1973-07-09

PRIVILEGE


Mr. Peter Reilly (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege arising out of remarks I made in this House approximately two weeks ago. At that time I interrupted the remarks of the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) in an unparliamentary fashion. When admonished by Mr. Speaker, I promised to interrupt in a similar fashion in the future.
In both these actions I offered an affront to the dignity of Mr. Speaker, to the House and to the freedom of speech of the right hon. member for Prince Albert. My reasons for these actions are not material here. I recognize that all members of the House, regardless of whether their actions coincide with my beliefs, are entitled to ask questions and to speak without interruption. I apologize to you, Mr. Speaker, for my conduct, and through you to my colleagues in the House, and particularly to the right hon. member for Prince Albert. I trust that as I gain experience in this chamber I shall commit no further breaches of parliamentary courtesy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
[ English]

[Stage Direction]
i
Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, on June 29 I tabled the final recommendations of the Helsinki Conference. I now wish to table in both official languages the text of my statement to the Conference on security and co-operation in Europe, of the Canadian submission to the Conference and of the communique issued by the Conference.


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the urgent and pressing circumstances arising from allegations and reports involving the construction of certain federally financed student co-operative projects in Ontario, I beg leave of the House under Standing Order 43 to put the following motion:
That this House urge the government to immediately institute a full public inquiry under the Inquiries Act into the facts surrounding the tendering practices, construction, financing and administrative procedures with regard to certain federally financed student co-operative projects in Ontario, including Rochdale, Pestalozzi, Neill Wycik and Tartu.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The motion requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is no unanimity.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I too, rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity pursuant to Standing Order 43. In view of the inequities being experienced by workers affected by labour disputes because of the interpretation of section 44 of the Unemployment Insurance Act, whereby workers who are not benefiting by strike action and whose unions are not involved, are affected in that they are not receiving unemployment insurance benefits, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Hamilton West:
That this House instruct the Minister of Manpower and Immigration to investigate and report no later than two weeks from today's date on the appropriateness of the current interpretation of section 44 of the Unemployment Insurance Act, and the need, if any, for amendment thereto.


Mr. Speaker:: This motion, also, requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is no unanimity. The motion cannot be put.

July 9, 1973
Order Paper Questions WATER RESOURCES


LOW LEVEL OF KOOTENAY LAKE-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION
Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, under the terms of Standing Order 43, I seek the unanimous consent of the House to present a motion of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the unprecedented low levels of Kootenay Lake this year and of the damage and inconvenience caused thereby to the many residents and resort owners along the lake, and in view of the fact that large amounts of water are being spilled by the West Kootenay Light and Power Company and that no regulatory power or regulation exists to control this low water situation, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands:
That this House of Commons instruct the appropriate standing committee to examine this situation and to make recommendations to the government so that immediate action may be taken by the appropriate agencies in the event of similar problems in the future.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.) [Text]
Mr. Olaussen: 1.	What was the amount, in dollars and percentage, of the total profit that foreign-owned corporations took out of Canada last year?
2.	What was the total amount of subsidies given to foreign-owned companies last year?


Mr. Herb Breau (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: In so far as Statistics Canada is concerned: 1. Estimated dividend payments by Canadian subsidiaries to foreign parents and affiliates and profits of unincorporated branches of foreign corporations amounted to about $500 million in 1972. This amounted to 7 per cent of the total after tax profits of all financial and non-financial Canadian companies in 1972.
In so far as the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is concerned: 2. $5,128,220.01


Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	Was Mrs. Ann Maiko of Vegreville, Alberta, employed by the Department of Labour, or any other department or agency of the government during the past two fiscal years and, if so (a) what position did she hold and at what compensation (b) what were the terms of employment and compensation?
2.	Is she currently employed and, if so (a) what position does she currently hold and at what compensation (b) what are the terms of employment and compensation?


Mr. John M. Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: 1. Mrs. Ann Maiko of Vegreville, Alberta was employed by Statistics Canada from August 18, 1972 to February 9, 1973 as a Labour Force Interviewer. She was paid at the rate of $2.10 per hour when conducting surveys and received compensation of 13.5 cents per mile if use of a car was required.
2.	She is not currently employed by the Government of Canada.


Mr. Madill: 1.	Does the federal government contemplate acquiring land for immediate residential and other development purposes as a means to alleviate the lack of supply of serviceable land and, if so, will these purchases be near or adjacent to areas of fairly rapid urban growth?
2.	What would or will be the anticipated price of serviced lots in these government-owned or developed localities based on (a) land costs per lot (b) servicing costs?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Slate for Urban Affairs):: 1. The Minister of State for Urban Affairs has established a capital budget of $100 million per year for five years for the acquisition and development of land, commencing in 1973. Substantial additional funds (in excess of $100 million per year) are available to provinces and municipalities for sewage treatment facilities. Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation is authorized to join in partnership with any province or territory under the costsharing arrangements of Section 40 of the National Housing Act, for any such project that a province or territory may initiate. CMHC will be able to make loans to provinces and municipalities for these purposes under Section 42 of the NHA, and to make either loans or to enter into cost-sharing arrangements of the New Communities Section, Section 45 of the NHA, when Bill C-133 has been enacted. The responsibility for initiating such projects will remain with the province or municipality. To date in 1973, Newfoundland is the only province that has approached the federal government with a request for funds for the purpose of acquiring land for residential and other development purposes.
2 (a) and (b). The price of serviced lots will vary from municipality to municipality, depending on such elements as location, terrain, level of servicing required, and impost charges, and it is not possible to estimate the prices in advance.
July 9, 1973


Mr. Caouette (Charlevoix): 1.	What were the conditions laid down by the Department of Transport for a grant of $12,000 to the airport of Bergeronnes a few years ago and of $10,000 this year?
2.	Were these conditions met?
3.	If no conditions were laid down, for what work was the grant made?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: 1, 2 and
3.	The $12,000 grant to the airport of Bergeronnes has been approved but not yet paid out because the village has not met the condition that they register a restrictive covenant in favour of the federal Crown against the title to the airport land, and furnish proof to that effect to the ministry. The $10,000 is for brush clearing work carried out under the Federal Labour Intensive Program and no condition was involved for this work.


Mr. Orlikow: What was the comparison between book profit before taxes and taxable income by selected industries for each year since 1968 by millions of dollars as shown in Calura Reports for the following industries (a) metal mining (b) mineral fuels (c) other mining (d) manufacturing (e) construction (f) wholesale trade (g) retail trade?


Herb Breau: Statistics Canada reports that: Information on book profit before taxes and taxable income of corporations in Canada for years 1969 and 1970 (the latest year available) as provided in "Corpo-
Order Paper Questions
ration Taxation Statistics, 1970" is shown in the following table:
Book Proftta>
Before Income	Taxable
Taxes (Net)	Income'"
1969	1970 1969 $'000,000.	1970Metal Mining	610.9	820.0	132.9	217.8Mineral Fuels	311.3	277.2	51.9	61.6Other Mining	105.5	99.8	66.2	61.2Manufacturing	3,581.2	2,850.5	2,808.7	2,374.6Construction	293.7	226.3	296.0	262.2Wholesale Trade	644.5	596.0	632.1	645.1Retail Trade	480.2	501.1	499.7	510.3
Excludes co-operatives, Crown corporations and tax exempt corporations.


Mr. Orlikow: What was the comparison in percentages between the book profits and taxable income by size of corporation in each year since 1968 for corporations doing (a) less than $1 million business
(b)	between $1 to $5 million business (c) over $25 million business?


Herb Breau: Statistics Canada reports that: Information on book profit and taxable income of corporations by sales size is not available, data by asset size of corporation are available for years 1969 and 1970 (the latest year available) however, as follows:
Asset size	Book profit before income taxes (net)a>	Taxable income(1)	Taxable income as per cent of book profit0*	1969	1970	1969	1970	1969	1970$'000,000	Under 1 million	1,459.1	1,178.8	1,555.2	1,560.7	106.6	132.4$1,000,000-4,999.999	777.4	954.4	986.2	938.8	126.9	98.4$5,000,000 and over	7,022.7	6,506.1	4,102.7	3,858.9	58.4	59.3Total	9,259.2	8.639.3	6.644.0	6,358.4	71.8	73.6
"'Excludes insurance carriers, co-operatives, Crown corporations and tax exempt corporations.


Mr. Orlikow: What was the comparison of capital cost allowances and depreciation (in millions of dollars) for corporations in Canada for each year since 1968 showing the amounts of (a) capital cost allowances (b) depreciation (c) the difference between capital cost allowances and depreciation?


Herb Breau: Statistics Canada reports that: As reported in "Corporation Taxation Statistics, 1970", information on capital cost allowances and depreciation for corporations in Canada (excluding insurance carriers, co-operatives, Crown corporations and tax exempt corporations) for years 1969 and 1970 (the latest year available) is as follows:

July 9, 1973
Order Paper Questions
1969	1970


[Stage Direction]
Capital Cost Allowance	4,448.4	4,914.3Depreciation	3,770.9	4,143.1Difference	677.5	771.2
Mr. Orlikow: What was the distribution of net profit before taxes (millions of dollars) for all corporations in Canada in each year since 1968 between (a) taxes (b) dividends (c) retained earnings?


Herb Breau: Statistics Canada reports that: Information on the distribution of net profit before taxes for corporations in Canada (excluding insurance carriers, co-operatives, Crown corporations and tax exempt corporations) is as follows for years 1969 and 1970 (the latest year available):
	1969	1970
	$'000,000	
Book profit before income taxes (net)'1' Distribution	9,259.2	8,639.3Provision for income taxes	3,364.0	3,275.5Dividends r	3,003.7	3,488.6Other charges and credits	708.0	241.3Increase in retained earnings	2,183.5	1,633.9
ll>
As included in Corporation Taxation Statistics.


