn:: Nonsense.


Mr. Blais:: I suggest this is exactly where we shall be going. Unless we maintain through the electoral boundaries legislation adequate representation of areas whose populations are depleting we shall find ourselves in a sorry state indeed. I am completely in favour of the quick passage of the legislation before the House.


Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, it is a rather unique situation to find myself in this particular instance very much in accord with the remarks of the previous speaker. I find there is a great deal of difficulty
July 6, 1973

in trying to convey to the urban areas of Canada the complications of rural representation in the House of Commons. I believe there is some misunderstanding here, so let us hope this debate helps to resolve it and get a misunderstanding-it is not a conflict but merely a misunderstanding-into its proper light.
One speaker in this debate said that only the members of the House of Commons are concerned about redistribution-not the people of the constituencies but the members themselves who are trying to serve their own selfish interests. I categorically deny that statement. It is not in line with the feelings in the constituency from which I come.
At a hearing on January 29 in the city of Fredericton, New Brunswick, of an Electoral Boundaries Commission, several organizations in the riding of Carleton in which I live presented views in respect of their disapproval of the boundary map as it was drawn. Those are the representations of the people of my constituency: they do not like the map as it is drawn, and they do not think it gives proper consideration to their interests or will in the long run give them proper representation here.
There were several unique things in the report in respect of New Brunswick that were subject to criticism. For instance, when the commission undertook this redistribution program it found there were four constituencies in New Brunswick approaching the minimal population for proper representation under the act. When the commission was through, it ended up with four constituencies in New Brunswick again with the minimal population required under the act. So there was very little accomplished. This was pointed out to the commission at the hearing in Fredericton on January 29.
I should like to go a little further in discussing that hearing. I made representations on behalf of the people in my constituency. I listened also to the representations made by a professor of the University of New Brunswick on behalf of the Liberal Party in that area. I think the identically parallel position which the two of us presented to the commission should indicate to this House, if the hearing were reviewed, that there is unanimity of thought as to the purposes and the results which ought to be obtained under redistribution, and that in the opinion of those who made presentations the various guidelines were not respected.
There are several guidelines which should be considered by any boundaries commission. Perhaps some of them should be given greater weight than others in a particular situation, but I believe the first guideline which should be followed is an economic one: Does the constituency which is proposed by the boundaries commission have a common or a multiple economic background? Is there a possibility that there is an economic unit within a particular province which comprises a reasonably logical constituency or which can be represented by one individual?
Then we must ask: Are there social guidelines which should be considered? Are there areas which have common points of interest in a social way? Are people acquainted with one another and are they acquainted with one another's interests in a particular area? Do they have something in common, or is there just a conglomeration of people assimilated in a mechanical way without any considera-
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension tion for the knowledge which one group may have of the other in respect of that constituency and its boundaries? Is there any possibility of creating a geographically feasible unit for a member to represent, or is it absolutely necessary that a geographical unit be awkward and difficult to represent, not from the point of view of the member of the House of Commons but from the point of view of the people he represents? How often can they see him in this geographic unit? How often can he call on them? How far does he have to travel? How much of his time is spent on the highway and how much of it is spent in the pursuit of things for his constituents?
These are very important items to the representation of the people but not from the point of view of the members. The member allows his name to go before a convention. He is nominated or he is not. He is either elected or he is not by the people. He has in most instances volunteered; he is not coerced into it. The consideration for the member is not the important subject in this area. The geographic, social and economic possibilities of the people being represented, after they elect the member, is of vital concern.
It is a very high-minded approach to this problem, in the act as we have it, that suggests there should be a nonpolitical approach to the matter of redistribution. There is no way in which you can approach a political problem in a non-political way. There is no way in which somebody who is not familiar with the political intricacies of representation could draw a reasonable constituency boundary in the Dominion of Canada. When you say it shall be non-political, you are denying to the political processes in Canada the reality that political possibilities should be considered.
I like the idea that some people seem to favour, that there is too little non-political discussion in Canada, that everything is based on politics; but I think, in the name of the science of politics, we must give politics proper consideration in the delineation of boundaries. This is not done.
What has occurred has been more a process of gathering groups of people who qualify under the Canada Elections Act into an area delineated by a commission and that is what a constituency is. It has been proven that this act and this concept does not work. Furthermore, I think you have to represent, as the previous speaker pointed out, the rural facets of representation in the House of Commons. I have no quarrel with the fact that somebody who was born and raised in the heart of the city does not understand how to plant an agricultural crop or how to chop down a tree and get it to the mill-I do not understand how to operate a streetcar, and I do not plan to learn-but I think we must take into consideration rural realities as part of the scientific political process in Canada. These people have interests, for instance, in national housing. It is impossible in most instances, and extremely difficult in all, for a housebuilder to obtain money from Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation because of the various regulations and guarantees which apply. This is not equitable as far as some citizens in Canada are concerned. The voice to express this need must come from the rural area; it can come from nowhere else, because no one else understands it.
When you take a province of Canada and make its urban areas the focal point of all constituencies, when you say to

July 6, 1973
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension
a province it shall be represented by city representatives, you shall have no rural representation. That is virtually what was said when the province of New Brunswick, except for one or possibly two constituencies, was divided. Then rural life in Canada is not represented in this House. I suggest it would be a disastrous oversight on the part of this House to permit this practice to continue.
I have examined maps of Canada and have found that constituencies in all too many instances radiate from the centres of cities to incorporate rural areas. This renders those areas totally inconsequential in respect of the position a politician will take as he seeks office, because he must approach his constituents in such a fashion as to please the majority of them, and when a rural area becomes a very minor part of a constituency in no way can those people have their voices heard without creating a conflict of interest with the urban part of the constituency. These are principles which I think must be taken into consideration in any redistribution in Canada. The economic guidelines, the social guidelines, the geographic guidelines, the political realities and the rural realities cannot be overlooked.
When it comes to presentations to the commissions, we find that the formality of approach which is required under the act and in the guidelines set down by the commission virtually eliminates some pretty important people in rural Canada who would very much like to express their position in respect of any may as it is drawn. It must be formal, it must be written, and full notice of the guidelines must be laid down in advance. Only one person may speak; there is no opportunity for open discussion at the hearing. This precludes the opportunity for the voter of Canada to express himself as he wishes. If there is any justification for saying that people do not complain about this redistribution, it is because the access of complaint is virtually blockaded by red tape, regulations under the act and by the specific commissions which interpret the act and lay down their own regulations.
The present act is not performing a real service to Canada as a whole. Representation by population is a subject which I am sure can stir up great argument within any party of this House as well as within the House generally. Certainly there was some recognition of the difficulties of rural representation versus urban representation; there was an allowance for a smaller population in some instances. This was to be in recognition of the rural area and a stretching of the ideological representation by population in its literal sense. But as has been pointed out, there are some geographic monstrosities in this country in which there is no possibility for a member of the House of Commons to render to the scattered population the service required and which that population needs as badly or more than the urban population.
I have every sympathy with the ideologies of our democratic people, but I think we have found it is absolutely necessary in virtually every law passed in this country to have certain opportunities for discretion, certain recognition of the realities of the field governed by the individual law, and to have these realities incorporated in any change which is to take place in the electoral boundaries structure of the Dominion of Canada. For instance, there are exam-

pies outside Canada where representation by population is espoused and cherished, yet recognition of vital representation for an area has been contained in all legislation as it has become modernized. The Senate of the United States, for example, has two senators per state regardless of the population of the state. This is intended to give a weighted voice to an area which is sparsely populated but which must have representation.
I think as we consider what we will do about redistribution in this House we must take into consideration both the principle of representation by population and the realities of the capability of a member to serve the needs of his constituency which is scattered over 100,000 miles in the northern part of Manitoba or over half a continent when the Northwest Territories are involved. I believe the people of Canada, if this were explained to them, would be quite willing to accept the realities of geography and to make some sacrifice in order that proper representation will not become a physical impossibility to the member who is elected.
Again I want to make one thing very clear. I am not appealing on my own behalf as a member but on behalf of equitable and capable representation for people. I could not be any more fortunate in respect of the people who live in my constituency. They supported me, they were loyal to me and so far as I know they still are. I respect the opinion of every one of them. However, the failure to recognize the five points I mentioned earlier has put city in with rural, has put a multitude of economic influences into a single constituency and has made it virtually impossible, though it is a great pleasure to try, to give that constituency the representation which it so richly deserves, when a little adjustment to that map of New Brunswick could have recognized the political, social, economic and geographic realities of the province. But they abided by the act: they said, let us get people in bundles in geographic areas and call them constituencies.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I do not think we should go back to the practice of gerrymandering of constituencies. I do not think we should have these ugly-looking prongs of population gathered up into a group of people so that a particular party can win a particular constituency at any given election. I do not recommend that we go back to that, but I do recommend that this act give the House an opportunity to consider the political realities, the political responsibilities and make it possible to construct really practical constituencies in the Dominion of Canada for the representation of people and not for the convenience of members of the House of Commons.
[ Translation]


Gilles Marceau: Mr. Speaker, those who question the possibility of getting a consensus on a bill realize now that there may be circumstances-very fortunate indeed- where members recognize that a collective decision should be made in the interest not only of all parties but especially of the Canadian people as a whole.
I am pleased, Mr. Speaker, that the government of which I am member has deemed advisable and urgent to introduce Bill C-208 to suspend the operation of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act.
July 6, 1973

I must admit that like other members I am particularly affected by the report from the Electoral Boundaries Commission.
Indeed if that decision had been implemented, one of the constituencies of the Saguenay-Lac Saint-Jean area would have disappeared and the number of federal members in that important area would have dropped from four to three.
The decrease in the number of representatives would be in itself a deplorable consequence of the legislation we wish to pass.
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, in the Saguenay-Lac Saint-Jean area there are five provincial members to meet the people's needs. Conditions were already disturbing for the federal representatives whose number was restricted to four and had a legislation reduced that number to three, it would had been a tragedy.
Not that the federal member for the Saguenay-Lac Saint-Jean region refuses to work, nor that he is willing to give his best to meet the needs of the people, but the short time he has and the responsibilities which fall on him prevent him from meeting the people's needs satisfactorily, if the number of his electors and the size of the territory he has to cover make the task impossible.
I find it curious that the Saguenay-Lac Saint-Jean region should have been chosen to have a member removed from it. I would very much like to know what reasons were used to justify this absolutely unacceptable choice. Indeed, it is strange that the report gives no justification for this action.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that the basic problem which arises in the Saguenay-Lac Saint-Jean region, and indeed elsewhere, as was pointed out by my colleague the member for Nipissing (Mr. Blais), is that of representation for rural ridings.
As long as urban and rural ridings are considered on the same footing, we will, in my view, get nowhere.
To assume that the member for a rural riding has the same obligations as the urban member, is to be unrealistic.
As things stand, representation is based on population. Nevertheless I consider this basic principle, though acceptable, to be somewhat faulty.
It seems to me that the principle of proportional representation should be accompanied by basic considerations such as the sociological, psychological and economic factors which, in particular situations, force the member for a rural riding to do a great deal more work than is done in urban ridings.
Of course, I do not wish to offend the members for urban ridings by giving them the impression that we consider our work to be more important. But it is different and requires on the part of members a much more constant presence and much steadier concern for the voters because they carry out their activities in areas remote from large centres where fewer facilities require federal members to have relations often hard to establish since in a certain way they have to be experts in many fields, if not all, and they must be a link between large centres and the communities they represent.
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension
Mr. Speaker, I should like at this point to say quite clearly that the solution we should be considering is not final; I do not pretend to be the one who will propose it to the House but with a bill delaying the implementation of the conclusions in the report we have an opportunity-and I hope we will all avail ourselves of it-to meet frequently in a committee of the House to consider the various aspects of representation at the federal level. I will bare my soul and say that the basic problem as it stands is I think of knowing whether we want federalism to continue to exist. We must decide if we want that federalism which we try to defend and explain to become a way of helping the people and the principle of federalism to continue to exist, particularly in Quebec.
If we reduce representation we will be the ones to blame if Canada faces additional difficulties. The basic problem is simply of knowing whether we want Canada with its differences of opinions and basic problems with respect to federalism, to solve its problems or let them worsen.
I will try to make my comments quite simple and indicate to hon. members, to all Canadians and to the people of the Saguenay-Lac Saint-Jean area that I am deeply concerned by the proposed solution aimed at eliminating one member from the Saguenay-Lac Saint-Jean area. Therefore, I welcome this bill introduced by the government and with the support of all parties, I believe it will give us an opportunity to make a thorough appraisal of federalism and the rights of citizens to be adequately represented in the House of Commons.
Mr. Speaker, I do not suggest that it would be advisable to push for a much larger representation since we must draw the line somewhere and keep in mind some basic principles, as the right of rural ridings to be represented in the House not necessarily according to the number of voters, but according to their rights, their responsibilities, their real needs which are often more difficult to meet than in urban ridings where adequate services are available.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that the delay proposed in this bill will enable us to find proper, just and reasonable solutions to that problem. The Saguenay-Lac Saint-Jean area will thus keep all its members so that they will be in a position to give better service, as we are always willing to do provided this House takes its responsibilities and avoids the mistake of decreasing the number of rural members, especially in the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean area, who have a great part to play and are prepared to do so.
[ English]


Mr. Thomas S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, the introduction of a bill to suspend the operation of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) strikes me as being a rather classic example of what in the British tradition is known as muddling through. I suppose we are going to muddle through this particular exercise, although it is obvious to me, from having listened to the debate so far, that in effect we have opened up quite a can of worms. It is a little difficult to consider what the real principle of the bill is because, as the President of the Privy Council said, it is an operation to stop the clock.