Mr. Orlikow: What was the book profit before taxes, the taxable income of dollars and the percentage of taxable incomes to book profit for all corporations since 1968 as reported to the Department of National Revenue or to Statistics Canada?


Herb Breau: Statistics Canada reports that: Information on book profit before taxes and taxable income of corporations in Canada (excluding insurance carriers, co-operatives, Crown corporations and tax exempt corporations) for years 1969 and 1970 (the latest year available) as contained in "Corporation Taxation Statistics, 1970" is as follows:
1969	1970


[Stage Direction]
Book profit before income taxes (net) 9,259.2	8,639.3
Taxable income	6,644.0	6,358.4
Taxable income as percentage
of book profit	71.8	73.6
Mr. Orlikow: What reserves for future income taxes have corporations set aside since 1968 as reported to the Department of National Revenue or Statistics Canada and shown up to 1968 in their reports on Corporation Financial Statistics?


Herb Breau: Statistics Canada reports that: The reserve for future income taxes as reported by corporations in Canada (excluding insurance carriers, co-operatives, Crown corporations and tax exempt corporations) and as defined in "Corporation Financial Statistics" is $3,188.5 million and $3,613.9 million for years 1969 and 1970 (the latest year available) respectively.


Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): 1.	What specific portions of the documentary film "Chasebe" were determined to be sub judice by lawyers whose advice to CBC caused the postponement of the appearance of that film on "Format 30"?
2.	Has CBC issued guidelines to its news and/or public affairs agencies indicating what matters might be considered sub judice in (a) the James Bay matter (b) any other matter?
3.	On how many previous occasions has a program been (a) changed (b) postponed (c) withdrawn because all or part of the program was deemed to be sub judice and what was (i) the name of each such program (ii) date of modification, postponement or withdrawal of each such program?


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: I am
informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: 1. The proposed presentation of the documentary film "Chissibi" on the CBC French Television Network program "Format 60" was to involve a panel discussion of the subject raised in the film; CBC's Legal Advisers found that both the voice-over commentary on the film and the subjects proposed for the panel discussion could not be legally presented at this time in view of the continuing trial.
2. CBC Program Policies which are provided to program production personnel include general guidelines on the subject to contempt of court and make the following reference to matters before the courts: "Improperly Attempting to Influence the Administration of Justice. Any comment, argument or suggestion calculated to influence the result of a trial before it is over and the appeal time has expired is contempt. For example, if a commentator comments on the evidence adduced by postulating theories as to how the crime was committed, such comment would be in contempt. It should be noted that appeals from criminal matters may be taken up to 30 days after conviction or sentence and in civil matters, up to 15 days after judgment. Even true matters may sometimes not be reported. Examples would be reports indicating that a confession has been made, or that the accused has a record. As a general rule, nothing should be reported
July 9, 1973

except that which has been admitted as evidence to the jury, or comments of judge or counsel made in front of the jury." No specific guidelines have been issued with respect to the James Bay matter; however, the CBC Legal Department has been frequently consulted concerning limitations upon programming posed by the fact of the continuing trial in this matter.
3.	The Corporation has no record of the occasions when programs have been changed, postponed or withdrawn by reason of the subject matter being sub judice. However in the news and public affairs areas, this is a matter which requires constant attention and producers throughout the Corporation consult with the Corporation's legal advisers on a daily basis to ensure that their programs do not interfere improperly with the conduct of trials by the courts.


Mr. Forrestall: 1.	What is the intention of the Department of National Defence with respect to contracting out the firefighting services at CFB St. Jean to the Municipality of St. Jean?
2.	Will the Department of National Defence negotiate the transfer of its civilian firefighters to the Municipality of St. Jean?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: 1 and 2. The city of St. Jean Quebec, plans to construct a new fire hall adjacent to the Canadian Forces Base and increase the complement of the municipal fire department. Negotiations for the transfer of firefighting responsibilities to the city have already commenced and will include the transfer of personnel and other resources. When suitable and adequate municipal firefighting service is available the only fire protection staff remaining at the base will be a fire prevention and inspection bureau. The basis for the Department of National Defence acceptance of municipal firefighting service is a grant in lieu of taxes paid by the Department of Finance to municipal governments.


Mr. Stackhouse: 1.	(a) What is the listening audience of radio station CJBC (b) what were the operating costs of this station during each year 1970, 1971 and 1972 (c) what was its profit or loss during each of those years?
2.	(a) What is the listening audience of radio station CBL (b) what were the operating costs of this station during each year 1970, 1971 and 1972 (c) what was its profit or loss during each of those years?
3.	(a) What was the viewing audience of Toronto television channel 5 (b) what were the operating costs of this channel during each year 1970, 1971 and 1972 (c) what was its profit or loss during each of those years?
4.	(a) What is the viewing audience of Toronto television station CBLFT (b) what are the anticipated operating costs of this channel during 1973 (c) what is its anticipated profit or loss during 1973?


James Hugh Faulkner: I am
informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as
Order Paper Questions
follows: 1, 2, 3 and 4. (a) The estimated number of listeners or viewers in the course of an average week for the stations in question is as follows: CJBC, 35,000; CBLT, 3,100,000; CBL, 442,000; CBLFT, No audience information is yet available since this station began operations only on March 23, 1973; (b) it has not been customary to require the CBC to disclose such details of its internal management and administration as the operating costs for individual stations. However, a breakdown of total CBC operating expenditures is contained in the Corporation's annual reports; (c) since the CBC is a non-profit public service organization, the terms "profit" and "loss" are not applicable as in the case of commercial enterprises. The CBC is expected to provide and does provide broadcast services far in excess of what could be paid for solely from commercial revenue.


Mr. Laprise: 1.	In what location and for how long has the Meteorological Service experimented on cloud seeding to produce rainfall or fog despersion?
2.	Is the Meteorological Service carrying out such experiments on its own account or at the request of industries, transport companies, groups or associations?
3.	Did the Meteorological Service award contracts and/or subsidies to private enterprise or universities to carry out research programmes or experiments on weather and, if so, what is the amount of each contract or subsidy and the name of the recipient?


Mr. William Rompkey (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: 1. In western Quebec during the period 1959-63 the Meteorological Service conducted an experiment to determine whether cloud seeding with silver iodide had an effect on rainfall over that area. In the vicinity of Toronto, during the past six years, local experiments have been carried out on fog dispersal at below freezing temperatures using dry ice and liquid propane as seeding agents.
2.	The experiments were carried out as part of the Service's research program on its own account but were initiated, at least in part, by requests from other groups.
3.	No contracts or subsidies have been awarded by the Atmospheric Environment Service specifically for weather modification research. However, the Atmospheric Environment Service has participated since 1956, jointly with the Research Council of Alberta and the National Research Council, in a hail research program in Alberta aimed at increasing knowledge of the mechanisms of hail formation and eventual hail suppression or reduction of hail damage to crops. As part of this work, an annual contract for hail research was awarded to McGill University. The amount of the contract with McGill University for 1972-73 was $96,200.


Mr. MacKay: Has the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs any immediate plans to take measures similar to those taken by the Department of National Health and Welfare concerning aid for thalidomide babies?
5400

July 9, 1973
Order Paper Questions


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: There are no such plans since this is a matter of health protection which falls under the jurisdiction of the Department of National Health and Welfare.


Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	Have any representations or suggestions been made for the issuance of a postage stamp to commemorate the centennial of the establishment of the Presbyterian Church in Canada and, if so, from what organizations or individuals?
2.	What has been the response to such suggestion?
3.	What religious leaders have previously been honoured by commemorative stamps?
4.	What charitable, eleemosynary or religious organizations have been similarly honoured?
5.	What was the year of issue of stamps referred to in Parts 3 and 4 above?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Postmaster General):: 1. One, from Reverend T. Melville Bailey of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in Canada.
2.	Within departmental guidelines postage stamps may not be issued to honour specific religious denominations.
3.	Frangois Xavier de Laval was honoured for his contributions to the general development of the French colony and particularly the development of the educational system. Also, the reigning monarchs of England who have been portrayed on Canadian postage stamps have the title "Defender of the Faith" and as such are head of the Church of England.
4.	None.
5.	Laval, 1973.


Mr. Latulippe: During the fiscal year ending March 31, 1973, did the government expend money for the promotion of the tourist industry within Canada and, if so (a) what amount (b) what part of such amount was disbursed in the form of grants to hotels or motels throughout the ten provinces?


Herb Breau: (a) $2,177,500; (b) none.


Mr. Godin: At what age can an Indian exercise his right to vote for the election of the chief of an Indian reservation?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: The age of voting is established by the Indian Act, Section 77(1) as twenty-one years.


Mr. Godin: 1.	On Indian reservations, is the registration of motor vehicles compulsory (motorcycles, cars, trucks) and are the drivers of such vehicles also obliged to have a driver's permit?
2.	Must the person concerned obtain their permit from their respective province or does the government maintain a special office for this purpose?
3.	Are these regulations compulsory or may they be negotiated between the chiefs of the Indian bands and governmental authorities concerned?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: 1. Provincial Highway Traffic Regulations apply to a reserve by virtue of Section 6 of the Indian Reserve Traffic Regulations except where these latter regulations differ. When the Indian Reserve Traffic Regulations do differ, they override the provincial laws. The Indian Reserve Traffic Regulations do not pertain to registration of motor vehicles and reserves are therefore subject to provincial laws with respect to this matter.
2.	The person concerned must obtain their permit from their respective province.
3.	The regulations concerning motor vehicles registration are compulsory and are enlarged by the local policing unit, either RCMP, provincial police or Band Constable. It should be noted that Bands may enact by-laws with respect to Traffic Regulations on Reserve but these bylaws must not contravene already established applicable laws.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Was an application or request received on or about March 9, 1972 by the Department of Veterans Affairs from Mr. Lloyd Ladouceur, 286 River Street, Gananoque, Ontario for revision of his pension and, if so, for what reason has this not been attended to for over 15 months?
2.	Was the office of the Member for Leeds advised in early April that this would be finalized towards the end of May and, if so, for what reason was it not finalized?
3.	Was the office of the Member for Leeds told on or about June 14 that this matter would not be finalized until the end of July?
4.	Will the Department of Veterans Affairs take immediate steps to give this veteran service on his application?