July 6, 1973
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension
One of the aspects of the matter which the minister touched upon, and which has not been mentioned too much by recent speakers, is the particular conundrum which results from an apparent oversight in the original Electoral Boundaries Act as to there being a period of time when it would be obviously impossible for an election to be held. In the situation of a parliament such as this, where an election could occur unexpectedly, it might be virtually impossible-this has been suggested-to hold an election for up to 12 months. The people of Canada would be denied the opportunity to exercise their basic right to vote for that length of time.
If one thinks of the matter in those terms one can see that all the President of the Privy Council needed to do was to introduce a bill to amend section 23 of the act. That is one of the important considerations before us. One could probably argue that that is the only consideration we need to have before us, because I recall that consideration of the original bill on this matter seemed to cover all possibilities in regard to ensuring that an election could be held at any time on one set of boundaries or the other, but later it became apparent that in the context of the immediate situation this was not possible. If in fact a previous parliament created a situation in which it would be impossible to hold an election for a period of up to a year following dissolution of parliament, that is a situation which was not anticipated and it is certainly one that cannot continue. If that were all that concerned the President of the Privy Council, we probably could have had quick and easy passage of that proposition.
Possibly some members who come from certain provinces-reference has already been made to British Columbia from which I come-could say that that is all that really needs to be done, that that is the decision that should be made, and if circumstances dictate that an election be held before the new boundaries are established we would be willing to hold it on the basis of the old boundaries. In effect, this is an easy position for a member to take, a member who represents a province that stands to gain seats under the current redistribution process, and my first inclination was to say that that was all we needed to do; why should we get into all this tangle that is being developed? But, Mr. Speaker, the bill has opened up many other questions far beyond those which were set forth by the President of the Privy Council.
Obviously, some members are using this bill as an opportunity to discuss the actions of the redistribution commissions within their provinces. Two or three hon. members have forcefully argued that the commissions should suspend their operations. I am not sure that I agree with them, because if this bill were not before us, if it did not pass, we would have an opportunity under the old arrangement, under the terms of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, to debate those very questions when dealing with the objections filed by members to the various redistribution proposals. From that point of view I would argue that the bill, in the context that some members see it, is unnecessary.
In view of the remarks that have been made in relation to the actions of some of the commissions it might be well to remind members, particularly those who were not here

at the time the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act was brought into being, of the provisions of that act, dealing with the terms of reference of the commissions, debating whether they were being followed in the spirit that parliament intended and considering whether some revision might need to be made. The basic debate that took place when the act was introduced was on the question of representation by population versus geographic size, something which has been much to the fore in the remarks of some hon. members. I think there was general agreement on the basic premise that all citizens' votes should have the same weight in choosing who would represent them in this House, but there was recognition that in a country the size of Canada this was not completely practicable or, indeed, in some respects fair.
The act allows for a maximum difference of 50 per cent, so that in effect it is possible for the weight of an urban vote to be only half the weight of a vote cast in a large, sparsely populated constituency. I am reasonably satisfied with the work that was done by the redistribution commission in British Columbia, because while it did not in any case go to the extreme of 50 per cent up and down from the average, according to my analysis it did go to quite an extent in recognizing the geographic factor for which provision is made in the act, and generally speaking the larger the riding the smaller is the population. This may or may not be the case in some of the other provinces. I have not examined them in great detail and I really do not know the constituency boundaries well enough in other provinces to feel capable of examining them in any depth.
However, I suggest that newer members should give careful thought to the position they are taking because they may be faced with a difficult alternative. The hon. member from New Brunswick who spoke recently said he did not want to go back to the gerrymandering type of redistribution performed in the past by committees of this House. There are not many members of the present House who went through that process. I myself have not been here long enough to go through that exercise. I see the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) looking in my direction. In fact he referred to this matter in his remarks. He remembers the kind of agony that was involved.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I went through it twice and it was real agony.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: The hon. member says that he went through it twice and it was real agony. I suggest that hon. members should think about those words. If some hon. members are suggesting that in effect we should abandon the principles of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, or if they are suggesting that we should go beyond the 50 per cent up and down presently permissible, what is the alternative but to go back to having the readjustment done by a parliamentary committee, with all the dangers of log-rolling that it would involve? Some of us can remember hearing about all that in times past and in fact some of us became quite aware of the results of that process. In my submission it was one of the black marks on our democracy. It meant that the party in power at any particular time had an opportunity to influence the boundaries of constituencies in a way that would be favourable to its chances of retaining office following a general elec-
July 6, 1973

tion. I hope we have permanently turned our backs on that practice in this parliament.
Some hon. members have talked about the difficulties of representing large geographic areas with scattered populations. Reference has also been made to the situation in the United States with respect to the composition of the U.S. Senate. There may be reason for us to think about some of the things that go on in that regard. I suggest something that I do not think has been mentioned and, if I understand correctly, is recognized in the United States in relation to the operation of their Senate. Although each state is represented by two senators, it is recognized that different senators carry different workloads and provision is made for a differential in staffing, which enables those senators to cope with their workloads and problems.
Actually, the question of members' staffs has already been raised in this debate, quite legitimately. If one thinks in terms of serving a constituency and dealing with the needs of people living in sparsely populated and remote communities, one will see that that question is not unrelated to the question of redistribution and the manner in which seats are established. In my view, that would be a more fruitful course for us to pursue as opposed to any attempt to go further than the present act permits. I am speaking of the differential in the voting weight of certain people. It would be better if we could provide more adequate staff for members so that a member could provide the kind of service to people in remote and small communities that was mentioned by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Harding) in his speech last night.
The work of the redistribution commissions or the matter of the re-evaluation of the concepts in the existing act really did not form the basis of the remarks of the President of the Privy Council. That was not his rationale for suggesting that we should suspend the operation of the act. If I understood him correctly, he suggested that in this interval of suspended operation of the act we must look, really, at the constitutional position of this House, that is to say, the distribution of members as between the various provinces of Canada. That question in not unrelated to the one concerning sparsely populated and remote constituencies. That, really, is the key question that the government and the President of the Privy Council are asking us to consider in seeking support for this bill. This argument has been made by some members from provinces which stand to lose seats, which are in an unfair position in relation to other provinces because of the so-called senatorial floor. This is the rationale which has been put forward in this debate.
I agree, although I am reluctant to do so, coming as I do from British Columbia, that perhaps this is the question with which we should be concerned. Perhaps this is something which can be accomplished in the present parliament. It might be more difficult to accomplish in a parliament differently structured. I remind the President of the Privy Council through you, Mr. Speaker, that the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act was passed by a minority parliament which set up the principle of having the process carried out by commissions. This matter has been ignored for a long time by various majority parliaments. I could argue that the right hon. member for Prince Albert
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension (Mr. Diefenbaker) and any other member who is concerned about a province losing members could have done this in the previous parliament. The effect of the previous redistribution made as apparent as the proposals of the present redistribution the inequities in the distribution of members as between provinces.
It would be easy for someone like me to say, "Why did you not raise this question in the last parliament and get it over with? We would have had in operation a fairer system of distribution. Why come along now and ask members from provinces which are likely to gain fairer representation in the House to stop the clock? If an election could be held beyond the point at which it would be feasible after the new boundaries are in operation, why ask members to retain their existing position which is unfair in relation to the total population of the country?" I could say that should have been done in the previous parliament. On the other hand, I am rather doubtful whether the President of the Privy Council, as government House leader, would have paid as much attention to arguments along those lines in the last parliament as he is paying to them now. Then he sat beside a Prime Minister who commanded a reasonable majority in the House.
I am inclined to say, "A particular set of circumstances has created an opportunity, and we are prepared to take a real look at the constitutional distribution of seats as between provinces." If the President of the Privy Council really means what he says, that he is going to make sure we come to grips with this problem, and if I understood him correctly we shall do so later this session, and if I can be satisfied that there will be a serious opportunity to come to grips with this question which, when coupled with the amending provision will ensure that there is no hiaitus, then on reflection I think this might be a fruitful operation.
I believe it is one o'clock, Mr. Speaker. I wish to make a few more remarks on this matter when we resume.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, when we adjourned for lunch I had just touched upon the fact that the President of the Privy Council had indicated, as his justification for bringing in this bill to suspend the operations of redistribution, the need for us to have a new look at the whole question of the distribution of seats between our various provinces and the manner in which that works out under the present constitutional arrangements. I had suggested this perhaps might be the kind of parliament in which something could be worked out. It would open up a whole new approach in this area. If in fact it was the intention of the President of the Privy Council that this be a serious job for parliament, there might be some justification for this process. We could argue, of course, that the process could go on and do in fact what he has suggested in this bill. That, of course, is the other side of the coin.
5376

July 6, 1973
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension
I think the time is ripe to look at the basic arrangements for deciding how many seats the various provinces will have. In this connection, I have in my hand a copy of a map originally published by the surveys and mapping branch in 1967. It is entitled "Territorial Evolution of Canada from 1667 to 1949." I recommend this map to hon. members because it reveals interesting aspects of the way in which Canada as we know it today came into being. Presumably in 1949, with the accession of Newfoundland, we reached the end of territorial evolution for the foreseeable future. This may be some justification for taking a new look at the situation.
Throughout the whole of our history, parliament has been faced with this conundrum posed by geography and population density. The arrangements now in existence represent an attempt to solve that question. The fact is that arrangements which were useful and necessary in 1867 do not necessarily apply today, and that some of the ad hoc arrangements which were entered upon in earlier years have become increasingly unrealistic.
If one looks at this map one recognizes that in succeeding parliaments over a long period there has always been a certain amount of give and take in our federal state in an effort to work out something which would be generally fair and acceptable. One of the small maps on the sheet shows the territorial situation as it was in 1873, the year in which the province of Prince Edward Island entered confederation-as we have all been made aware in recent weeks. In the immediately preceding period the fifth and sixth provinces had entered confederation, Manitoba in 1870 and British Columbia in 1871. One thing which struck me immediately when I looked at this map was that in 1872, British Columbia having recently acceded, the area of that province represented roughly 50 per cent of the total area of Canada contained within the boundaries of the provinces. This may come as a shock to members from Ontario and Quebec who are used to thinking in terms of the present boundaries of those provinces. This is a good example of the kind of give and take which existed, because when British Columbia entered confederation it was agreed that the province should have six seats in the Commons and six seats in the Senate. Its population, for this purpose, was deemed to be about 60,000.
I have not done research on this aspect of the matter but I assume that MPs then sitting in this chamber represented roughly 10,000 electors. The existence of the Indian population was disregarded at that time; they were not considered to be "persons" for election purposes. Recognition was given to the fact that here was a whole new area coming into confederation, roughly doubling the size of the area within provincial boundaries, and it was decided that British Columbia should be entitled to a minimum of six seats, even though its actual population was only 10 or 12 thousand. Prince Edward Island, which came into confederation a year later, was given four seats. Prince Edward Islanders may be aware of the Island's population at that time, but I would estimate that the population might then have been in the vicinity of 40,000. In other words, their representation approximated the population basis and the question of the size of the province was disregarded.