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: 1. Yes. With the large number of claims resulting from the amendments to the Pension Act in March 1971 and the continuing inflow of applications (882 were received between April 25, 1973 and May 24, 1973) the commission has not yet been able to catch up on the backlog of applications awaiting decision.
2 and 3. There is no indication on the file that the commission had correspondence with the office of the member for Leeds, concerning the probable date of a decision on the application. The staff of the commission, however, in answer to oral inquiries frequently gives an estimate of when a decision could be expected. The office of the member for Leeds may have been informed in this manner that the probable date of decision would be as stated.

4.	The Canadian Pension Commission to avoid hardship and distress where possible, has a priority system to give preference to claims from widows, World War I veterans and seriously disabled veterans. Mr. Ladouceur already receives a high level pension for multiple shrapnel wounds. It is therefore anticipated that his additional claim will be adjudicated upon by the commission before the end of July.


Mr. Barnett: 1.	Under what classification of mail are newspapers registered as such with the Post Office Department carried?
2.	What other items or types of mailed matter are carried under the same classification as newspapers?


André Ouellet: 1. Second class, provided they are newspapers and periodicals for which a postage rate has been established by section 11 of the Post Office Act or by the Second Class Mail Regulations.
2. None.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Knight: 1.	What were the names of full-time employees in each federal department, departmental corporation, agency corporation and proprietary corporation, whose headquarters were outside of Canada and who, in the fiscal year 1971-72, submitted travel expenses in excess of $1,000?
2.	In each case, what were the amounts of travel expenses, what were the destinations and what were the salary ranges of those employees?
Return tabled.



GRANTS TO INDIAN PEOPLE, 1970-73

Mr. Howard: For the fiscal years (a) 1970-71 (b) 1971-72 (c) 1972-73 to date, what is the name and address of each organization of Indian people (except Indian Bands) who have received grants and what was the amount of the grant in each case?
Return tabled.



THERAPEUTIC ABORTION BOARDS

Mr. Leggatt: 1.	What is the total number of hospitals in Canada which have therapeutic abortion boards and what is the total number of hospitals which have no therapeutic abortion board and, in each case, what are the names of such hospitals and their locations?
2.	What is the reason, in the case of each hospital which does not have a therapeutic abortion board, for not having set up such board?
Orders for Returns
Return tabled.



RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN INDUSTRY SELLING PRICE INDEX AND GENERAL WHOLESALE PRICE INDEX

Mr. Kempling: What is the exact and detailed relationship that exists between the Industry Selling Price Index and the General Wholesale Price Index for each of the months (a) December, 1972 (b) January, 1973
(c)	February, 1973 (d) that contemplated, at present, for each of the subsequent six months?
Return tabled.



CANADA COUNCIL GRANTS TO ETHNIC GROUPS

Mr. Yewchuk: 1.	Which (a) ethnic groups (b) individuals have received grants from the Canada Council for the purpose of writing histories and doing research into Canada's cultural backgrounds?
2.	How much money has been allocated for the 17 ethnic histories approved for grants?
Return tabled.



IMMIGRATION OF UGANDANS

Mr. Yewchuk: 1.	To date, how many Ugandans (a) have immigrated to Canada (b) have taken up residence in (i) Montreal (ii) Ottawa (iii) Toronto (iv) Vancouver (v) others?
2.	How many Ugandan (a) doctors (b) engineers (c) architects
(d)	economists (e) tradesmen (f) merchants (g) agronomists (h) others with university degrees have taken up residence in the Provinces of (i) Quebec (ii) Ontario (iii) British Columbia (iv) others?
3.	How much money has the government spent on French immersion courses for the purpose of teaching French to the Ugandans in (a) Montreal (b) the Province of Quebec?
4.	(a) How many Ugandans are employed in the Public Service (b) how many are presently taking French immersion courses?
5.	What criteria were used by the Immigration authorities in Montreal in determining where the Ugandans would have to take up residence?
6.	To date, what has been the total cost to the government for rooming and boarding the Ugandans at the Beacon Arms Hotel in Ottawa?
Return tabled.


Mr. Cossitt:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I should like to refer the parliamentary secretary to questions 2,271 to 2,280 inclusive, which ask for the names, the addresses and the electoral districts of the lawyers on the list maintained by the Department of Justice to do government legal work. I first asked these questions many weeks ago, and when the answers were not satisfactorily given I placed them again on the order paper on June 14. I wonder whether the parliamentary secretary could indicate to the House how long it will take the government to simply make public the list of lawyers it is using to do government legal business in Canada?


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that each department maintains its own list of lawyers, and these lists are co-ordinated in the Department of Justice. To answer such a question we have to make a general investi-
5402

July 9, 1973
Oral Questions
gation of the activities of each department and agency and, as soon as that is done, the answers will be made available in the usual course.


Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw the attention of the parliamentary secretary on question 2,079, which is of particular interest since it deals with requests from my constituents. It is about a local initiative project which was to provide services to people. I would ask the parliamentary secretary whether there is any possibility of replying to that question before the adjournment of the House.


Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to draw to the attention of the parliamentary secretary two starred questions, Nos. 2,161 and 2,162, concerning various aspects of Opportunities for Youth Programs which have been on the order paper unanswered since May 31.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of State responsible for urban affairs and housing. Is he aware of an internal CMHC report referred to in the Toronto Sun of today's date concerning certain federally financed student co-operative housing projects in Ontario. Did this report reach the minister's office and will he table it or, if not, will he make a statement on motions referring to the report, giving its contents and telling what action if any was taken by the minister of the CMHC with regard to the very strong recommendations in that report?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, in February, as well as since taking over the ministry, I think the record will show that I have taken very firm action in trying to foreclose on the mortgages of Rochdale and Pestalozzi Colleges. In addition to that firm action, I also asked the CMHC in February for a complete report about how and under what circumstances these loans were made quite some years ago to these five co-operative residences. The memorandum to which the hon. member refers was really not in response to my request for an inquiry but it did confirm the same view I had that there should be such an inquiry, and the corporation is therefore conducting such an inquiry.


STUDENT CO-OPERATIVE PROJECTS-ALLEGATION SAME ARCHITECTS AND CONSTRUCTION COMPANIES PARTICIPATED IN CONSTRUCTION
Gerald William Baldwin: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister advise if the architects and construction companies, inluding subsidiaries, involved in the building of certain of these ill-starred projects appear in certain instances to be the same people, and could he give particulars of the rather unique tendering practices which led to this result?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, it appears there are the same builders and architects involved, and that is why in February I wanted an inquiry made of that situation. I really would not want to make a statement until the inquiry is complete, or until we know the precise relationship between the various companies and various architects.


STUDENT CO-OPERATIVE PROJECTS-TESTIMONY OF VINCE LAPETINA ALLEGING COLLUSION IN AWARDING TENDERS
Gerald William Baldwin: I have a further supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Was the minister aware either directly or through CMHC of the sworn testimony of one Vince Lapetina, a former director and officer of these construction companies, alleged to have been given in an Ontario Supreme Court action in October or November, 1971, giving particulars of alleged collusive arrangements in rigging the award of tenders in certain of these construction projects?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I do not have personal knowledge of the sworn testimony to which the hon. member refers.


STUDENT CO-OPERATIVE PROJECTS-REQUEST FOR ROYAL COMMISSION INVESTIGATION
Gerald William Baldwin: I have a final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I should like to direct it to the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the very grave circumstances surrounding this matter, will the government now take the inquiry about these matters out of the hands of the department and have a full public inquiry through the mechanism of a Royal Commission under the Inquiries Act into these various serious allegations.


Mitchell William Sharp: The
answer, Mr. Speaker, is no. We have full confidence in the minister and the CMHC he is directing.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, in light of the minister's answer, and in light of the facts now disclosed that this situation is such that there has been a misuse of funds and perhaps a form of embezzlement, would the Acting Prime Minister direct that a legal public inquiry be held into this matter so that witnesses may be called and the whole matter aired without this kind of cover-up?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I would hope that the minister himself would
July 9, 1973

continue with these inquiries. If he is satisfied that the matter does not require further investigation I would be happy to accept his advice. On the other hand, if he decides that it is necessary to proceed further I am sure he would if that were in the public interest.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Calgary North on a supplementary and then the hon. member for York South.


STUDENT CO-OPERATIVE PROJECTS-DATE ON WHICH GOVERNMENT WAS AWARE OF ALLEGED MISUSE OF FUNDS
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, in light of that wishy-washy answer, would the Acting Prime Minister now advise the House when the Prime Minister, the cabinet or the government got word of this particular scandal, particularly since it involves the misuse of funds, possible embezzlement and other kinds of conspiracy leading possibly to a question of fraud?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I do not accept these allegations.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I want to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs arising out of a report in the press-I waited until his return to the House before asking the question-about an entry in the Pentagon Papers concerning the activities of Blair Seaborn as a member of the old international control commission in Viet Nam? I want to ask the minister whether, in view of some of the disturbing elements in those reports, he is considering making a statement to the House to clear up Mr. Seaborn's actions, activities and relationships during those years.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I had occasion to review the statement that I made in the House on June 17, 1971, and I really have nothing to add to what I said at that time.


INQUIRY AS TO GOVERNMENT APPROVAL OF ACTIVITIES OF BLAIR SEABORN AS A MEMBER OF CONTROL COMMISSION IN VIET NAM
David Lewis: Could the minister inform the House as to whether Canada did agree to Mr. Seaborn acting as a messenger for the U.S. government to North Viet Nam and whether or not the prime minister of the day, the late Right Hon. Lester Pearson, was in agreement with that particular undertaking?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, so far as Mr. Seaborn's activities are
Oral Questions
concerned, they were considered valuable to both the government of the United States and the government of North Viet Nam, both of which governments said that this was a useful exercise. In that respect, of course, Mr. Pearson was in full accord. We were not taking any position; we were simply acting to carry the messages backward and forward and, as I said, both governments considered this useful.


ACTIVITIES OF BLAIR SEABORN AS MEMBER OF CONTROL COMMISSION IN VIET NAM-INQUIRY AS TO AUTHORIZATION
David Lewis: Finally, may I ask the minister whether Mr. Seaborn was given this task as a result of a request from Washington or as a result of a request from North Viet Nam or as the result of some decision by the government of Canada for him to undertake to carry these messages?


Mitchell William Sharp: If the hon. gentleman would refer to my statement on June 17 he would find the circumstances outlined quite clearly.


ACTIVITIES OF BLAIR SEABORN AS MEMBER OF CONTROL COMMISSION IN VIET NAM-REQUEST FOR PUBLICATION OF DEPARTMENTAL DOCUMENTS
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, would the Secretary of State for External Affairs consider, in light of the circumstances surrounding this incident, making available the documents of the Department of External Affairs by reducing the period in which they may be made public, which, I understand, is twenty years, so that we can be reassured about what actually took place?


Mitchell William Sharp: I will consider that request, Mr. Speaker. My own recollection, however, is that in the statement that I did make on June 17 I revealed all the pertinent facts. However, I can understand the hon. gentleman's concern and I can assure him that we would like to do everything possible to make the situation clear and to indicate that the Canadian government was not taking a position in that very delicicate negotiation.

[ Translation]


COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Communications.
Having put this question to the right hon. Prime Minister, on June 22 last, I would now like to ask the minister whether new developments have occurred or are expected concerning the Quebec-Ottawa dispute on the cablevision issue.

July 9, 1973
Oral Questions


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, the only developments I can report to the House are an interview which I had with the Quebec Minister of Communications and the fact that I am to see him again before the end of the summer. I can also report on another aspect of the progress made which is that the deputy ministers of all the provinces, including Quebec, met here in Ottawa last Thursday and Friday; they agreed on an agenda and a date for the federal-provincial conference on communications to be held in the fall.


René Matte: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since the communique sent by the Quebec Minister of Communications demanding that his department be authorized to issue licenses, have there been any changes in this unilateral policy adopted by the Quebec Minister of Communications?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I do not know anything further; this question is ambiguous because, on the one hand, Quebec has asked the CRTC for broadcasting licenses for Hertzian transmitters, and on the other hand, the Public Service Board has laid claim to granting licenses. I believe that the hon. member was referring to the second case in his question. I must say that as far as that is concerned, nothing has changed, neither the conduct of the Quebec Public Service Board, nor the policy of the federal government, which is that these decisions are null and void, anyway.
[ English]


CABLEVISION-DATE OF CONFERENCE WITH PROVINCES
Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: As a supplementary question, could the minister tell us if the date has been confirmed by the respective ministers, and where is the conference on communications to take place?


Gérard Pelletier: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the dates have been set. The conference will open on November 27. I do not mind saying that the federal government wanted an earlier date but this could not be achieved. I understand that all the provinces agreed to hold the conference in Ottawa.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence and concerns the situation in Viet Nam. The minister informed the House on July 3 that his Chief of Staff was in hourly contact with Saigon. Can he inform the House if there have been any hopeful developments this morning, as the Viet Cong are reported to have admitted that they do hold Captains Patten and Thomson in custody?


James Armstrong Richardson: As the hon. member has indicated, Mr. Speaker,

the reports from Viet Nam are encouraging. We know that the two captains are alive and well. We are making every effort to achieve their return. Commissioner Gauvin has requested the members of the International Commission to cease all other activity until their recovery has been achieved.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Has the minister had any second thoughts about issuing instructions that would forbid the type of activity in which the two missing captains were engaged at the time of their capture by the PRG?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, this is primarily the responsibility of the commander in the field, General McAlpine. We have made it clear from headquarters, however, that there should not be field trips on which our personnel are not accompanied by representatives of at least one other country on the international commission.


VIET NAM-INQUIRY AS TO WHETHER TWO CANADIAN OFFICERS ATTACHED TO CONTROL COMMISSION WHO DISAPPEARED WERE ON OFFICIAL BUSINESS
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I think my question should be addressed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Since the mission on which these two Canadian officers set out was said to be an official mission, could the minister tell us how it came about that such a mission could be undertaken with representatives of only one nation on it as, from the experience of Canada in the field, this is contrary to usual practice?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I had not said that they were on any official duty for the International Control Commission. They were on duty as members of the International Control Commission. This kind of activity we consider to be quite useful in trying to carry out the mandate which the commission has and each member has.


HOUSING
Mr. Ian Arrol (York East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to questions asked earlier of the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. Has a decision been made, either by CMHC or by the minister, not to proceed with foreclosure action against Neill Wycik College, even if they did not continue with their mortgage payments, and has this in fact been the case since January when representatives of the college conducted a lobby in Ottawa?


Stanley Ronald Basford: No, Mr. Speaker. By letter we have tried to work out a financial arrangement with them by which the mortgage could be put in good standing without resorting to foreclosure.
July 9, 1973


Ian MacLachlan Arrol: Was the minister aware, during meetings with the college, that as of December 31 last they were $56,516 in arrears on their mortgage payments, and was this fact brought up during any discussion with their representatives?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Representations were made as to how those arrears could be paid.


APPLICATION OF INTERPROVINCIAL PIPE LINE FOR ENLARGEMENT OF LINE-REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE EXPORT QUOTAS WILL BE MAINTAINED
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources arising out of the government's decision to approve the application of Interprovincial Pipe Line to enlarge their pipeline, along with their statement that this is not for the purpose of increasing exports of oil to the United States. In view of the fact that the application of this company stated that the pipeline entering the United States from the Manitoba border would be enlarged by 130,000 barrels a day and that the pipeline re-entering Canada at Sarnia would only be enlarged by 32,000 barrels a day, can the minister tell the House what quota has been set on the oil going through this pipeline designated for export to the United States? Can the minister also assure the House that the figures stipulated by Interprovincial Pipe Lines in its application before the board will be rigidly adhered to and that they will not be allowed to increase them?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, the quota varies from month to month depending on the nominations and depending in particular on the demands of the Ontario and other Canadian refineries, so that one cannot set a precise figure. It varies from month to month. The principle still does apply, however, on the export controls that the demands of the Canadian market have absolute priority over any exports. As to the limits set for pipeline operation I would have to check the decision and see if they are set, as I think they are, in the final order but of course that is an order and the pipeline company would have to adhere to that.


APPLICATION OF INTERPROVINCIAL PIPE LINES TO ENLARGE LINE-REQUEST THAT DECISION BE HELD IN ABEYANCE PENDING DETERMINATION OF OIL RESERVES
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. They are not stipulated in the Order in Council. In view of the fact that two thirds of the oil going through the pipelines goes to the United States and one third goes to the province of Ontario, and in view of the statement by the President of Interprovincial Pipe Lines before the board to the effect that the increasing requirements of Ontario could be met without increasing the pipeline providing the exports were
Oral Questions
reduced, can the minister tell the House if the government would be prepared to reconsider its decision with respect to this matter and until such time as it can be reviewed with a view to conserving Canada's dwindling crude oil reserves which we are now exporting at a rate of-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please! Order, please!


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. gentleman knows the board will be holding hearings in the autumn and I expect will be making an announcement shortly of the date for the purpose of determining the reserve requirements for crude oil just as we have a reserve requirement now for gas. I think it would be appropriate to await the outcome of that hearing before deciding what further steps would be taken on top of the present export controls to protect Canadian refineries.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands for a third question and then will recognize the hon. member for St. Paul's and others who have been rising.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In view of the fact that the minister has been promising since last February to have these hearings, may I ask now if he would be prepared to hold this matter in abeyance until the hearings are held and we get some idea of how much oil the Canadian government and the National Energy Board are going to allow to be exported from this country?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the first thing I should like to say to the hon. gentleman is that the decision as to holding hearings rests with the board. It is a regulatory body and determines its own procedures in this regard. It has not been myself nor the government that has been holding it back. The second thing I should point out to the hon. gentleman is that, as he knows, the line has been operating in effect in excess of safe capacity, and with the Ontario refinery capacity going up next year, the construction involved here is not only with regard to construction in the western provinces but in Ontario itself. It is in order to assure continued supply to the Ontario refineries, as the decision said, that the decision is being taken and not on whether we make any change in our absolute export limits.


GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Ron Atkey (St. Paul's):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Will the minister briefly outline to the House why he, while the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, approved the selection of Vickers and Benson, Ltd. for a $200,000 television program contract without tenders being called, especially in light of the fact that government contract regula-

July 9, 1973
Oral Questions
tions require tenders to be called for contracts over
$10,000?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Of course, on a question of this kind being asked, I think it is fair to allow the minister to reply briefly, but normally when a member asks if the minister will tell why some time ago he allowed a contract to be given out this way, such a question should be placed on the order paper. I think the minister should be allowed to reply now.


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to be able to refresh my memory on the exact circumstances of that matter but I can briefly advise the House as I recall the incident. There were five or six different agencies involved and requested to advise us on their ability to fulfil the requirements of the program at the time. My officials quite competently traced through all the recommendations that they made and came to me with the presentations that this particular firm be awarded the contract. After examination of all the circumstances, I decided it was a wise recommendation and followed their advice.