I represent a constituency which is not one of the larger ones in British Columbia. Nevertheless, it is roughly half the size of the province from which the President of the Privy Council comes. You could put Prince Edward Island in the middle of my constituency and not be much more than aware of its presence. Yet, as I say, my constituency is not one of the larger in British Columbia. I am pointing out that throughout our history recognition has been given to circumstances of this kind. Consideration has been given to what is described in the legislation as special geographical factors including, in particular, the population density or relative rates of growth of the various regions and the special community or diversity of interest of the inhabitants of those regions. No one would quarrel with the suggestion that in a federal state the inhabitants of a province share a special community of interest.
In my view, any serious revaluation of this process must begin with recognition that the existing basic provision in the constitution about the relationship of the number of members sent by a province to this place with the number of Senators from a province, is outmoded and unrealistic today. If it is felt we should take a rational look at the composition of the other place, this would involve a radical revision of the number of senators there. However, I submit this ought to be considered as a separate question.
I like the suggestion put forward by my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre that we could achieve a worthwhile purpose, for example in relation to Prince Edward Island, of not decreasing its membership in the House if we were to adopt a formula to provide that a province could be entitled to one member for each 25,000 of population up to, say, the first 100,000. After that point, the number of members from a province would decrease in relation to total population. A formula of this kind would remedy a situation which is of obvious concern to members representing provinces such as Manitoba and Saskatchewan. It would also help answer the conundrum which perpetually faces provinces such as New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, at least if their populations do not change greatly.
I should like to point out, too, that though we have probably reached the limit of our territorial evolution we have not yet reached the limit of what I might call our constitutional evolution. I have in mind the territories of Canada which between them embrace more than one-third of the total geographic area of our country. I think there is some validity to the argument, if one has in mind a situation parallel to that in respect of British Columbia when it entered confederation, dealing with vast geographic areas. Any new formula must recognize the principle enunciated in the boundaries readjustment act. The principle to which I refer has been used in the case of the territories where the population is deemed to be somewhat larger for the purposes of representation in this House.
Apart from the question involving the territories and the problems that will develop when they attain provincial status, I suggest our constitutional framework is pretty well complete, at least in so far as the immediate issues of this House are concerned. There is always the possibility of union between provinces, but- we need not concern ourselves with that at the moment.
July 6, 1973

The time has come to take a whole new look at the question of drafting a bill which would prevent representation decreasing in the provinces, while at the same time removing the increasing inequities which have developed in relation to the number of members in this House and the number of members in the other place. If we can come to serious grips with this problem in an expeditious way, then perhaps we will not delay the redistribution process. We will then not be thinking in terms of two or three elections on the basis of the present electoral boundaries in the provinces and the same number of seats. If that can be done, I think this will be worth-while exercise.
When the President of the Privy Council introduced the bill I think he was deliberately vague and did not give us concrete ideas in respect of what the government thought we might do during this exercise. He said the government would be putting some proposals before us. But I think it would be worth while, having listened to the discussion, if before this debate ends the President of the Privy Council would be more specific regarding the approach, approaches, the alternative or alternatives that should be taken, without transgressing the normal rule about giving details of a bill before its presentation.
This general exercise involves all of us as members of parliament. I think the President of the Privy Council will agree that although he may be proposing the bill on behalf of the government, basically he will be proposing it as a member of parliament who happens to occupy a particular position in the scheme of things at this point of our history and it should be considered carefully. I feel we must take the time to develop an idea of how we should arrive at appropriate redistribution, and we should at the time consider how over the last 100 years we have arrived at our present position. Perhaps we should remember the give and take which has existed at various points in time during the course of our territorial evolution, and bear in mind as well the rapid growth which has taken place in our population during this accelerated trend since the end of World War II.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, I was quite impressed by some of the sensible remarks of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett), especially those in respect of section 23 of the act which is now to be emasculated. Bill C-208 will likely prove to be one of the most disgraceful pieces of legislation to come before this House. This legislation says to some Canadians: You are entitled to two, three, four, five or even eight times more say in the affairs of this country than other Canadians who happen to live in growing, burgeoning urban areas of Canada.
This legislation says to Canadians in these burgeoning areas of Canada: Because you are productive and your communities are growing, because you happen to live in new homes and apartments, you do not rate. That is too bad, because some members of this House who come from small ridings want to protect their establishments, their preferred positions and their communities. The powers are suggesting, through this legislation, that those who support this bill are in favour of the concept that fairness does not matter, that representation by population does not
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension matter and be damned to those things. They are saying that the large ridings must be protected.
The Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act was passed a short time ago and was intended to protect against gerrymandering and to give some strength to the concept of representation by population. It was intended to give Canadians generally protection against the kind of thing now being presented to the House of Commons in this bill introduced by the President of the Privy Council. I say to you and to this House, Mr. Speaker, that all Canadians are equal; there are no Canadians who are entitled to two, three or even eight voices; all Canadians should have an equal voice in the management of the affairs of this country.
There are monstrous changes taking place in the world. People are moving from the farms and rural areas to the cities in all parts of this world. There are more people in Canada today than in 1961 and, indeed, in 1867. We must expect more changes. When looking at the records in connection with representation in this House, I discovered that in the election following the entry of Prince Edward Island to confederation that island had six seats on the basis of representation by population. One can see from this that there have been massive changes in population. If my riding had representation on the basis of population as it existed in respect of Prince Edward Island, there would be eight members representing Peel South in this House.
In 1961 my area was a township with a population of about 75,000. In 1968 it became a town, and on January 1, 1974, it will become the city of Mississauga. That town presently has a population in excess of 200,000, probably 215,000. The growth rate is such that more people are moving in every year than lived in the Northwest Territories at the time of the last election. On the basis of representation by population, according to the 1971 census, my city of Mississauga is entitled to two members in this House of Commons. It is entitled to two votes on matters which come before this House of Commons. It is entitled to two ombudsmen to answer the problems of the people who live in my city. It is entitled to two offices for members and it is entitled to constituency help on the basis of twice what it is getting today. That is on the basis of the 1971 census which, with the growth rate of my city, is totally wrong; none the less, it is on the basis of the 1971 census.
With the present growth rate, assuming ridings in this country were to stay approximately the same size, by 1981 as a result of a redistribution following that census my city may well be entitled to four representatives in this House. Yet the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen), coming from a riding that is likely to disappear as a result of redistribution, proposes that one of his people is entitled to three times the vote of a person who comes from my city of Mississauga at the present time, and that ratio is likely to become worse and worse. The result of this particular bill is that we could well have another federal election and a parliament lasting to 1978 or 1979 and the inequities could become greater and greater. I have been asked by members of my party not to speak out because some of them are worried about their seats.
26446-50J

July 6, 1973
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Alex Blenkarn: I have been asked by members on the other side not to speak out because they are worried about their seats. But I tell you, Mr. Speaker, that I am concerned about my people in Mississauga. I think they are entitled to a fair shake and are entitled to be heard. My people are already entitled at this time to two members in the House of Commons. Are they expected to settle for one member in the House of Commons until 1981 or longer?
If this bill should be passed, is it not possible for this House of Commons, controlled perhaps by members with much seniority coming from smaller ridings, to again insist on another delay in redistribution because, after all, we might as well wait until the results of the 1981 census, and after that another census, and so the whole question of representation by population would be thrown in a cocked hat? In the name of fairness, this bill should not be proceeded with. It should fail.
Much has been said in this chamber and outside about the activities of the provincial commissions in dealing with arrangements within each province for the distribution of seats in the province. When the first map came out dividing the town of Mississauga it did not present a realistic breakdown of the town along communication lines within the town. As a result of representations made by the town and by the two major political parties-the NDP could not bother-the commission paid attention to the requirements of the people living in the town and made a division of the ridings to which Mississauga is entitled into two proper, distinct sections. No one wants to see his town divided. No one wants to see his town underrepresented either. So that division took place and I commend the commission for a job well done in the province of Ontario. I suggest that commissions in other provinces probably would have done a more satisfactory job had the members from those provinces made sure they were properly represented before the commission and had done something about what they describe as inequities. Those inequities could have been corrected if they had paid attention to their job.
As a member coming from Ontario and having talked to other members from the province, I can say that the commission in that province did a fair job so far as possible in making apportionments of the province to take into account geography and to some extent to take into account transportation and sociological factors. The commission came up with what can be described only as "well done".
Some members have said that the number of members in this House should be increased to 300. That supposedly would protect people. But we know, of course, that once we increase the number of members to 300 and our population increases, we eventually would have to change this chamber around completely. We really would not accomplish very much in that way. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that a member of parliament with the proper tools, with the proper constituency offices and with the proper secretarial help to handle the job-as suggested by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni-if he should have a large geographic constituency perhaps should be given extra travel money. Some of the activities of the Treasury Board in respect of the House of Commons budget today

discriminate against the use of air travel for getting around a riding, and against help for riding offices. This makes the problem of communication enormously expensive and exceedingly difficult. If this could be resolved, it would solve many of the concerns of members with large ridings. However, there is no particular reason why this House of Commons should be expanded just to protect the peculiar vested interest of some members, and I include the right hon. member from Prince Albert, to keep their seats.
It is about time we had a rethink in this country. If we are to start attacking representation by population, perhaps we should attack some of the other vestiges of protectionism which exist under the British North America Act. Is there anything really inviolate about provincial boundaries? Just because provinces entered confederation as a group, is there anything that says their boundaries and limitations are sacrosanct? If the province of Saskatchewan and the province of Manitoba are losing seats, are losing population and are losing vitality, is there any reason why they could not talk about amalgamating? The same might apply to the provinces of the Atlantic region. Is there any reason why an island of perhaps 120,000 people should be represented by four members in this House of Commons, other than the fact that it has been a province for 100 years?
If we are to start talking about the fact that representation by population is not proper, let us attack the real problem. The real problem may be that some people in this country because of history say they have a vested interest, and I suggest they have not. Members from Saskatchewan and Newfoundland do not want to talk about preserving their present over-representation.


Mr. Baker:: Give them Ottawa East.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: I for one want to talk about the real justification for their maintaining in different provinces, when I look at the amounts of money transferred by the federal government to those provinces, separate institutions, from county courts to supreme courts, to special Senate seats. I think we must recognize this.
Some hon. members think that because they represent a great deal of territory in Canada their constituencies should have more than one representative in this House. I refer to the bill presently before the House introduced by the hon. member for Northwest Territories (Mr. Firth). I say that he represents a territory equal to about one-third of the size of Canada, but I also say that he does not represent the tundra, he does not represent trees and rocks and he does not represent territory. He represents people. I, also, do not represent pavement, apartments, office buildings and airport runways. I represent people. We represent citizens in this country, we represent voters. We come here as their delegates. We are the delegates of people, not of acres of land, of square miles, of hundreds of miles of shoreline and that kind of thing. We are here to represent Canadians.
Just because our system divides groups of Canadians into constituencies which allows those groups to pick representatives and makes possible a voting system does
July 6, 1973

not mean, under any circumstances, that you represent a territory that is your feifdom or your seignory. I do not represent the town of Mississauga or the town council; I happen to represent Canadians who live in the riding of Peel South. Those Canadians pay taxes to Ottawa. Some of them who live in the riding of Peel South earn their living in other parts of Canada, in other ridings, and they have interests in those ridings. Some of those Canadians have summer cottages in other ridings and investment in the Northwest Territories, in ridings in the province of Quebec and the province of New Brunswick.
I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that the oil in the province of Alberta does not just belong to Albertans or to people who say they are Albertans. It belongs to Canadians. I happen to represent Canadians who come from the riding of Peel South, and the members from Alberta represent Canadians who come from ridings in the province of Alberta. But they all have interests in other parts of Canada, because Canada has a whole identity. What we must remember is that our ridings are not feifdoms and are not duchies. We are not here only to make it possible for Canadians as citizens of this country to vote on a representative basis, to have a representative in the House of Commons on a population basis to represent them in debates.
It has been said that we should talk about territory. I could talk about territory if I wanted to do so, but I will not speak on that matter. My territory is still pretty big. It is nearly half the size of the city of Toronto. We could talk just as easily about the principle of no taxation without representation. We could introduce another feature into representation in this House. We could talk about the principle that if you pay taxes you get votes, and we could talk about how much taxes are paid. We could talk about the fact that the great golden horseshoe area pays about half the taxes that we spend-or squander, as the case may be-in the House of Commons. If we talk about taxation without representation, we might as well and as easily talk about half the members of the House of Commons coming from the golden horseshoe area. That would be just as sensible as talking about the fact that Ellesmere Island is a huge territory and perhaps should have an additional member of parliament.
I will not suggest to the House the principle of representation on the basis of taxation, but if I did suggest it it could well work out that my riding would have as many members in the House as the provinces of Newfoundland and New Brunswick put together.


Mr. Reid:: The quality would then suffer.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: We do not represent people on the basis of the land that they happen to occupy. Nor do we consider that they are better because they happen to come from a rural area, or because their fathers or their grandfathers owned that farm. We represent Canadians because they are all Canadians and they are all entitled to an equal say in Canada. No one is a better Canadian because he happens to come from an established community, and that is the sense of the bill that is presently before us. That is the sense of some of the arguments that have been presented in favour of the bill. People in my constituency may rent an apartment or a room; they may move from my constituency to a neighbouring one many times. The number of
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension people in my constituency can change rapidly and the names of the people will change rapidly.


John Allen Fraser: I hope not.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Some of the people in my constituency will not be there next week or next month. The only reason we have constituencies is to make it possible at the time of an election for people to vote. My people pay taxes to this government. They are not worried about the fact that those taxes go to protect the outraged parts of this country. They are not worried about the fact that transportation schemes are used without care as to how many people are there, but to tie this country together because they own parts of this country and they recognize that they are part of it. They want to be part of it. One of the problems suggested is that they do not care about the outraged parts of this country. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that they certainly do.
The activities of the leadership of the province of Ontario before dominion-provincial conferences clearly indicate that the province of Ontario has always cared about Canada and has given leadership. It has certainly given better leadership than has this government across the aisle. It is time we got rid of the idea that some people are entitled to be discriminated against because they come from cities. It is time we recognized that while democracy does not just mean representation by population, this principle is an essential feature of any democracy.
It is time to throw out this bill that is designed to preserve inequities. A great deal of attention was given to the present act which allows for a decennial redistribution of the electoral boundaries. Basically it is a good act. There is a problem, however, in that it may be difficult to call an election at a certain time as a result of the dissolution of parliament. A minor amendment allowing an overlap period until the establishment of the new constituency boundaries, allowing use of the old boundaries until the new boundaries could be reorganized in the field, would not be at all wrong. But we do not have to throw out the baby with the bathwater.
It is time we recognized the fact that Canadians are equal. There is no superior Canadian because he comes from a rural area, and no inferior Canadian because he comes from a city. All Canadians are working to build one Canada, to build a better Canada-and we will not build a better Canada, an equitable Canada, a great Canada by discrimination and discriminatory practices.