Ronald George Atkey: A supplementary question to the President of the Treasury Board. In light of the statement by the director of the administrative policy division of the Treasury Board that advertising is considered a service contract and is subject to tender "except when an invitation to tender is not in the public interest", can the minister tell the House on what basis it was decided that an invitation to tender for this show was not in the public interest, and in particular whether the political compatibility of the present Minister of Manpower and Immigration to Vickers and Benson, Ltd. was part of that decision?


Robert Knight Andras: No, Mr. Speaker, the latter comment is not accurate.

[ Translation]


MONTREAL OLYMPIC GAMES, 1976-POSSIBLE INCLUSION OF COMMEMORATIVE COINS IN PAY ENVELOPES OF CITY OF MONTREAL EMPLOYEES-POSITION OF POSTMASTER GENERAL
Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Postmaster General.
Can he say whether the government is considering the possibility of accepting the proposal of the Mayor of Montreal with regard to authorizing the city authorities to include Olympic coins in the city employees' pay?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, that matter was discussed at length in committee and I shall also be heard as a witness tomorrow evening. If the hon. member is there, I shall be pleased to reply to that question then.


NATIONAL CAPITAL
Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. In view of reports that the National Capital Commission has agreed to rent green belt property to the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton for a bus terminal, and in view of the inconsistencies in answers given to questions on this subject on June 29, 1973 and July 5, 1973, could the minister inform the House whether the government has approved of this arrangement and whether that land in the green belt will in fact be used with the government's consent for a bus terminal for the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, there were negotiations between the National Capital Commission and the Ottawa-Carleton Regional Transportation Commission. They agreed on the lease of property to which the hon. member refers, but I have told the National Capital Commission and the Regional Transportation Commission to find other property for it as I would not recommend the signature of the lease to cabinet.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: A supplementary. In view of the minister's answer to the question, and in view of the obvious difficulties that he is having in communicating with the National Capital Commission, would he assure the House that he will take steps to see that the National Capital Commission reports regularly to him with respect to the use of all federal properties, particularly green belt properties, in the national capital?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, the commission does report regularly and fully to me. Some time ago, however, I asked the commission to develop a policy for the management of the green belt rather than continue a series of ad hoc decisions relative to the use of the green belt. A planning study has now been done for the green belt and is being considered by the commission. I would hope that out of the planning study and the report to me from the commission, we could develop a long-term policy for the management preservation and protection of the green belt.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Justice. Now that the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the Northwest Territories has been upheld-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
July 9, 1973


Flora Isabel MacDonald: -will the minister assure the House that the decision of Mr. Justice Collier to dismiss the application for a writ of prohibition against Mr. Justice Morrow will not be appealed?


Mr. Fairweather:: It never should have been taken.


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, no decision has been taken on that matter as yet-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Otto Emil Lang: -but questions of time and other events may make the decision academic.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. Since the lawyer representing the Department of Justice has just withdrawn from the hearings which opened this morning before Mr. Justice Morrow, would the minister tell the House what his position is relative to the current hearings since Mr. Justice Morrow felt obliged to find a replacement for the lawyer representing the Department of Justice?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I am not at all sure it would be useful to discuss in this place matters which are presently before a court in another place.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: That is why we are here.


Otto Emil Lang: However, I should like to indicate that it was not a matter of our counsel being instructed to withdraw, but rather not to participate in the immediate placing of evidence on the claim before him. We will of course be present again at the judgment on the issues which we have already placed before Mr. Justice Morrow.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAY AND AIR CANADA
Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Can we expect an audited statement covering the operations of CNR and Air Canada for the year 1972 to be tabled and, if so, when?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I was a bit distracted by some comments from other parts of the House. I understand my colleague, the Minister of Transport, was very clear on that particular point.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry the minister was distracted. The point is the Minister of Transport was not very clear. May I simply repeat my question? Can the minister advise the House whether we can expect an
Oral Questions
audited financial statement covering the operations of CNR and Air Canada to be tabled in this House and, if so, when?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the problem with that particular proposition is we cannot have an audited financial statement until parliament approves the appointment of an auditor.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: In view of the fact Bill C-164, which is presently before the House, does not appear as a priority measure on the government's timetable, is the minister considering appointing the Auditor General to ratify the accounts of CNR and Air Canada?


Mr. Alexander:: Let's see you worm out of that one.


John Napier Turner: The short answer to that is no, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Vegreville for a third or fourth question, and then the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I appreciate Your Honour's indulgence. I wish to ask the President of the Privy Council whether this is one of the reasons the annual reports of CNR and Air Canada are not being referred to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications.


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (President of the Privy Council):: No, Mr. Speaker.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the concern of Canadians about the terrible starvation and suffering in Africa, can the minister state what the government is doing to help at this time and whether it plans to increase Canadian aid?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I have made a number of public statements on the program the government has underway to help the people in countries bordering the Sahara where there has been an unprecedented drought. The Canadian government has approved a great deal of money for the purchase of food. The Department of National Defence is providing transportation with Hercules aircraft in order to see the aid gets there as quickly as possible. I do not think there is a country in the world that has responded more generously and more quickly.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Because there is a great deal of concern about this, can the minister say what measures are being taken to ensure the food reaches the people in the more remote areas instead of being held in one or two large depots?
5408

July 9, 1973
Oral Questions


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, that is the reason the Department of National Defence has provided Hercules transport planes to transport the food from the ports to the interior, there being no other quick or ready means of transport.


SOUTH AFRICA-ATTITUDE OF CANADIAN SUBSIDIARIES TOWARDS EMPLOYEES-REQUEST FOR STATEMENT OF GOVERNMENT'S POSITION
Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. We are now in Africa and I know the minister cannot concentrate on one area to the exclusion of the other. Is the minister aware of the several very disturbing exposes of the conditions of employees of several Canadian subsidiaries in South Africa? Has he looked into this matter? Has the minister formed an opinion, and is he in a position to advise the House whether he will in fact contact parent companies in Canada with a view to having these subsidiaries in South Africa accept their moral and financial responsibility with regard to their employees?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Hamilton West will be the first to recognize that this is not a supplementary question. I hope hon. members will cooperate with the Chair and the House by not asking supplementary questions which are not supplementary. The hon. member has asked what is obviously a reasonable question. The Secretary of State for External Affairs is prepared to reply. The question will be allowed, not as a supplementary, but as a question asked directly in the first instance.


Mitchell William Sharp: Like the hon. member, Mr. Speaker, we in the government have been very concerned about the conditions under which black people in South Africa are working. Officials of my department have been in touch with a number of companies subsidiary of Canadian corporations that are operating in South Africa. We do not know the names of all, but we have contacted the more prominent ones. We have urged them to act as good corporate citizens in ways that will make the Canadian people proud of them.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: If that action has been taken, I think this is extremely important. Is the minister in a position to lay before the House any correspondence in this regard or conclusions reached as a result of conversations held with the parent company or the subsidiary, and what were their answers?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I can answer that question very satisfactorily here. We felt our responsibility to let these companies know the views of the Canadian government, which we think reflect the views of the Canadian people. They have taken these views into consideration. Needless to say, however, they are in South Africa and obeying laws of which we do not approve. On the other hand, as the hon. member will realize, we take very strong exception when governments of other countries try to place pressure upon Canadian subsidiaries of foreign companies to act contrary to Canadian laws.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I have one final supplementary. I was very pleased with the answers up until the last. Surely, the minister can tell this House and the people of Canada that these companies, whether parent or subsidiary, will undertake their moral and financial responsibilities with regard to these people who are working for them. Has the minister indicated that to those companies in no uncertain terms, similar to what happened in the United Kingdom?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker. We have expressed these views very strongly. I repeat, the hon. member would be the first to object if foreign governments were to try to put pressure upon Canadian companies to act contrary to Canadian law. This is a principle we can never forget.


WATER RESOURCES
Randolph Harding: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the serious low water situation on Kootenay Lake, which is the lowest recorded level, and the lack of International Joint Commission regulatory powers or legislation to correct the situation, although regulations exist to control high water, will immediate steps be taken to look into this problem and, if necessary, to enact the proper regulations to meet any future low water situation?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I will take the question as notice.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Hastings has been very patient. Perhaps he will allow me to recognize the hon. member for Kootenay West for one supplementary. The hon. member will be recognized immediately after that.


Randolph Harding: Will the minister also have his department examine and report upon the effect which the Duncan Dam and the Libby Dam have had on the low level of Kootenay Lake this year?


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. J. R. Ellis (Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, my question would have been an excellent supplementary to one asked on Friday. May I ask the Minister of Transport to indicate whether he is now prepared to carry out the policy established by this government in 1966 with regard to allowing regional air carriers a greater share of the Canadian civil air market?
July 9, 1973


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I think this market has been increasing all the time.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to one asked by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway. It is directed to the Acting Prime Minister speaking on behalf of the Minister of Agriculture, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the fearful situation of starvation that many countries of the world will be suffering this winter, what does the government plan to do about the invitation from the FAO received after the 30 nation meeting last week to call the nations of the world to a long range all-out program to see that this terrible situation will not happen again?


Mitchell William Sharp: I have not had an opportunity of seeing the invitation which was issued. I do want to say, however, that I have felt for some time it would be very wise for the nations to meet and consider the kind of food situation the world is likely to face in the next few years.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Would the minister consider-and I am still directing my questions to him in his capacity as Acting Prime Minister-the proposals put forward by delegates to the Interparliamentary Union over the last six or seven years to deal with such a situation?


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Bill Frank (Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the fact that the Coleman Packing Company of London, which employs more than 300 workers, has been forced to declare bankruptcy, may I ask what steps the minister intends to take to find suitable employment for the personnel affected in order that the packing industry may not lose their particular expertise?


Robert Knight Andras: I should like an opportunity to examine this matter in more detail. I will then do my best to give the hon. member the information he has requested.


William Charles Frank: Would the minister encourage his cabinet colleagues to take into account in future, the specific
Oral Questions
importance of a company to its employees and the industries concerned-[DOT]


Mr. Speaker:: Order. That is a representation, rather than a question.


HOUSING
Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. Would the minister advise the House what action the audit services bureau took with respect to a letter signed by Mr. Vincent Lapetina under date of September 30, 1971, alleging that in the case of Tartu College and Waterloo Co-operative Residence the number of regular invoices and/or the amount of undisclosed profits inflated the cost by approximately 10 per cent?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. A question in those terms would normally be placed upon the order paper, but if the minister has a reply he can give briefly he will be recognized for that purpose.


Stanley Ronald Basford: With respect to the particular letter to which the hon. member has referred, I would have to take that question as notice. But as I have indicated on other occasions, the whole subject has, because of my own attitude, been under investigation since February.


Gerald William Baldwin: We want it investigated here in the House.


STUDENT CO-OPERATIVE PROJECTS-ALLEGATION YORKE REPORT QUESTIONS JUDGMENT OF MINISTER
Paul Theodore Hellyer: While the minister is looking for the letter and the report, which I hope he will make public, will he tell the House whether or not it is a fact that the Yorke Report does not confine itself to an historical review and instances of possible irregularity, but goes further to question the judgment of the minister in proposing to make new loans involving millions of dollars to companies in which one or more of the principal officers demonstrated themselves in these earlier cases to be incapable of efficient administration?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Unlike the hon. member, when he was responsible for housing, I have ordered the Corporation not to make loans to student co-operatives unless they are connected with a university.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Is the minister not aware that the loan to which I am referring is to a body which is not a student co-operative? Will he look into the allegations made by the legal department of CMHC before putting millions of
26446-52J

July 9, 1973
Oral Questions
dollars more of the taxpayers' money into a project which is-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I guarantee there will be no supplementary. I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of current labour unrest in Nova Scotia and the consequent application of section 44 of the Unemployment Insurance Act which becomes more prominent in such circumstances, may I ask whether the minister is causing an investigation to be made to ensure that workers not directly involved in a strike or work stoppage are not unjustly affected by section 44 which is presently, I suggest with deference, being misinterpreted by some officials, and specifically, may I cite-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member might allow the minister to reply to the question.


Robert Knight Andras: I should like to have heard the end of it. If the hon. member will furnish me with details I shall be very glad to examine the matter and see exactly what it is all about.


MANPOWER
Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, can the Minister of Manpower and Immigration tell us whether the director of the Local Initiatives Program, Mr. Larry Davies, still occupies that position and whether there have been any further resignations?


Robert Knight Andras: There have been no threats of such kind from Mr. Davies. I think he did an excellent job conducting the program last winter. We are examining the whole concept of job creation, as hon. members are aware. No decision has been made about job creation or as to the personnel who will be in charge of the program if and when the times comes. But I do want to say he did an excellent job.


COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. Terry Grier (Toronto-Lakeshore):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Communications. Can the minister state whether he plans to order a halt to the installation of telephone and telegraphic equipment in the manpower office in Toronto, on the ground that the work is being carried out by supervisory personnel of Northern Electric whose employees are engaged in a legal strike?
[ Transla tion]


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I have been advised of the situation referred to by the hon. member. I am looking into it but I doubt that, even if I were to come to the same conclusion as the hon. member, I would have the right to apply it.


Terrence Wyly Grier: Is the minister telling the House that he cannot halt work being undertaken under the authority of an agency under his jurisdiction?
[ Transla tion]


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I made no affirmation; I merely expressed a doubt I have every reason to consider serious.


TRANSPORT
John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: My question is for the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact that on June 21 the minister stated that the federal-provincial committee on Atlantic region transportation was making good progress toward finalizing recommendations, and that on July 4 he told me he was as impatient as he thought I was to see something accomplished, notwithstanding which no recommendations have come forward from this committee, can he tell us what timetable has been adopted by the federal-provincial committee on transportation in the Atlantic area?


Jean Marchand: I think I mentioned on Friday that there is to be a meeting before the end of July between officials of the federal government particularly of the Department of Transport, and officials of the governments of the Atlantic provinces. Immediately after this meeting has been held, I will probably know more about the situation.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I thank the minister for that answer. At that time, will the minister state, either in the House if we are still sitting, or outside it if we are not, just what he intends to do about the firm recommendations from the Boards of Trade from Atlantic Canada which met with the minister prior to his meeting with the maritime premiers?
July 9, 1973


Jean Marchand: I will probably have to deal with all these problems.


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


TORONTO REGION-DATE OF APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS OF BOARD OF INQUIRY
Mr. Norman A. Cafik (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I too, have a question I should like to direct to the Minister of Transport. In announcing the terms of the independent board of examination to be appointed to look into transportation in the Toronto region under the terms of the Transport Act the minister indicated, in reply to a question asked by me in the House, that it would be reasonable to expect that the independent members of that board would be named within two weeks. As these persons have not yet been named, can the minister assure me and the House that they will be named before the summer recess?


Jean Marchand: We are
very careful about the choice of people-


An hon. Member:: They will all be Grits!


Jean Marchand: We want them to be persons of high calibre. Their selection may take a little time but I hope to be in a position shortly to announce the names of those appointed.


Norman Augustine Cafik: I think it is an excellent thing that we should choose the right people-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is recognized for the purpose of asking a question.


Norman Augustine Cafik: But would the minister also give consideration to the importance of urgency when it comes to naming these people as well as to the'question of their qualifications, since those concerned have had to wait too long?


INCLUSION OF OPTOMETRIC SERVICES IN MEDICARE-REQUEST FOR PROGRESS REPORT ON FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL DISCUSSIONS
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Health and Welfare looks so relaxed today that I thought I should pose a question to him. Would he bring the House up to date with regard to the inclusion of optometric services within a national health plan and what progress is being made with the provinces in this regard?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I have no progress to report in this respect. This matter was raised, as the hon. member knows, at a conference with the ministers of health a few months ago. I am still awaiting the reaction of the prov-
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension inces as to whether they are agreeable to a new way of financing health services.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There are a number of members who have not been recognized, including the hon. members for Rocky Mountain, Vancouver South and Don Valley. I will try to remember them tomorrow so they will have priority in asking their questions as they were not given an opportunity today. Then, in two days we will have covered most hon. members of the House.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Friday, July 6, 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.
Donald Frank Mazankowski: July 9, 1973
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension
the act by which we are now governed. It was incorporated in the present legislation to take into consideration rural and urban centres of population.
Throughout the debate that took place during consideration of the act it was concluded generally that rural areas would have less population than urban areas. I know that some hon. members and, indeed, political scientists may scoff at this suggestion; they may consider it to be unjust, unfair and unreasonable: on the other hand, a number of people would argue that members of parliament represent not only the people within their constituencies but the constituencies themselves.
Here, again, I refer to the province of Alberta. Whatever formula we come up with, I think it is important that those charged with the responsibility of administering the formula do so with the spirit and intent of the act in mind. In my opinion, this has not been done in the province of Alberta where we have, under the municipal process, a majority of rural ridings containing more people than urban ridings. For example, in the province of Alberta, out of the nine rural ridings we know that as a result of redistribution five have populations well in excess of the quotient of 85,678. On the other hand, in the case of urban ridings the majority have considerably less than 85,678. We have only three constituencies which exceed that quotient, and then only by a very small margin.
It is important that whatever mechanism we devise, assurance be given that the administration is carried out with the spirit and intent of the act. I believe what has taken place in the province of Alberta is contrary to the principle and intent of the act. I should like to place on record some quotations from the debate that took place in 1963. For example, when Mr. Pickersgill introduced the legislation he pointed out as reported in Hansard of November 26, 1963, at page 5110:
It must also be pointed out to the commission that rural ridings must necessarily, in the experience of the past, have less population in general than urban ridings, and that there are other considerations, such as geographical lines, rivers, county lines and the like which must be taken into account.
Mr. Pickersgill went on to say as reported at page 5114:
We are also aware of the fact that ever since confederation, in nearly every part of Canada, the rural population has been represented by more members than the urban population. I echo the words of the right hon. gentleman a year ago when he said he did not think that could be entirely departed from.
I could quote other members who spoke during the debate, including the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), the hon. member for Malpeque (Mr. MacLean), all of whom reiterated the importance of recognizing that particular aspect. There was considerable debate in respect of the tolerance figure. Figures ranging from 20 per cent to 40 per cent were suggested, and it was considered that 25 per cent would be effective. I think this underlines the importance of providing sufficient flexibility to take into account the various matters which affect persons in rural and urban centres.
We have before us in this bill a proposal by the government to solve these problems on an interim basis. I look forward to the bill achieving two things. Firstly, I believe it will provide some order and stability during these special and unique sets of circumstances. Secondly, I think

the bill recognizes a serious attempt to come up with a fairer and more just redistribution mechanism so that all areas of Canada can achieve a reasonable and equitable level of federal representation.
As a member of parliament representing a rural riding in Alberta, an agricultural area, I think I would be derelict in my duty if I failed to point out to the House that rural areas of Canada are just as important as urban centres. I certainly disapprove of the rural emasculation which has taken place in the application of the mechanism we now have. While all urban centres are overpopulated-I recognize this fact-I urge all hon. members to approach this matter on a wholly objective basis so that all Canadians can achieve the standard of representation they so richly deserve. To that end I hope this bill will be successful.