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, it was with a great deal of interest that I listened to the speech made by the hon. member who has just resumed his seat. If Canadians want to find out why the fires of regionalism and sectionalism still burn brightly in Canada, they have only to read the speech of the hon. member, because he has indicated a profound ignorance of what Canada is and of what Canada is all about. Canada is not Toronto.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

July 6, 1973
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension


John Mercer Reid: The hon. member has presented an argument using the example that hon. members opposite in the Conservative Party all represent Alberta.


John Allen Fraser: On a question privilege, Mr. Speaker, I want to point out that we do not all come from the province of Alberta. I want the House to recognize that the province of British Columbia is properly represented here this afternoon.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. I am sure that the point was well taken, but it was merely a correction.


John Mercer Reid: My point is that the hon. member who finished his speech, in calling for a reduction of the seats that would be available to a province like Alberta is trying to open the door to rape Alberta in the same way as the province of Ontario and the city of Toronto have raped northwestern Ontario. Regional representation is part of the essence of what we are discussing in this bill.
A formula based solely and strictly on representation by population is not realistic in Canadian terms. This country was not put together that way. The historic dynamics of this country militate against that kind of operation. If the hon. member bothers to read Hansard he will find that many people on his side of the House take the same view of Canadian history as do those of us on this side. I sincerely hope, for the good of Canada, that he is a voice crying in the wilderness.
When we are dealing with parliamentary representation we must deal with the two problems that are covered in this bill. The first is the problem of overlapping. If this bill does not pass we will end up with a situation, given that the parties are so precariously balanced in this House, that it would not be possible for us to have an election for a year. Obviously, that is an intolerable situation.
The second point is that the operation of the present act does not provide sufficient flexibility to ensure that regions in Canada will be able to maintain a vestige of the position which it is important for them to have. In other words, we on this side of the House recognize that the economic, taxation and social policies followed by the Government of Canada and the larger provinces can and do have a significant effect on the distribution of population, a significant influence on the way in which wealth is distributed and a significant impact on the economic potentialities of any particular region. That surely, is a factor that has to be taken into consideration when a redistribution bill is developed.
The other point I want to make is that the existing act has significant defects in it, some of which were observable in the first instance in 1965 and which I believe have been shown to be substantially confirmed in a way that the original drafters of the act had not anticipated. Take, for example, the provision to provide a 25 per cent leeway between ridings in a province. There are some provinces where the 25 per cent has been used. There are other provinces where no leeway was used. Surely this is tremendously unfair both between regions in provinces and between provinces. In other words, Mr. Speaker, the act as it has been interpreted by the various commissions had not been logical, has not been reasonable; therefore it has to be changed.

There is a problem involved in the distribution of seats as among provinces. We do have a very great range of the powers and the abilities of the provinces within Canada. No one can deny this. A province like Prince Edward Island is a province not like the others. It is small; it has a very small population. Yet it is entitled to be represented by four members in this House. But P.E.I. was one of the originals in terms of the negotiation of confederation: it joined in 1873. Nova Scotia and New Brunswick also have special positions in confederation as original participants in the federation of 1867. So, Mr. Speaker, we have a whole series of historic precedents bound up in the history of Canada which we cannot ignore and which, if we do ignore, we do so at our peril.
The purpose of this bill is to ensure two things. The first is that we do not end up in a situation where an election is called and we cannot have one. I believe all hon. members will accept that that is a problem which must be dealt with. Secondly, the bill attempts to deal with the problem of the inefficiencies in the act and the way in which seats are distributed across Canada both as between provinces and as between regions within provinces. It is important to emphasize that this is not going to be an easy matter, and so the bill provides for an interruption of the process for only 18 months.
If the government and the political parties are unable to come up with a satisfactory solution, then the bill will lapse and the existing boundaries, after consultation with reconstituted provincial commissions and the holding of hearings, again will proceed forward. So it is our responsibility to come up with an alternative to the system we have.
The current redistribution act is less than eight years old. It has been used effectively only once. We have discovered a great many objections to the way in which it operates. We have discovered it does not take into consideration all of the dynamics of our contry. We shall have to have discussions among ourselves, particularly among members of all parties, to develop another act. Whether this new act will involve the creation of additional seats in the House of Commons or whether it will develop some other formula to distribute seats among provinces and regions is not for me to say.
I want to deal with one other point. It concerns the problem which I and a number of other members share with the hon. member for Northwest Territories (Mr. Firth). We represent vast geographical regions in Canada with scattered populations throughout them. There are no major centres, no large cities; there is a series of rather small centres. Given the existing structure of parliament and the existing powers of a member of parliament, it is simply impossible for a member adequately to serve these areas.
To make the matter even worse, doing all the things the hon. member for Peel South (Mr. Blenkarn) suggested, such as taking on extra staff and opening constituency offices, would not be adequate. Many remote communities are not served adequately with telephones, do not have adequate highways and communications networks. Most of them are still seeking the basic services which people in

larger metropolitan centres take for granted. It is impossible for a member of parliament representing a large regional riding to deal adequately with 44, 45, or 50 municipalities, all of which have problems and all of which come to the member of parliament for assistance in dealing with them.
We need more time to get our and make a circuit of these areas. We cannot do this now, with the way parliament operates at present. With the explosion in government services and in legislation that has come about in the last few years, piling more and more work on the shoulders of the member of parliament, our opportunity for servicing these areas properly is diminishing. Perhaps in future parliaments members who represent large rural ridings will need to decide whether, as members of parliament, they will participate in the activities of this House or devote their time almost exclusively to serving the requirements of their ridings. One cannot do both any more; it once used to be possible. So in arriving at any solution to this problem, we must take into account the fact that there are people up among the rocks, the trees and the tundra who have a right to be adequately represented.
It is a principle of fundamental importance that every citizen should have access to his member of parliament. It is far more difficult for the 60,000 people I represent to have access to me than it is for the people of an urban riding to have access to their member of parliament. He is available, but the member of parliament representing a large rural riding is simply not available to the same extent, by definition. It strikes me, when we talk about a Canada that is to grow and about providing equal service to citizens, that we are talking not only about a formula that will provide for representation on the basis of population but, as well, about a formula giving each citizen access to his member of parliament and the government of Canada. If that does not happen I submit all the rhetoric of the hon. member for Peel South will remain just that, sheer rhetoric, sheer bull!
[ Translation]


Roland Godin: Mr. Speaker, as do most hon. members, I believe that it was quite in order for Bill C-208 to be brought before us, not with a view to delaying the application of new electoral boundaries indefinitely, but simply in order to complete the work of the Electoral Boundaries Commission for the province of Quebec, which is now only in draft form.
For example, if we examine the proposed readjustment of the boundaries of the large riding of Portneuf, which I have the honour to represent, one says to oneself: there are two possibilities: the diagram was drawn either by kindergarten children, or by adults used to making the least effort, and who have tried to draw zigzags resembling forked lightning. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the proposed new boundaries for the riding of Portneuf avoid cities and, in some cases, divide municipalities. The present population of Portneuf is 125,000, far larger than that of Prince Edward Island. Yet the present boundaries of the riding which I have the honour to represent have existed only since 1968.
That is why I say that the report of the members of the commission is just another report and that the members of
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension this commission are just like the members of other commissions, that is they stop forwards, then backwords and end up in the same place. Once again we have an example of an organization which is of no benefit to the public.
Some ridings are having municipalities added on. Others, are having them removed. And in my opinion, whether the unemployed are in one riding or another, whether the students wait for their grants in one riding or another, whether businesses go bankrupt in one riding or another, things won't change very much, little matter what happens after the project is implemented. What they are proposing, more or less, is to displace the boundaries of some ridings and even, in some cases, to move whole ridings. Actually, it is not because a house has been moved that it is more comfortable.
Altogether, this bill merely requests the House to agree to postpone application of another bill which is not beneficial to the people.
Mr. Speaker, it goes without saying that I am completely in favour of getting rid of a mini reform, but I am all for a true reform that would bring results.
All things considered, Canadians are the taxpayers and are entitled to results.
Since the government now deals with everything and goes through everybody's pockets, it is obvious that as members of Parliament we must answer an increasing number of requests, either as regards unemployment insurance or tax matters. We must deal with young people seeking scholarships or other people who experience difficulties with old age pension, family allowances, winter works, expended credit, Opportunities for youth and New Horizons Programs, employment applications, welfare benefit requests, expropriations related to CFB Valcartier or Mirabel airport, the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, postal service, public works, passports, the admission of elder people in homes, the release of prisoners, farm credit, combined retirement pensions of Crown corporations, excise and sales taxes, grants to industries, workmen compensation, work permits, vocational training, military transfers, railway crossings, closing-down of railway stations and repairs to fences of farmers living close to CN lines.
Those are all matters, Mr. Speaker, which lead our constituents to consult us; it may happen that workmen, for instance, are asked to pay a tax which is not justified at all and then we must plead their case. Or else unemployed people must sometimes wait for three or four months to receive benefits; then they must fight against defective computers that refuse to accept payments to which these people are entitled under another legislation.
And so it is within the whole federal administration, Mr. Speaker. Portneuf, the riding that I have the honour to represent, is served by two Unemployment Insurance Commission offices. One is located in Quebec City and the other in Trois-Rivieres.
As for the income tax problems, we can deal for a while with the Quebec City local office, but sooner or later we must go to the source and often apply to the Montreal regional office.

July 6, 1973
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension
As far as social welfare allowances are concerned, which in Quebec are shared equally by the federal government, my constituency is covered by three offices, one in Char-lesbourg, another in Donnacona and the third in Quebec City.
The proposed boundaries in the notorious report change absolutely nothing to the conditions since, even if the report as submitted was passed, we would have to continue to work with the two unemployment insurance offices to which I referred. As for social welfare, we would also continue to work with the three offices which I have just mentioned.
I agree, Mr. Speaker, with the principle of the bill that all members should represent about the same population.
However, I hardly think it is necessary to change the electoral boundaries if we are not doing anything to improve the services to which the people are entitled. At present, as previous speakers have pointed out, there are days when Members of Parliament should be in three different places at the same time.
First of all, they must be in the House to take part in the debates; this is the first reason why they have been elected. Second, on the same day, many members must attend sittings of committees and at the same time remain in their respective ridings or go to the nearest town to make a plea concerning some services of some departments.
As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, it is normal that the member of parliament should support the people who face problems created by the present government. However, to meet adequately the demands of the people, to get tangible results, it is urgent to think about setting up additional services.
Concerning these services, I am pleased to call again for the establishment of what we have already asked for in this House, namely the organization of an office in each riding and the help of a secretary. All departmental offices and those of all government commissions are open only five days a week, the same as those when the House is sitting and all members must be present. It is obvious that a man or woman employed in an office in a riding would have a great role to fulfil.
I think that these persons could become advisers to help people avail themselves of the government services available at various levels.
Unfortunately, until now everyone has had to act in a happy-go-lucky manner, always taking a chance when applying to the Unemployment Insurance Commission or an income tax office whose forms have become like traps since they have been designed by experts always ready to embarrass everyone. But I think that there is a growing need for someone working within the ridings to help people-benefit from all the advantages available.
Yet, over the last ten years, the Canadian government has established about 50 royal commissions of inquiry charged with studying all kinds of matters, all kinds of circumstances. At the end, we are still waiting for results, but I think that we.know very well the present situation in respect of the voters' claims, and I think that it is time to take action.

Setting up an office in each riding to enable the member to stay in contact with the citizens would be, to my mind, an efficient and inexpensive step, compared with some of the questionable initiative taken by the present government.
As the present bill suggests very little to increase the services expected by the citizens, I urge the minister who pilots the bill to take advantage of the extension to be granted by Bill C-208 to draft a bill providing the indispensable and positive measure's which all taxpayers demand.
I also take this opportunity to suggest to the minister that a revision of the constitution be made not only to increase the number of members but to achieve it.
As municipalities and cities develop, as the population grows, I feel that we must act as businessmen. When the customers grow in number, there is but one thing to do: increase the number of salesmen.
Let us therefore quit going around in circles, let us make plans and act to really help the population and meet their wishes. They pay the bill and are therefore entitled to what they request.


Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to say a few words on Bill C-208 which will suspend the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act until December 31, 1974 and provide an opportunity to reassess the situation in Canada with regard to reasonable representation in our parliament.
It was the duty of the commissions concerned to readjust boundaries under the British North America Act. Thus the province of Newfoundland will lose one of its seven seats. The commission was charged with the very difficult task of dividing the province into six electoral districts in a fair and equitable manner. Under Section 13(a) of the act, they were to be guided in their task by population distribution.
Using this guideline, with the 1971 population of the province at 522,000 this would result in an electoral quota for each district of some 87,000. However, Section 13(b) gave the commission the right to depart from a strict population basis in cases where there are special geographic considerations, such as the size of an area, sparseness of population, and special community or diversity of interest of the inhabitants of any province.
There is a particular problem which must be dealt with in the province of Newfoudland and Labrador. The Labrador land mass is an area of some 110,000 square miles with a scattered population of approximately 30,000 people. The commission in their wisdom had to include this with another district. I, as the member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe, was lucky enough to have it added to my district which already stretches along a coastline of some 425 miles. However, if we are to believe in our pledge to the people of Canada to involve its citizens through its members of parliament, then we must be realistic and honour that pledge.
The hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador (Mr. Rompkey) has the task of serving a district which is probably larger than mine. It must be clear to everyone, if

the map of Newfoundland were examined, that to enlarge or readjust western or central Newfoundland because of what someone wrote down on paper many years ago is completely unrealistic.
There is only one simple and fair answer. This bill will allow a reassessment of the electoral boundaries to give Labrador a seat in the House of Commons represented by a member of their choice to serve its Canadian citizens who have been isolated for too long.
I think it is worth mentioning that under our present system the direction of effort in our society is to induce Canadians to go to urban centres. If this trend continues, and with the concept of representation by population, the concentration of representation will be in the urban centres. Further, the political approach toward development will negate the opportunity for Canadians in rural Canada.
There is the danger of ignoring the great and vast resources of places like Labrador and northern Newfoundland, which have been neglected for too long. These isolated communities are always the lowest on the priority scale when it comes to the need for better communications systems and other public services.
There is already a trend toward people going back to rural Canada because of the rat race one has to contend with in the urban jungles in Canada. Surely this emphasizes the need for a new concept of representation taking into consideration the geography of our country.
I read somewhere a statement by an expert that in the 1890's or 1990's everyone in Canada will be concentrated in five or six centres across the country, one of them being Toronto. After listening to the hon. member for Peel South (Mr. Blenkarn), I think all the people in Canada will be moving to Mississauga.
I feel reasonably certain that the member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador, who now serves that section of the province with great ability, will agree that a readjustment must come about and that a reduction in the number of seats will make it much more difficult to give Newfoundlanders, not only in Labrador but also in northern Newfoundland, the representation to which they are entitled.
I hope also that he will not mind my concentrating on this part of the province since we represent districts side by side, and, further, since under the new boundaries Labrador would be included in my district of Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe and will be known, I believe, as Humber-West Coast-Labrador.
I am sure my hon. friends from Newfoundland will bring up other points from the knowledge they possess of their districts and will point out the need to increase representation because of the vast outport character of the province stretched out along the coast, where many hundreds of fishing communities exist, all of which require devoted representation. This cannot be accomplished by reducing the representation.
Under the bill now before us, Mr. Speaker, parliament will have 18 months to find an alternative to the proposals of the ten electoral boundaries commissions. There cer-
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension tainly is need for reform. Postponing redistribution provides time to avoid the unpleasant prospect of half the provinces of Canada losing seats in the House of Commons.
I hope this bill will pass after all hon. members have had an opportunity to make a plea for the interests of their own particular districts and that we will immediately deal with the consideration of the changes necessary to bring Canadians the representation they deserve in a fair, equitable and humane manner for the betterment of our nation.


Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with some care to the arguments which have been made in favour of this bill. In particular, I listened with care to the arguments advanced by the hon. member for Peel South (Mr. Blenkarn) who opposed the bill. I, too, oppose the bill, but I wish the hon. member for Peel South had used some of the other arguments which were available to him rather than those he did; I do not think the ones he used did credit to members who oppose the bill. I believe there are good and legitimate grounds for opposing the bill, grounds which are not related to narrow or special interests.
The speeches made so far in this debate show that members who represent large rural areas are, generally speaking, in favour of the bill. I have yet to hear any argument which deals directly with clauses 2 and 3, which hoist the effect of the recommendations of the redistribution commissions. The argument is this; we need a hoist for 18 months in order to effect the kind of changes necessary in constitutional fairness.
Why cannot the process continue? Why should it be necessary to hoist the effect of redistribution? I see no reason a committee of the House cannot be formed to deal with the subject and allow the commission to continue its work. I have no difficulty in accepting the argument which calls attention to the technical problem which arises because the Chief Electoral Officer would be unable to effect the necessary changes if an election were called in the near future. That is a legitimate contention. But why is there any need to hoist the effect of the law? The only reason appears to be that some provinces are going to lose seats. I submit that it is not beyond the ingenuity of man to solve this problem quickly. A number of solutions are immediately available on an interim basis. The effect of what we are doing in this bill will be to compound an injustice to two provinces-British Columbia and Ontario. I have yet to hear an argument which deals with this issue.
I listened with interest to the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon) who also opposed this bill. He told the House that he had travelled through Saskatchewan and found it had been denuded of population. Well, Mr. Speaker, I know where the population has gone. It has gone to British Columbia. Most of these people live in my riding. I hope those members from Saskatchewan will keep in mind, when they vote on this bill, that their expatriates would like to enjoy fair representation, as they used to in Saskatchewan when the population there was greater.
Many arguments have been put forward about the question of rural and urban ridings. I suspect a red herring here. First, there is a substantial provision in favour of

July 6, 1973
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension rural constituencies contained in the law presently in effect. The hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Harding) indicated he was unhappy about the size of his riding. This is a matter which can be looked after under the law as it stands. There is no need to hoist the law in order to bring about changes in that respect.
The fact is that areas whose populations are falling, or increasing at a slower rate than populations elsewhere, enjoy the benefit of a large number of safeguards. First, there- is the provision for Senate representation. No province can lose any of the Senate seats allotted to it and its representation in the Commons must not fall below that number.
Then there is the section of the British North America Act, Section 51, which imposes a 15 per cent limit on any change. Whenever redistribution takes place, representation in a province cannot drop more than 15 per cent. There is also the provision that no province can be represented by fewer members than one of smaller size. For example, New Brunswick has 10 seats because it has 10 Senators. Newfoundland has seven. The difference in population is very narrow. It is entirely feasible that were Newfoundland to gain 100,000 population the province would increase its representation by three members, because it would have to be brought up to the level of New Brunswick. My argument here is intended to demonstrate that a lot of constitutional protection is already given to rural ridings, so I do not weep too many tears when I hear some hon. members cry because they are losing one seat.
Let me draw attention to the situation in British Columbia. The last census which was effective in terms of our representation took place in 1961. Our population at that time numbered about 1,600,000. If this bill goes through we shall have no chance to gain any benefit from redistribution until some new formula has been worked out, perhaps not until the mid-seventies or later. By 1971 our population had grown to 2,200,000. In the course of ten years we gained more than the entire population of Newfoundland. So the effect of this bill, if it is passed, would be to compound an injustice to my province.
The argument presented by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) and others is this: we shall develop a workable formula within a period of time. I do not have much confidence that the House will develop such a formula. I have been listening to the regional jealousies expressed around the chamber and I am not at all sure we shall be able to arrive at a workable formula. The result of this hoist may well be that in July of 1975 we shall be right back where we are today, and the injustice perpetrated against Ontario and British Columbia will continue. This is just not fair.
Consider some of the other anomalies which arise. The hon. member for Peel South emphasized his urban problems somewhat excessively, I thought. Frankly, I feel sympathy with the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) and with hon. members from other very large ridings, and I believe special provision should be made to assist them. My argument is directed to the necessity for this proposed hoist. Why should it be vital? The hon. member for Yukon needs help, of course, and perhaps more representation. We cannot be narrow about this question and approach it on the basis of provincial considerations alone. There has

to be some kind of compromise. What I am suggesting is that we have always had compromise, and the people who are working toward the hoist of this bill are the people who want a larger compromise. I think we should turn our attention once in a while to the needs of the urban riding, because the problems arising in this country in future will be in the urban areas.
There is not enough time spent in this House dealing with the question of urban transportation, urban pollution and urban crime, which is becoming a national problem. It seems to me that when we are dealing with the question of representation we might consider how much time we are allocating to urban problems versus rural problems. I suggest to you that question in respect of wheat, oil and national transportation have used up a lot of the House's time at the expense of city problems.


An hon. Member:: You don't need oil.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: But we get oil. Somebody once said that the problems of this country have developed in this way. First of all, we have the federal government with all the money; then we have the provincial governments with all the jurisdiction; and finally, we have the city governments with all the problems. The effect of this bill is to increase the cities' problems by reducing representation, and I suggest that is unfair.
We have spent $1,350,000 of taxpayers' money on this commission so far. A lot of competent and skilled people have spent a lot of time on this task, and their work is almost complete. I understand the report will be presented in the fall. I urge this House to allow this commission to complete its work. The solution to this problem is not an easy one, and the efforts of some hon. members in the House have not helped. I do not think this measure will bring about a quicker solution.
I agree completely with that clause of the bill which suggests that we should not allow the effects of redistribution to complicate the immediate problems. I am sure the opposition would like the opportunity to bring on an election, just as the government would when the time is right and appropriate; but the delaying effect of the bill would simply compound the injustice to certain provinces, and I do not think this should be allowed to happen.
What are the solutions? We could suggest an immediate freeze so that no province would lose members without restricting representation in those fast-growing areas of Canada, and there must be a reasonable compromise in respect of rural areas. Perhaps a better solution is a floor that could be developed on the basis of square miles versus population; and perhaps in some way we could devise and implement an acceptable formula throughout the country to stop this anomaly in respect of representation in Prince Edward Island.
The hon. member for Peel South (Mr. Blenkarn) represents a riding with a population of about 172,000 as compared to the riding of the hon. member for Cardigan (Mr. MacDonald), who represents just over 20,000 people. I might say that I have been in Cardigan and I know that you can ride around it on a bicycle in a day. It is not a giant community.
July 6, 1973


An hon. Member:: You could ride around Peel too.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Yes, but there are not 172,000 people in Cardigan. In any event, that is the kind of anomaly that upsets people, and this bill does not solve the problem. I suggest it does not contribute to the solution. I see no reason whatsoever why a committee of this House could not deal with this problem. I urge hon. members to defeat this bill and allow this commission to make its report. It has tried to do a good job within the constitutional limits it faces.
I have no hesitation in saying this is a matter that crosses party lines in all provinces. It is not a narrow, sectional matter. The members of the commission recognize the necessity of compromise, but these compromises should not be all one way, as I suggest they may be if the tenor of this debate continues along the lines I suspect it will.


Mr. Paul E. McRae (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support this bill which will suspend the present redistribution scheme until such time as we can give some real thought to better methods of achieving equity in respect of this very serious matter. I happen to represent a riding which, as a result of the first proposal of the redistribution commission in Ontario, was completely wiped out. In the second proposal it was brought back almost intact. I must support the committee in its work, not just because it brought the riding back intact, but because of the fact that the problems it faced were tremendous.
I perceive two basic problems. The first relates to the whole idea of community of interest. It is very difficult for a commission in a province the size of Ontario to obtain this community of interest. The hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt) has forgotten that there is some cleavage between southern and northern Ontario. I think I am the third or the fourth member of the government to speak in favour of the bill. When you have a province this size it is very difficult for any group of people to come into a community and understand the situation.
Even though my riding was wiped out and brought back almost intact by the second proposal, the commission left out a very small area, approximately 100 acres, which is the heart of the community. This is the part where the old families and even the grandparents still live. They were cut right out of the riding, yet this was the part of the community which was known as the city of Fort William.
This is the kind of community of interest I suggest a commission from outside is not able to perceive. A lot of redrafting of boundaries has been done, but the effect has been to cut across some of these very important lines of community of interest.
The other basic problem this commission had was in respect of the great variation in the size of ridings in Ontario. One hon. member suggested earlier there was a 50 per cent variation up and a 50 per cent variation down. Actually it is a 25 per cent variation up and a 25 per cent variation down. This is not really a significant variation, but I would ask those of you who have seen the maps to look at the new riding of Albany-Nipigon. It is an unbelievable monstrosity. At the east end it borders on the Quebec border, and on the west it runs just 150 miles from
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension Winnipeg. It goes to the Manitoba border at the James Bay-Hudson Bay point and from there to Lake Superior. How does a member deal with the people on the shores of Lake Superior, and be in contact with the people in Winisk at the other end?
One of the points raised for consideration by the hon. member for Peel South (Mr. Blenkarn) was the idea of accessibility. It seems to me one of the principles that apply is that if you have representation you have access to that person representing you. But how is a member who is in Cochrane going to be accessible to people in Winisk, 500, 600 or 700 miles away? This is the kind of problem that this commission had in northern Ontario resulting from the difference in population size between the two censuses. There was a growth rate increase of 5 per cent between the two censuses, while at the same time we lost two seats in northern Ontario, though admittedly one of these seats was reinstated as a result of the second proposal.
These are two of the very difficult problems that faced the commission, and the members frankly admitted they saw no way of really doing an appropriate job unless the variation of 25 per cent was increased. I think a 33 per cent variation would probably have left the boundaries of the ridings in northern Ontario intact. However, the commission had no choice but to work within its limits.
I think there are other implications we have not considered, and I should like to deal with them for a few moments. Canada is a country of great conflict and contrast. We have areas of strong growth, particularly in that triangle from Montreal to Ottawa to Toronto, including the golden horseshoe. Vancouver is another area with a heavy growth concentration. The golden horseshoe is an area of great economic wealth, and I suggest that political power goes hand in hand with economic power.
There is one interesting thing about the golden horseshoe that I am surprised the hon. member for Peel South did not mention. I refer to the fact that in Toronto there is a growing concern about overgrowth, about becoming too big.
I hear hon. members from the golden horseshoe area, especially metropolitan Toronto, talk about the Pickering airport and say that we do not need it. They talk about a greenbelt in the province of Ontario to prevent this kind of growth. Is this the kind of situation in which we should concentrate more and more political power when we want to accommodate a situation of new growth? In the out-lands of this country-and I represent such an area-there are decreasing populations in percentage terms in respect to other areas, and there are lower growth rates. If this bill should pass we would have a considerably declining political power. The wealth of this country, the oil which has been referred to, the power and the energy, must come from these outland areas. We hear people beginning to say we should be doing some of the processing in these areas, that we should be doing some of the secondary as well as primary processing.
We need growth in our area. If it is said that Toronto has grown too much, then why is it not said that we should use whatever resources we have for the purpose of moving the