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to say a few words in this debate. I believe other members from the province of Saskatchewan will be speaking but I do not think anyone has until this point. I have a number of reservations about the legislation before us, bu in spite of that I support the bill that would suspend the effect of the new electoral boundaries for 18 months while this House searches for a new formula in respect of redistribution.
Instead of talking about some of the problems or merits of this legislation I wish to suggest a special formula to replace our present senatorial floor for determining the number of seats. Before doing so, I want to say that in my province of Saskatchewan-and I think its people would agree-the commission did a fairly commendable job in redrawing the boundaries.
I wish the bill before us had been introduced two, three or fours years ago. I wish there had been changes in the formula at that time rather than now. The new boundaries could have come into effect at that time. We have in this country a census every ten years and after each census, according to our legislation, we should have a redistribution of seats. I think it is rather unjust to be debating the bill at this time. It should have been done two or three years ago in terms of population and in fairness to urban and suburban regions.
The fact is that if we do not do something about the formula at this time, provinces such as Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, and in particular the northern parts of the country, will have to wait another ten years before there is an opportunity to change the boundaries on which we base representation in this House. Under the present formula many provinces will be treated very unfairly, particularly the province of Newfoundland, which will have six constituencies, with a population of 522,000. Meanwhile, New Brunswick, with a population of
120,000	more, will have ten constituencies-four members more in this House than the province of Newfoundland. The same is true of Nova Scotia, Manitoba and Saskatchewan.
I suggest the present formula for determining seats in this country is unfair. It is based on the senatorial floor of each province. New Brunswick has a senatorial floor of ten members, Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan and Manitoba each have six members. I think we should abolish the
July 9, 1973

senatorial floor as a method of determining the number of constituencies in the provinces with smaller populations. I believe we should have a new formula that would take into account representation by population but would also be weighted to a certain extent to the smaller provinces. I think that would better suit our democratic system. I know that many groups and associations follow the delegate theory of democracy which is weighted a bit toward the smaller groups. They send, for example, to a convention perhaps five or ten delegates for the first 100 members and from that point they use a different or diminishing formula.
I suggest, for example, that we could take a formula such as the following, which is by no means one I have tried to work out with any degree of accuracy although it is one I suggest for study. We could give to each province and to each territory-the Yukon and the Northwest Territories-automatically one member to start with, which means that the Yukon would have one seat, the Northwest Territories would have one seat and each province would have one seat as a starter. I suggest we could say that for the next 500,000 people each province would have seven members which would mean that if the population were
500,000	or less there would be a guarantee under the constitution of eight members of parliament. That would be about one member for every 62,500 people in this country. Once the figure is over half a million, the scale could become a little larger and for the next 200,000 there could be a guarantee, constitutionally, of three members. That would mean one member for every 66,700 people. Then for the next 300,000, building up to one million of population, I suggest there be guaranteed constitutionally three members. That would mean one member for every 100,000 people living within the province.
The effect of this would be to guarantee a province having a population of one million, 14 members in the House of Commons. This type of formula would be fairly rigid, but also flexible if the population of various areas increased or decreased. To give an example of how this would work out according to the present population based on the 1971 census, I find through my arithmetic that the Northwest Territories would remain with one seat as today-and the province of Prince Edward Island-here some people may argue with me-would fall, under the formula, to two seats from four; but, after all, its population is only some 112,000 according to the census of 1971.
The province of Newfoundland, under a formula of this type, would have the number of ridings go up to eight. The proposal under this legislation is six for Newfoundland, and at the present time it has seven. One can see that a formula of this type would be much more favourable to Newfoundland than to Prince Edward Island. New Brunswick, under this type of formula, would have ten constituencies, as it has today, but there would be a danger of its falling to nine. In fact, the census shows that if it should drop by 1,000 or 2,000 people, the representation of the province would go down by one seat according to the formula I have worked out. The province of Nova Scotia, under this formula, would have 11 members compared to the ten proposed in this legislation. The province of Saskatchewan from which I come, and our neighbouring province of Manitoba, would remain at 13 seats, as is the
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension case today, instead of the 12 proposed by the legislation that would become law if this bill is not passed.
If you add up the number of seats for the six smaller provinces of this country, plus the Northwest Territories and the Yukon, you find that under a formula of this sort there would be a guarantee of 59 constituencies for those less populated areas of the country. Under the legislation which will take effect if this bill does not pass, those areas would have 56 seats, or in other words three less constituencies.
I suggest that when you deal with the four larger provinces you could use the same formula or the same number as at the present time-Alberta 19, British Columbia 26, Quebec 72 and Ontario 91. If you add these together you get a total of 267 seats in this House of Commons, only three more than at present. To me it does not really matter; you could add five or ten seats in fairness to the larger provinces or in the rural areas and I do not think it would matter in the end result. I think this is the sort of formula we should have, rather than the senatorial floor which discriminates against the smaller provinces of Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland when compared with Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick. In a formula like that we could have a few exceptions such as for the Northwest Territories which has a tremendously large geographical area. I think we could have two seats there. We would be justified in having two seats, despite the fact that there is a small population, because it is geographically the largest constituency in Canada, in fact so large that no member can be in all communities as often as his constituents might expect him to be.
Second, I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that we should have a permanent speakership in the House. Mr. Speaker should represent a special constituency of the House or of Parliament Hill: I think that should be part of our electoral system. This is just one of a number of formulas that perhaps exist according to which we could apportion more fairly members of the House from various parts of the country in order to reflect the various provinces with smaller populations. It would be in accordance with the philosophy of representation by population and would also be fair to the six smaller provinces by giving them an important voice in the House.
The second concern voiced by members representing rural ridings such as mine is that the ridings are becoming very large. Under the present legislation, in many cases we have the tools that are needed in order to remedy a situation of that sort. We have a leeway of 25 per cent below and 25 per cent above the average population in a constituency. I suggest that the commission in each of the provinces, if it were to follow the rules of the game, could quite easily get around the arguments of many of us that our rural ridings are too large geographically and that because urban centres are in smaller geographical areas actually they should have more people in them than at present.
However, I do not think we need a new bill in order to meet that type of objection from members. What we could do, instead, would be to write into the bill the provision

July 9, 1973
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension that in rural areas the commissions should be guided by the 25 per cent rule. In effect, you would have an average constituency of 60,000 to 75,000 people and an average rural seat of 90,000 to 100,000 people, with all kinds of variations in between depending on whether a riding is classified as rural or urban. Another provision that could be written into the present act 'is that in areas such as northern Ontario, Quebec and perhaps a few other northern areas of the country, the commission should take into account the rule of 25 per cent below the mean and create smaller ridings than are created under the present legislation.
Those are just a few thoughts on the redistribution bill that is before the House. However, I hope the commission will be able to continue its work and that when the 18 months are up and we are presented with a new formula, it will be based on the philosophy of representation by population rather than on one of the anachronisms held over from the last century, namely, the senatorial rule which discriminates against such provinces as Saskatchewan and Manitoba as compared with provinces such as New Brunswick and Newfoundland. I can visualize the day when the province of Manitoba in particular may have a population twice as large as that of New Brunswick, but because of the senatorial rule both Manitoba and New Brunswick will have ten constituencies and ten members of parliament. At present, Newfoundland has a population of 522,000, and New Brunswick 634,000. There is a possibility that over the next 15 years Newfoundland may catch up with and move ahead of New Brunswick in terms of population. When they have one more person in Newfoundland than in New Brunswick, the number of seats in Newfoundland will increase from six to ten as soon as legislation is passed.
These are just a few of the injustices in the legislation that exists in this country. I think we must be careful in the new formula to recognize that our rural areas are declining and that those constituencies should perhaps be somewhat smaller. At the same time, it is important that we keep in mind the philosophy of representation by population as the guiding principle behind legislation for the creation of constituencies.
There are one or two other matters which I should like to mention. I believe that in certain areas-the huge rural areas, for example, and the northern ridings-it may be possible to provide better facilities to members of parliament to enable them to get around their constituencies more often, and perhaps better office facilities in Ottawa that would enable them to keep in better contact with their constituents, because people living in these areas deserve as much contact with their member of parliament as do people in urban ridings. I think that is another matter which the House and the committee which deals with this legislation should keep in mind as we study the new formula for the future redistribution of seats in this country.


Mr. Paul Dick (Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, in 1964-65 this House dealt with a real problem, namely, how to provide equitable representation in the Canadian parliament for all Canadians. At that time a lengthy debate took place and the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act came into effect. Provision was made in that act

at the time, mainly at the insistence of the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), that a margin of 25 per cent rather than the proposed 15 per cent be made part of the law, thus allowing more flexibility in the drawing of constituency maps.
It was envisaged that this 25 per cent would be applied to rural areas and to certain other situations to accommodate whole communities in order to compensate somewhat for the large acreage covered by rural areas and for the difficulties of communication in them. I do not think anybody in the House would disagree with the 25 per cent differential based on those grounds. However, we subsequently allowed certain inequities to arise and today we are debating another bill which will perpetuate those inequities for a longer period of time.
Based on the law of 1964-65 we carried out a redistribution in 1967 in time for the 1968 election. The law requires that after the decennial census the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act shall come into effect. The Canadian people would then get up to date representation subject to the 25 per cent margin mentioned in section 13(c). For over eight years parliament has known of the law. For a good many years every member of the House has known, or should have known, the probable effects of this law and the fact that certain provinces would lose seats. This should, and will, take place as population patterns in Canada change.
Why do we now bring forward a bill to suspend this law and suppress redistribution at least for the time being? Why do we inquire into this question at the last minute and after the expenditure of over $1 million of the taxpayers' money? If certain regions wanted the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act repealed or changed they should have made representations two or three years ago and not waited until now. I think I can say that few politicians in the House are anxious for redistribution because people who are successful-all the members of the House have been successful-do not want to change the basis of their success, their present constituency, for an unknown quantity. We must remember that redistribution is noi accommodate politicians; it is to accommodate the people of Canada.
I can assure the House that I, no more than the others, do not wish to lose part of the constituency which I have the honour to represent and in which I have worked hard in trying to understand the problems and knowing the people better. The constituency which I presently represent, Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton, will be chopped in half. The area in which is my residence will become a new constituency, and if I subsequently have the honour to represent that territory I will have lost eight municipalities, including a town of 10,000, and five townships of good people, people whom I am beginning to know and understand, and instead will pick up an area with which I am as yet unfamiliar. However we, the politicians, cannot and should not hold up redistribution to accommodate ourselves.
Some of the provincial redistribution commissions have made their final reports to the House of Commons. Ontario's map of electoral districts has been badly butch-
July 9, 1973