July 6, 1973
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension growth out? We have such plans as DREE and ARDA. Political power is needed in these areas to bring this about. I believe we should at least retain the political power we have at the present time.
I would be very concerned if I were the hon. member for Peel South (Mr. Blenkarn) and had a riding containing close to 200,000 people. I do not think there is any justification for having a riding of that size, and I understand his problem. However, I think when we look at ridings like the Northwest Territories, Kenora, Nipigon, Cochrane, or these unbelievable ridings which are being created and which will be far worse than those we have had in the past, even a population of 50,000 may be too large. I think this bill will give us time in which to consider very carefully the needs of the country and allow us to develop some notions in respect of redistributing growth, leaving some political power in those areas where the growth should be.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for New Westminster rises to ask a question.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member did not direct his attention to a point which I had hoped someone would bring up. What answer would he give me to the question why it is necessary to hoist the effect of the redistribution report, and why could not all the things he wishes go on without the necessity of the 18-months hoist?


Paul Edmund McRae: Because I think the redistribution will have taken place at that particular point. You need political power to gain the economic power which should flow to your area, or to gain the growth which should flow to your area.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to enter this debate. At the outset I wish to say I support the bill which is before us. I want particularly to congratulate those hon. members who have brought pressure to bear on the government in urging it to take steps to postpone the implementation of the newly drawn boundaries and to re-examine the electoral mechanism with the ultimate aim of providing for a more equitable system of representation.
I should like also to state that I wish particularly to congratulate the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) who was instrumental in bringing this issue before the House. I know also that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) had some very apparent interest in this matter and I congratulate him for the influence he may have had on the government in this particular case. I suspect he may not have been too happy about facing the right hon. gentleman in the next election.
This 29th Parliament is somewhat different from the usual Parliaments we have experienced in the past. The make-up of the House, I believe, is unique. The situation is rather fluid. In the normal course of events members of parliament who were elected in 1972 would serve their constituency for a period of four years. I believe the electorate also anticipate that they would have as their representatives for the next four years those whom they elected in 1972. In the normal course of events an election would not be held until 1976 or perhaps 1977, and during

that period of time the readjustment process could take place in an orderly fashion.
Given that fact, I find it difficult to understand the objections of some hon. members to having the new boundaries postponed until the end of 1974. I really cannot understand the hue and cry, because in the normal course of events we would be functioning with the existing boundaries until 1976 or until 1977.
I believe it is fair to let the electorate know where it stands in so far as who will be its representatives at least until the year 1974. I also believe it is fair to let the elected representatives know where they stand. I think it is true- many members have alluded to this fact-that an election in this minority parliament could occur at any time and could certainly create a great deal of confusion, depending upon the stage of the implementation of the boundaries. Normally anyone who has aspired to office would know exactly where the boundaries of his constituency were. The sitting member of parliament would under normal circumstances know whether ne was functioning on the basis of existing boundaries or whether in the next election he would be looking at a modified constituency or even a new constituency. If we were to have an election this fall, in the spring or perhaps next summer, as has been suggested by some members, we would function on the basis of the existing boundaries.
I find no objection to the extension of the existence of the boundaries we have now until the end of 1974. This bill simply sets out to define the boundaries should an election be called any time prior to 1974. I certainly find nothing wrong with that, and in view of the present circumstances I think the measure will provide some order and stability. It will define boundaries for sitting members, for those aspiring to office and for the electorate at large, and I believe this is important. I also believe the proposal is reasonable and responsible.
The second objective of the bill is to examine, and hopefully prescribe, a new mechanism for the establishment of new electoral boundaries, and to consider, among other things, the desirability of increasing the membership of the House of Commons. I certainly agree with that proposal. Under the current redistribution process we know that the provinces of Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, Quebec, Manitoba and Saskatchewan stand to lose seats, so I believe this point must be considered very seriously, particularly in light of the fact that this may have a serious and a detrimental effect on the electoral power and the electoral process of the rural areas of Canada.
It is worthwhile noting that even those provinces which do not stand to lose seats under the redistribution process now before the House will lose rural representation very heavily. These rural ridings are swelling to unmanageable proportions, and as a rural representative I simply cannot accept this proposition. The province of Alberta, while maintaining its level of 19 seats, stands to lose three rural seats, and I believe that is wrong. I will have more to say about this in my remarks later, but I believe that in the process of redistribution the commission failed to take into consideration the 25 per cent tolerance factor as well as some of the rural realities which should be considered.
Hon. members have expressed concern about the lack of representation for large numbers of voters in urban con-
July 6, 1973

stituencies. Undoubtedly they have a valid point. However, I think that it can be countered with the argument that the enormous rural areas which will emerge as a result of the redistribution process will deny many rural people the right to effective representation.
The size of some of these rural ridings is enormous. They cut across natural boundaries and they cut across special community of interests. Among other things, many people in the rural areas are confused by the whole electoral process. The electoral boundaries within which we are now operating have served us for two elections. Many people have become used to the fact that they belong to one constituency, but now they are being tossed back into another constituency in which they voted five or ten years ago. Certainly there is no absolute way in which the rural people will get the kind of representation to which I believe they are entitled, at a time when government has a great deal more influence, and in many cases interferes to a much greater extent, in the everyday course of their lives, if we allow our rural boundaries to expand ad infinitum.
I believe it is wrong and totally undesirable that the provinces which I mentioned should lose seats. I believe it is wrong and undesirable that we should emasculate our rural areas through simple mathematical formulae. While the problem may not be totally overcome, I believe we must take steps to alleviate this difficulty at least partially, and if we cannot overcome it completely the process should be slowed down.
So I welcome the review process which will come about as a result of the passage of this bill. I believe we must seriously consider the advisability of increasing the number of seats in the House, and to this end I hope that this measure will make some headway.
I say this for a number of reasons. First, as I said before, the federal government is involved more deeply today in the affairs of individual Canadians across Canada, so naturally the workload of individual members is much heavier and the demands are greater. I think the role of a member of parliament can be divided into three basic parts: his role as legislator, his role as an ombudsman to his people, and his role as a communicating link. All of these roles are very important.
We must also recognize the fact that parliament now sits nine to ten months of the year, and the expansion of rural ridings in particular makes accessibility to the people individual members represent very difficult. I believe that the sheer size of some of the rural ridings that have emerged as a result of the redistribution process will make it physically impossible for many rural members of parliament to serve their areas effectively.
Some hon. members have mentioned the fact that perhaps we should be provided with additional secretarial staff, executive assistants, and so forth. While this may be a partial solution, I do not believe it would provide a satisfactory answer. I think constituents who have a problem with the policies of the federal government want to deal with their elected representative, not with a secretary or an executive assistant. This may work to a degree in
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension some urban areas, but I think in practice it would be ineffective in rural areas.
Many hon. members have mentioned the uniqueness and the diversity of interests in rural areas. I must reiterate this point, particularly in view of some of the speeches that were made by urban members. The rural riding consists of several communities. We have some metropolitan areas within the boundaries of rural constituencies. We have labourers and farmers, and we have some industry. In many areas there is a national park which requires extra special attention. We have Indian reserves and innumerable municipalities, towns, and chambers of commerce. Agriculture is the basic industry in most of the rural ridings, and as it happens most of the policies which affect agriculture emerge from the federal government. So it is the federal government upon which the people engaged in agriculture depend rather than the provincial or local governments. I think urban ridings have better access to government offices. Most cities have representatives of the various departments located there, which is not the case in rural areas.
I hope that in the formula devised as a result of the reviewing process that is anticipated in this bill many of these realities and circumstances will be taken into consideration. I believe we must acknowledge the fact that Canada is a vast country which extends from the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific Ocean and that the problems of the west are not those of the east. The viewpoints of members of parliament from British Columbia or the prairie provinces differ from those of Ontario or Quebec. Of course, within these provinces also there is a great divergence of opinion. However, I want to point out that, whatever the formula devised, I hope those charged with responsibility for administering the formula will be obligated to follow the rules which are established. If not, there should be some alternative course of action. In my opinion, this has not necessarily been the case in respect of the present act under which we have been operating, particularly in the last redistribution process.
I could refer here to the province of Alberta where the Electoral Boundaries Commission completely disregarded the 25 per cent tolerance factor and the uniqueness of rural areas. I want to say, with all due deference to the learned members who have served on the Electoral Boundaries Commission for Alberta, that they did a lousy job. May I call it four o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being four o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely public bills. Is it the agreement of the House that the bill to be called is Bill C-34, in the name of the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis)?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

July 6, 1973
Criminal Code (Abortion)


PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS
[Stage Direction]
[ English]

Winona Grace MacInnis: that Bill C-34, to amend the Criminal Code (abortion), be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
She said: Mr. Speaker, this bill standing in my name has been on the order paper for a number of sessions now. This year it is accompanied by one sponsored by my colleague, the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt). Both are designed to do what the government's bill of 1969 failed to do-that is, to bring the matter of abortion into the twentieth century.
The 1969 legislation widened the grounds for legal abortion to some extent but left the glaring injustice of the situation unchanged. Domestic and other pressures have kept the government policing the bedrooms of the nation, despite the fact that over 60 per cent of the citizens have declared their belief that the decision on abortion should be made solely by the woman concerned and her doctor.
The New Democratic Party is well aware of the deep differences of opinion regarding abortion, and this is precisely the reason the bill proposes to take abortion out of the Criminal Code and make it the medical and moral issue it actually is. Abortion has no place in the Criminal Code of this nation.
The passage of this bill would permit those who believe in the necessity for abortion to seek it legally as other medical procedures are sought. Those whose conscience is opposed to abortion would continue, as now, to have nothing to do with it, but as legislators we would have put an end to the present unfair and cruel legal situation which permits a minority to force its will on the majority of the citizens.
[ Translation]
Early in April 1973 Le Devoir published two editorials signed by the editor, Mr. Claude Ryan. Mr. Ryan wondered quite seriously whether the sections of the act dealing with abortion had not been made obsolete by subsequent events. He referred to two recent events which and I quote:
... lead one to believe that in this delicate issue, the law has perhaps lagged behind real life.
The first signal was given in La Presse on March 19 when Claudette Tougas, a reporter described how, during the previous weekend, she had witnessed legal abortions performed in New York State on some thirty Quebec women.
Mr. Ryan would have liked to read:
"an article more concerned with understanding the painful reality hidden behind the decision to have an abortion".
But he made the following comment:
The brutal fact was nonetheless made painfully clear. Every week, Canadian citizens cross the United States border to seek a

'service' that they could not obtain at home under the same conditions.
The other signal came from a doctor made famous by the legal difficulties he has encountered for having performed abortions under conditions not in accordance with the laws of Canada. Dr. H. Morgentaler boasted that he had performed some 5,000 abortions over the past few years, and invited Mr. Claude Castonguay to approve his abortion clinic.
Reflecting on those two signals, Mr. Claude Ryan expressed his opinion in these terms:
Regardless of what one may think of abortion from the moral point of view, these facts force one to wonder whether present laws correspond to the social reality of 1973. To say the least, one must recognize that it is very doubtful. One can rightly question whether the present legislation is efficient, as well as whether it always reflects the real convictions of the citizens.
And I continue the quotation:
As far as efficiency goes, the new law passed in 1969 has given undeniable results. In addition to the fact that those results have been very patchy from one province to the other, every day brings proof that they fall far short of reality.
| English]
Now let us turn to Canada's other great central province, the province of Ontario. Under the editorship of Doris Anderson the magazine "Chatelaine" has shown itself capable and courageous when it comes to leading modern crusades. Ten years before the present abortion legislation was passed it was pressing for legalized abortion, and it is still at it.
In a signed editorial in the June, 1973 issue Doris Anderson refers to past events and to the 1969 legislation in these words:
But the law doesn't work. Some doctors won't have anything to do with helping a patient get an abortion. No Roman Catholic hospitals will perform abortions on the liberalized grounds, so in a town with only a Catholic hospital women find it almost impossible to get an abortion. Many women still have to go to the back street butchers or, if they can afford it, go out of the country to get abortions.
She continues, and I agree with her completely:
Let's make it clear right here that no one is suggesting that birth control is not preferable to abortion.
And may I add that in my opinion abortion is not the first line of defence against an unwanted pregnancy. It is not a desirable method of birth control where contraceptives are available.
Nor are we suggesting that anyone whose religious beliefs do not allow birth control or abortion is being pressured to go against her convictions in having or performing an abortion. But contraceptives sometimes fail. Ignorance and irresponsibility can't be legislated out of the human race. And birth control information in Canada has only been legally available since 1969 and is only patchily available today.
"Patchily available" is right. A search a year ago by the Department of National Health and Welfare found in all of Canada 26 family planning clinics operated by local health clinics, 22 hospital clinics, and 16 run by voluntary agencies. There are also services available in some general health units.
In May, 1972, the then president of the Family Planning Association of Canada, Dr. R. M. Roulston of Winnipeg, stated in Ottawa that provincial and municipal governments "are not establishing sufficient or adequate facilities for family planning." He found Canada particularly
July 6, 1973

deficient in making those services available to native people and to young people. He stated that statistics show that about 20 per cent of all induced abortions are in girls of 18 or under. No wonder that this year's president, Dr. Lise Fortier of Montreal, urged in May in Vancouver that "contraceptive pills should be made available through whoever meets the health needs of the community-nurse, pharmacist, storekeeper."
In my view those people who are today using all their energies and emotions in fighting to keep abortion in the Criminal Code would do well to look at the consequences. They are certainly not preventing abortion by so doing, but they are forcing women who can afford it to seek abortions in other countries or other parts of Canada. They are forcing low income women or those who live in remote areas to run the risk of employing the incompetent and illegal practitioner. They are forcing young people to remain in a state of ignorance and confusion about sex and pregnancy. They are forcing women to give birth to unwanted and unneeded children. They are forcing the majority of the Canadian people to keep a law which, they believe, is unjust and completely unable to meet the needs of today.
Other countries are waging more vigorous campaigns of birth control and sex education than we are in an effort to create that assumption of personal responsibility without which no law involving people can work effectively and well. A recent United Nations report states clearly that in none of the countries where abortion has been liberalized by legislation does it appear that abortion is "advocated as a desirable method of fertility limitation."
That is probably part of the reason why last, February within one week 551 doctors in France, including four Nobel Prize winners, signed a declaration calling for the liberalization of the ancient abortion laws of that country. Each of these medical men confessed either to having performed an abortion in the past or to having assisted women who sought abortion. In taking such action they risked a ten year jail term and a fine of up to $15,000. But like our own Dr. Morgentaler they have found themselves unable to wash their hands of the matter and piously leave women to suffer the tortures and dangers of a pregnancy which they did not want, for which they were only parly responsible, and which, in far too many cases, they did not know how to prevent.
This is the reality and the hypocrisy of the whole matter of keeping abortion in the Criminal Code. This is where the injustice lies. I have tried to keep my remarks in low key, without touching on those horrors so often depicted graphically and in words when this matter is discussed. I want this to be a cerebral discussion. I want the facts to decide what we ought to do.
So, Mr. Speaker, I come once again to the terms of my bill. Briefly, it asks that we do with abortion what we have already done with birth control. Incidentally, the action eventually taken had been resisted fiercely since about 1870, when, I think, birth control was first included in the Criminal Code. We ask that like birth control, the abortion provisions be deleted from the Criminal Code and left as a matter to be decided between doctor and
Criminal Code (Abortion)
patient. Only in this way can we get rid of a bad law which is forcing people to resent its dishonesty and to circumvent it in any way they can.
If the government is unwilling to finish the job it started in 1969, I urge it at least to send the subject matter of this bill to a committee, where the long-evaded public debate the government has promised even since 1972 may find a proper forum. We hope that from such a committee there will come a report that will bring Canada abreast of the very challenging times in which we live.


Mr. Gaston Isabelle (Hull):: Mr. Speaker, again I must congratulate the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis) for always returning to the highly controversial question of abortion. I know that through Bill C-34, she wants all that to be deleted from the Criminal Code in order to lighten the burden of the innocent victims of those mishaps of youth and of those accidents due to the emotional disturbances of the September years.
At any rate, Mr. Speaker, when a fully affluent society such as ours shows through headlines in the newspapers that abortion on request, abolition of capital punishment for murderers, Olympic Games, shorter working hours and higher salaries seem to have priority in Canada, I wonder whether one should not cast a glance behind, shut his eyes and listen to the roars of the Roman forum, when on the eve of decadence, people used to shout: "Bread and games!" I believe there are much more important things in Canada than those emotional problems and that although they deserve looking into, they should be the last on the list.
The hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway mentioned as an authority the man who, in Quebec is sometimes a pope, sometimes a prophet, sometimes a moralist, and sometimes a president, namely Mr. Claude Ryan. Had he lived in ancient Chaldea, I think he too could have written something on abortion, but he would not have changed anything that happened since man has been dealing with abortion, namely since 4,600 years B.C.
I believe abortion is something against nature and that one must resort to it only in an exceptional case, as provided for in the present legislation in Canada. And it is only because it goes against nature that abortion has been a controversial subject since 4,600 years B.C.
Going back to the most ancien known writings on abortion, dating from 2,000 B.C. we find that Chaldeans decreed the death penalty against a man who had attacked a free man's daughter, as opposed to a slave's child, and had raped her. If this girl died the aggressor's daughter was killed. Of course, the penalties were much less severe if the girl was a slave.
We can also talk about what was going on in the XIth century. We can also talk about the Old Testament. We can as well retrace certain Egyptian texts dealing with the prohibition against abortion. But in Gaul the woman was glorified. She is described as being beautiful, with a lovely figure, tall, of indomitable courage, prolific, an excellent nurse, skilful in farming and in conception, sowing children and wheat. She was the symbol in the Gaul life of the strength forever creating while man was often only a destroying force.

Criminal Code (Abortion)
The Gauls had the right of life and death over their wives and children. One can look back to the days when Hippocrates, the father of medicine, said in his oath, and I quote:
I will give no deadly drug to any, though it be asked of me, nor will I counsel such, and especially I will not aid a woman to procure abortion.
Hippocrates went further, even giving midwives the details of a preparation liable to provoke delivery. It must be noticed that in the days of Hippocrates abortion went unpunished if provoked when the foetus was not alive.
One can also refer to the days of Aristotle, or even Plato, who asked that abortion be mandatory for women over 40. And in ancient Rome abortions were often practised but in a clandestine way.
In the days of the Roman Republic and under the Empire it seems there was a trend towards this type of abortion which was becoming increasingly frequent. It must be noted that at that time if a parents agreed to the abortion it went unpunished and I said earlier the foetus was part of the mother and there was no punishment as long as the baby was still in the embryonary state.
But what is surprising is that if one looks back again to those ancient times Ovid reports that in Rome women between the ages of 25 and 30 were considered old. And today in our society of abundance I wonder if we will not go back somewhat in time to prove in a vivid way that there is nothing new but new men.
And they were saying that women were old at 30 and they had to be aborted so they would preserve the beauty of their bodies and the flexibility of their muscles and therefore they should not longer conceive. They wanted to keep a youthful and attractive chest, a smooth belly and the rosy hue of their skin.
However, there was a violent reaction from the state and Cicero can be quoted as saying:
It destroys the hope of a father, the mainstay of his name and his race, the heir of his family and a citizen meant for the Republic.
Mr. Speaker, the abortion issue has surely been widely discussed and it will continue to be. But as I said at the beginning, when dealing with an anti-natural problem, we constantly run the risk of being waylaid which would prevent us from implementing further the legislation approved by the federal government.
I think that this legislation was normal, since the Criminal Code did not include any clause to protect the medical profession whose members had, at times, to perform such operations to save the endangered life of a mother.
I feel that law is wise because a study of the history of abortion throughout the countries of the world reveals that, at some time or other in their history, they had to rescind their laws which often were too lax, specially with regard to abortion. I am thinking of Russia and Switzerland, but not of France which still has very ancient and conservative methods in this regard. But even today, pressures are being exerted in France which are making the headlines. But I am convinced that the French government

will not change the law of 1920 nor the amendment adopted, I believe, in 1942.
As for England, it is now considering rescinding the law because it is so law that I believe there has been abuse. Moreover, Mr. Speaker, when one looks at the statistics of various countries, and especially Japan, one realizes that the number of suicides has increased appallingly among women who had abortions.
As a doctor, I can assure the House of this: an abortion does provoke a psychological shock in the young girl who has had "an accident of nature".
I do not want to enter into the details of the life of these men who made history. I do not want to talk about the theories of Thomas Aquinas, of his master Albert Magnus I do not want to speak about the quarrels of Alphonso de Liguori neither of Aristotle who claimed that male people or men-for those who do not know that male men- received a soul 40 days after conception whereas the women got one 80 days after, and I wonder why.
In any case, Mr. Speaker, I think that the matter of the foetus is quite debatable but one thing is certain, I cannot understand the attitude of those who are in favour of the abolition of the death penalty for murderers but who are in favour of abortion on a very large scale.
There is certainly a contradiction which I cannot understand.
If today we can admire Canada and especially the province of Quebec which has an average rate of birth lower than is the rest of Canada, it is of course by accepting legislation similar to that which has often been accepted by some countries. The age of affluence will no doubt lead us not perhaps to collective suicide but will affect our Canadian dignity us all its forms, especially the birth rate.
The fact that the honourable member wants to amend the criminal code, will not I think solve the problem; some people might perhaps benefit from it, as they will not be prosecuted. In the case of those who had an illegal abortion, especially those who unfortunately had mishaps I think that prosecution in Canada very seldom followed.
I suggest that it is much more important, whether it be provided in the Criminal Code or not, that women who resort to illegal abortion should realize the full implications of their act. We considered thoroughly in committee the contradictory views which were submitted to us, and I recall that at the end, it was difficult to know who was in favour of abortion and who was against it. We finally came to the conclusion that approximately 52 per cent of those who tabled briefs were against abortion, and almost 48 per cent were in favour of a very liberal legislation.
I suggest that the legislator was wise to amend the Criminal Code in this case, so that those people whose job is to save lives would have something to go by in case of legal prosecutions. And it is at the request of the Canadian Bar Association and of the Canadian Medical Association which, in 1966, presented a brief to the government to that end, that this amendment was made. I am very pleased that amending the whole legislation on abortion does not rank with this government as a priority item. At any rate, I think that this legislation is here to stay that is is an excellent one, and that it is designed for all those who can
July 6, 1973

use it, whenever their grounds are justified, when the life of the mother is in danger.
I suggest that this is the best way to continue to apply a legislation which will never be outdated, Mr. Speaker, because for many centuries it has been applied by all other countries which, at a given time of their history, came back to much more rigid punishments and penalties about abortion.


Mr. Walter C. Carter (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, at the outset I want to go on record as opposing the bill presented by the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis) and being debated this afternoon. Before 1954, all abortions in Canada were illegal. The 1953-54 statute specified that abortion was permissible only if the mother's life was in danger. In 1969 the Criminal Code was amended to permit abortion if the mother's mental and physical health was in jeopardy.
In my opinion, the amendment before the House today, Bill C-34, is simply a licence for abortion on demand. In this matter one should not take a partisan stand, but rather each individual must take a personal, ethical and moral stand in line with one's own philosophy of life.
It is irrelevant whether abortion is in the Criminal Code of Canada or is not. The concept of abortion should be rationally and morally comprehensible to each in his own way. If one works from the premise that the fetus is a living human being-and I hold to that position since the scientific evidence of biologists proves without exception that human life begins at conception-then the matter of abortion involves a change in the whole basic concept on which our laws of society are founded, that of equality of all human beings before the law and the dignity of human life. It is useless to have a conference on human rights if we are to deny the primary right to life itself. The measure of a society is in direct proportion to the protection it gives to its weakest members. In this country we should not say there is no room for these innocents because we cannot feed or clothe them.
However, Mr. Speaker, our government has seen fit to place abortion within the legal confines of this country. Before discussing more liberal abortion proposals, it should be mentioned that laws governing abortion must mesh with other social legislation to provide a completely comprehensive approach. Many women find motherhood a happy prospect but resort to abortion because they cannot extricate themselves from difficult living or working conditions. Unless there are sufficient opportunities for them to maintain an acceptable standing of living through fair labour regulations and easier access to day care centres, simply liberalizing the abortion laws will not solve anything.
Recent Canadian studies have uncovered the alarming fact that many women are using abortion as a means of birth control, either because of ignorance or lack of concern. There are a number of steps which in my opinion should be taken in this regard. For example, the Department of National Health and Welfare should withdraw all existing policy statements supporting abortion as a
Criminal Code (Abortion)
method of secondary birth control. It should publish literature emphasizing that abortion is not an acceptable method of secondary birth control.
Another alternative to abortion is, of course, carrying the pregnancy through. There is a consensus among medical authorities that a mother's feelings toward pregnancy in the early months are no indication of her feeling toward the baby once it is born.
In addition, in a classic study in 1961 it was determined that only 6 per cent of the mothers who did not go through with abortion after receiving legal permission for the operation regretted giving birth. In a great majority of cases the woman had not encountered the difficulties she had imagined would arise with the advent of the child, nor had her health been impaired or her marriage rendered unhappy.
It would appear, therefore, that if women carried their so-called unwanted pregnancies to term there would be little detrimental effect to them. Thus, women should be encouraged and assisted in continuing their pregnancies. Further, it has been shown that by supporting women through pregnancy the pressure for abortion significantly decreases. We must therefore be willing to adopt social policies which will reach out to these women and help them in a practical way.
Some of the positive alternatives to abortion, in my opinion, might be set out as follows:
1.	More extensive education about the facts of pre-natal human life.
2.	Counselling services for pregnant women to direct them to health care available to them.
3.	Establishment of agencies to assist distressed pregnant women to carry their babies to term.
4.	Special programs to help unwed mothers: public education to eliminate the social stigma often attached to unwed mothers.
5.	Improved home-maker service and day care centres.
6.	Make low-income housing available suited to family life.
My final recommendation is to change the law so as to protect the unborn human child. The World Health Organization of the United Nations stated in 1948 that member nations were to accord the utmost respect for human life from the moment of conception onward. In 1959 the United Nations adopted the declaration of the rights of the child in supplementation of the universal declaration of human rights. The preamble to this declaration stated, in part, as follows:
Whereas the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth ...
I emphasize the word "before" as well as after birth. The declaration then goes on to declare some of the principles adopted:
Principle 4
The child . .. shall be entitled to grow and develop in health. To this end special care and protection shall be provided both to him and to his mother, including adequate pre-natal and post-natal care.
Principle 8

July 6, 1973
Criminal Code (Abortion)
The child shall be in all circumstances the first ro receive protection and relief.
Principle 9
The child shall be protected against all forms of neglect, cruelty and exploitation.
As a member of the United Nations, Canada has already committed itself to uphold the rights of the unborn child. The legislature in the province of Quebec also recognized the humanity of the unborn in its recent amendments to the Civil Code on January 1, 1972 which provide in part as follows:
Article 18. Every human being possesses juridical personality. Whether citizen or alien, he has the full enjoyment of civil rights except as otherwise expressly provided by the law.
The legal recommendation would be that the homicide provisions of the Criminal Code ought to be amended first to guarantee the protection of the law to the unborn and to those whose status as human beings might at some future time be questioned.
In concluding my remarks, may I say I am surprised that the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis) has seen fit to introduce this amendment. I am reminded of a speech she made in this chamber on March 30, 1971 at which time she made an appeal to the Minister of the Environment and Fisheries (Mr. Davis) to ban the slaughter of baby seals. During part of that speech she stated this, which is ironic in this context:
The minister could well have added that for years the members of this House have been flooded with letters, postcards, petitions, etc. from people who want to put an end to the senseless and needless cruelty of the seal hunt.
No doubt most members of this House have been flooded with correspondence of the same type from religious leaders, social workers, members of fraternal organizations, mothers, and other concerned citizens, urging us not to support this amendment. Surely these people have as much right to be heard as those who were objecting to the slaughter of baby seals, and I include in their number the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway. It is interesting to note the way in which the hon. member concluded her remarks that evening. She was quoting a well-known journalist on the need to abolish the seal hunt:
We pay prairie farmers not to grow wheat. Why not pay maritim-ers and Newfoundlanders not to kill baby seals?
And the paradox, the irony of it all, Mr. Speaker, lies in the hon. lady's final remark: "Why not, indeed? The good name of Canada is at stake."
[ Transla tion]


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, once more, we must discuss the abortion issue in this House, and following the motion moved by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis) who would like all provisions concerning abortion removed from the Criminal Code, since we are far from agreeing on this motion, we must put forward our ideas and make our representations.
Mr. Speaker, I think it would be shocking if all provisions concerning abortion were removed from the Criminal Code, because unfortunately, in our society, there is a tendency to kill innocent people and to forgive criminals. If we listened to all the false slogans, we would live in a

topsy-turvy world where innocents would be killed and criminals freed.
This statement may sound drastic, but it is true and accurate, because the concept to the effect that we must respect the life of others must be retained in this House and in our society as a whole.
Mr. Speaker, there are many arguments that could be set forth concerning the human being, the foetus. Some people claim that the foetus is not a human being. I disagree completely on this point and I agree with most medical, religious and social authorities, knowledgeable people who have studied this problem.
Mr. Speaker, in committee several years ago, when the abortion issue was once again before the House, we heard physicians who came to give us explanations and very valid and precise information about the life of the foetus and related human considerations. At that time, we carried on a fight in this House which lasted more than three weeks in an attempt to prevent any liberalization of abortion laws and to prevent the performance of abortions on demand in Canadian hospitals.
The hon. members will recall the numerous arguments that we then put forward. They will also recall the numerous quotations from doctors and medical authorities who agreed with us.
Our point of view, Mr. Speaker, is mostly the total and integral respect for the life which is in the foetus or in the potential human being. Nobody has any right to destroy a foetus, an innocent being, who will become in a few months or a few days a human being.
Mr. Speaker, before going any further, I would like to quote extracts from material that we receive in large numbers on various subjects, and more precisely today I will quote texts on abortion. I would like to quote Pope Paul VI whom, on January 27, 1971, said during a public audience:
Brothers and friends, as you know, there are values which are the touchstones of a civilization; if they are tampered with, man himself is threatened. Therefore, to tamper with human lives, for whatever reason and in any conceivable way, is to disregard one of the essential values of our civilization. Each and every one of us can feel, in his heart of hearts, as an undeniable and sacred principle, a respect for all human life, that which is beginning, which begs to develop or which is declining, but especially that which is weak, unprepared, defenceless, at the mercy of others.
The recent Council strongly insisted on this: all life is sacred. Except in case of legitimate defence, nothing would ever authorize anyone to dispose of anyone else's life, nor of his own. Contrary, if need be, to what is sometimes thought and said around us, let us repeat and repeat again: abortion as well as euthanasia is homicide.
Brethren and friends who are listening to me, this life which is yours, he lives of your parents, of your children of all men, these fragile and so short lives, remains in spite of all painful experiences, our most precious wealth. This is an element of faith for those among us who believe in Christ and to whom the Gospel teaches that our death on earth is the way to eternal life.
From the same document I quote again:
"Human life is sacred." The Hindu-European religious tradition, at the origin of Hinduism, Judaism, Christianism and Islamism, is
July 6, 1973

that all human life, including embryonic life, has a dignity which comes from the relation between man and his Creator.
Before I formed thee in the belly, I knew thee; before thou earnest forth out of the womb, I sanctified thee. (Jeremiah 1,5)
Mr. Speaker, I could quote many other documents that would corroborate what we have so often quoted in this House to demonstrate that the motion before us today is completely unacceptable as far as moral, society and justice are concerned. The foetus wants to live, to be born; society today needs members for tomorrow. We need to build a society, not to call for minor arguments that allow abortions for all sorts of reasons, giving all kinds of excuses.
To conclude, Mr. Speaker, I regret that the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis) has presented such a motion and that is why we cannot accept it because we in parliament must respect human life, the future of our society.


Mr. Raynald Guay (Parliament Secretary to Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, it could appear that all has been said in this House on the abortion issue as that question has been well debated.
We heard a number of erudite speeches on that subject which went from medical to sociological aspects, setting the pros and the cons.
As I do not pretend to be an expert on the subject, I will only give my own views and I am convinced that it is the views of my constituents.
In September 1971, I received from Archbishop Maurice Roy of Quebec City a submission on birth control and abortion which had been reviewed by the Canadian Roman Catholic Episcopate during the conference on human life which took place on April 25, 1971. Doctor Morris who delivered an outstanding address, concluded by these words:
One of the particularities of most advanced societies is their solicitude towards their most deprived members: the poor, the sick, the handicapped, the mentally ill and the forssaken. The more a society grows towards maturity the more it respects dignity and human rights. The duty of the elected leaders of our society is to protect all its members and to provide for their needs so that no individual or group of individuals could be the victim of another person or another group. It is essential that all members of the Canadian society observe the assessment system for the weak, the aged, the disabled and its members without defence in their mother's womb.
That is in brief what our duty as legislators should be. Any argument in favour of abortion has an opposite view. For instance, some people invoke the over-population problem. If we must face this problem, we ought to find other means than killing the youngest members of our society. In fact, are they trying to remedy unemployment by killing the unemployed, to do away with poverty by killing the poor?
Moreover, as a Quebecker, I should be twice as opposed to such a legislation because as things are going in Quebec, we shall soon face the opposite problem if our birth rate keeps on decreasing. In fact, it showed a decrease of about 12.5 per cent last year. What shall we do with all the manpower now responsible for educating our youth, since
Criminal Code (Abortion)
schools are emptying? Where will governments, at all levels, find their revenues if the number of taxpayers levels off or decreases? We now have some unemployed, though in a reasonable proportion, because compared with the rate in other countries, we shall soon face a much more acute problem, that of manpower shortage.
Of course, all these problems could eventually be more or less solved by immigration. But I do not think that this is really a solution which Canadians would want. In any event, I, as a Quebecker, could not be much in favour of immigration for my province as everyone knows the problems which the province is experiencing, particularly in the Montreal region, with the integration of these new citizens into the community.
Furthermore, if only to respect the opinions of my constituents in this matter, I must vote against liberalizing the legislation passed in 1969.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to read a letter which I have received from more than 2,000 of my constituents.
Dear Sir,
As my representative the federal government, I strongly request you to oppose Bill C-142, an Act to amend the Criminal Code (abortion).
I am absolutely against abortion! No one has a right to decide whether a human being is to live or not. The promoters of abortion hold that a woman has a right to dispose of her own person. She has no right to sacrifice her child for selfish reasons such as comfort, leisure, financial security, etc.
Indeed, women are entitled to proper guidance, appropriate sexual education, suitable housing, special medical care and adequate protection. She also has a right to bear her child in dignity, no matter what the circumstances are. Our legislators would be much wiser to approach more positively social problems which are a source of worry to our society, instead of evading their duties by condoning the murder of unborn babies. We strongly urge you to make laws favoring the protection and the enhancement of human life.
We hope that you will strongly oppose this bill that would ratify the murdering of an innocent.
Mr. Speaker, I answered that I too was opposed to any extension or liberalization of the present law, that only therapeutic abortions are now allowed and performed in accredited hospitals, only when they are approved by a medical committee, that I considered this law as sufficiently liberal and as not needing to be more liberal.
I shall then abide by what I promised my voters and vote accordingly, that is against this bill which would extend a law that I already deem broad enough.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, I wish to take about 60 seconds to outline my support for the presentation given by my colleague from St. John's West (Mr. Carter) earlier in the debate. His presentation, research, evidence and documentation constituted a very sound argument which conforms to the philosophy and outlook I have, and I believe is representative of the view of the vast majority of the people whom we represent in our ridings.
One of the major arguments advocated by proponents of abortion on demand-and that term, to me at least, connotes a certain indignity and a certain disrespect for life in general-is the fact that there are many young women outside of wedlock who find themselves in positions of

July 6, 1973
Criminal Code (Abortion)
perhaps difficulty because of pregnancy. I should like to support the argument made by my colleague for St. John's West that there is need for special programs for unwed mothers and for consideration of the social stigma attached to those circumstances.
People from rural parts of the country have experience and understand exactly what the public attitude is in our country, and presumably in many other countries, toward people who are pregnant outside wedlock. All of us and the nation as a whole must work toward finding a solution to this situation.
If one follows the argument that in these circumstances abortion should be free and easy, then in certain countries where the so-called marriage institution has not reached the stage it has in our country you would have to eliminate half the population. I had an opportunity a few years ago to visit certain countries to the south of ours where a vast majority of the population had been born outside what we would consider in this country to be the normal marital institution. I believe these arguments must be more carefully investigated before we are able to accept anything in the way of major modifications such as have been advanced by my friend and colleague from the west coast of this continent.


Mr. Ralph Stewart (Cochrane):: Mr. Speaker, I wish once again to reiterate my opposition to abortion and to the proposition put forward by my hon. friend from Van-couver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis). It amazes me how an abolitionist such as she can at the same time be in favour of a law that would condone abortion. Just as my hon. friend from Hull (Mr. Isabelle) pointed out a while ago, it seems there is a definite contradiction here. I find it very difficult to understand how someone can be in favour of allowing a known criminal to live yet at the same time advocate that an innocent babe in its mother's womb should be killed. To my way of thinking this is wrong.
It is not only a medical question, it is a moral question. This whole matter has to do with our moral code. Let us not forget that our code was founded on the Judeo-Chris-tian attitude and that morality is one of the things that has allowed us to become a great nation. So far as I am concerned this kind of law will never be passed in this country, and I am glad to know that the present Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang), as long as he is minister, will never allow this kind of law to be passed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: It being five o'clock, this House stands adjourned until Monday next at
2.	p.m.
At 5 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, July 9, 1973