ered, and I understand that Alberta's and New Brunswick's have been similarly mangled. But these commissions are supposed to be independent. It was decided by this House to formulate these independent bodies in order to take this important basis of our democratic society out of the hands of politicians so that they could not gerrymander the electoral districts in favour of themselves or of any group within this House. Now we are being asked to reverse that step and at least temporarily or in part to take from the independent commissions their right to redistribute the electoral boundaries and return that decision-making power to the politicians.
The people of Canada are entitled to redistribution and to more equitable representation as was decided by this House in 1964-65. No redistribution will be perfect, but we should not interfere with this process now. I believe this House should clear up the many inequities which exist, take under advisement any new inequities and work on those in the next decade so that we can change the law prior to the 1981 census and achieve prompt redistribution with even better results after that census.
If certain inequities take place under the present redistribution, let us settle down next year, some seven years ahead of time, and work out a better plan for an even more equitable redistribution after the 1981 census. In the future let us not wait until the last minute. Let us rethink and replan the law in plenty of time so that the next redistribution will be even more just. Surely that would be the more honest thing to do on behalf of the people of Canada than what is suggested in this bill.


Mr. Elias Nesdoly (Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, my words this afternoon will be brief. First I would like to say that so far as I am concerned the Boundaries Commission for the province of Saskatchewan has done an excellent job of redistribution following the 1971 census. Contrary to what some hon. members have said today and some of the speeches made last Friday, that commission did make some provision for the rural ridings.
There is provision in the act for a 25 per cent leeway from the average, or from the norm or median. In Saskatchewan these figures were supposed to produce electoral boundaries which were to have a minimum population of 57,000 and a maximum of 96,000. As a result of redistribution one riding in Saskatchewan will have a population of 63,875 and another a population of 90,506. Generally speaking, the rural ridings will have smaller populations and the more urban ridings will have larger populations. In general I would like to say that the Electoral Boundaries Commission in Saskatchewan did a commendable job.
I realize that if this bill does not pass there will be a problem with certain provinces losing the number of members of parliament to which they are presently entitled. Saskatchewan is one of them. We will drop from 13 to 12 seats. However, despite this, and even though I will not be very popular in my own province, I am opposed to this bill. I do not like the fact that the operation of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act is being suspended until such time as parliament makes other provisions or until January 1, 1975.
During the last six or seven years members of parliament were aware that this problem would crop up. They
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension knew that some areas of Canada were losing their population. This problem should have been tackled several years ago and not just now. I oppose this bill because I believe the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act that was passed in 1964-65 was an excellent piece of legislation which took the drawing of constituency boundaries out of the hands of politicians who often drew them for selfish reasons rather than for practical purposes. It took many years to get rid of gerrymandering. I feel we should not be toying now with a proposal to suspend that act for 18 months in the hope that we will come up with some solutions during that time. Personally, I do not think that we will: it will take us a lot longer than 18 months to find solutions.
There are a number of anomalies connected with redistribution. A committee of parliament or some other body should be looking into these anomalies over the next several years. For example, according to the Canada Year Book the province of Newfoundland had a population of 522,104 in 1971, and New Brunswick a population of 634,557. New Brunswick is governed by a floor of ten members of parliament and cannot drop below that number. Newfoundland has a floor of six, and it will drop from seven to six seats under the present redistribution. I know that the population of Newfoundland is growing faster than the population of New Brunswick. Someday Newfoundland will reach the population of New Brunswick, and under the law there is the anomaly that when it does it will automatically have ten members of parliament because the law provides that where a province has a floor of ten, the representation of a province with a larger population cannot go below the floor. These are the kinds of problems that I believe will not be solved in 18 months. Neither do I think we will solve any problems by increasing the membership of this House to 299 or 300.
Certainly I think some changes should be made in our laws or the constitution to take into account representation by population, which is basic in a democratic society, and also to take into account geographic areas. Some members of parliament have been saying that it is almost impossible for them to represent constituents adequately because of the vast size and great distances associated with their constituencies. Mr. Speaker, today we have a pretty good mail service. We have telephones, television and radio. We can commuricate with our constituents far more readily than we could 25 or 30 years ago. I do not think it is as great a problem as some people represent.
I believe that the present electoral boundaries should be completed. In the event of an election being called within the next few months, of course we would have to go with the old boundaries, and I agree that there are problems in appointing returning officers, and so forth. What I do not like about this bill, however, is the suspension of the work of the commission. When the 18-month period expires, if there are no changes made in this House a new commission will be instituted and will start drawing boundaries after a few million dollars have been spent in drawing them in the first place.
On that basis, I cannot support the present bill. I think the Boundaries Commission in Saskatchewan did an eminently worth-while job. I agree with the previous speaker

July 9, 1973
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension that we should be looking for a solution to this whole question of representation in the various provinces over the next five or six years, and should not wait until redistribution is upon us.


Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to present my case as a rural member of parliament and support this bill. I know that those living in rural areas have an entirely different point of view of this bill from those living in heavily populated areas. I have read the reports of speeches and have heard some of the speeches made with respect to Bill C-208. I should like particularly to comment on the speech of my colleague, the hon. member for Peel South (Mr. Blenkarn), who, as he is wont to say jokingly, represents the rural riding of Mississauga, a very small area with close to 200,000 people
100,000	of them being voters. His speech almost brought tears to my eyes when he emphasized "one man one vote" and the fact that we represent people, not acres or square miles. Those of us who are from rural ridings are aware that we represent people-people scattered over a great area, people who are difficult to contact and difficult to see personally in order to discuss their problems.
The hon. member went on to say that many members who are opposed to the new boundaries are worried about our seats. I would point out to him and others who represent city ridings that in all probability rural members are much safer in their seats than a great many of the so-called city slickers.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stan Darling: Those of us who represent rural ridings know our people personally. Furthermore, the voters are the same year after year because the population does not move from place to place as it does in a city riding. A good many of my colleagues who represent urban ridings have informed me that when electioneering, those who have served as members of parliament for some time find when they go into the big apartment buildings that the tenants are entirely different.
Mr. Speaker, a member of parliament must wear many hats. He or she must sit in the House of Commons, listen to and take part in debates, look after correspondence, check and look after the many problems of constituents such as unemployment insurance complaints, pensions, passports, immigration, LIP grants, Opportunities for Youth grants-I could go on and on. Constituents in rural ridings consider it a duty of the member of parliament to attend the various activities that occur the year-round, such as winter and summer carnivals, the opening of community centres and publics buildings; and there are quite often more than one in a day. Many rural ridings have fall fairs and other activities, and invite the member to be in attendance. In my own riding with its present boundaries, I will be attending 15 or 16 fall fairs in August and September. These are events which I am delighted to attend, and I know a great many of the rural members feel the same way. Those of us who represent rural ridings have problems to solve or look after which urban members do not even consider. Just to name a few-docks, post offices, problems with the railways such as railway lines being abandoned and stations closed down. Many of our

ridings have Indian constituents and Indian reservations with problems that we have to solve.
The Boundaries Commission has added at least 25 per cent to my riding. The former member, Mr. Gordon Aiken, informed me that Parry Sound-Muskoka was the largest riding to service because there are people in every corner of it. Some hon. members might take exception to this statement, but after electioneering last September and October and going to every corner of it-I see some hon. members shaking their heads; I know they represent areas of many more square miles and I sympathize with them-I can confirm his statement.
It seems now that at least 25 per cent is being added if the new electoral boundaries are to be approved. It has been suggested that the county of Haliburton be included, with some 2,000 square miles and, I believe, 10,000 people. I see the hon. member for Renfrew North-Nipissing East (Mr. Hopkins) smiling. I believe I am to be offered some 20 or 30 townships in Nipissing which he represents at the present time. As far as serving as the member of parliament for these additional people is concerned, that is fine. But how much can one man look after and at the same time do a good job? I am not sure, Mr. Speaker, what they are doing to your own riding but I assume something will be done there. You are in the unfortunate position of not being able to speak out and make comments on it.
Many urban members of parliament look after a great many people. I have spoken at various times about the size of city ridings-maybe 20 blocks by 30 blocks. Even the most unhealthy city member could probably walk across his riding in an hour and a half, and those who are not too healthy would perhaps take two hours. But those of us in rural ridings have a lot of territory to cover and many problems to try to solve.
One other matter that I think can be verified is that city people do not take advantage of their voting right as much as country people do. I know there was a good vote at the last election, but time and again city voters do not turn out as well as do the voters in rural Ontario. Therefore, I do not think they are entitled to the same consideration. In my riding 76.9 per cent of the voters turned out at the last election. I know that certain city ridings had a fairly good turnout, but some did not.
There is one other point that I should like to draw to the attention of hon. members, particularly those from metropolitan Toronto, and I assume it probably applies to Montreal as well. Their populations shrink considerably during the summer months as a good many of their voters head north to cottages and resort areas. This includes a great many members of parliament who have summer cottages in my riding. A recent survey made for the district of Muskoka, which is part of my riding, shows that 13,400 private cottages are used by 72,000 people. These people make good use of their cottages on almost every weekend during the summer. This is more than the permanent population of my riding, Mr. Speaker, and does not include the many hotels, motels and resorts which comprise over 6,000 units and for which could be estimated a minimum of 10,000 people. Add to this another 50,000 campers who use the provincial camps. I am speaking only of Muskoka now, because the district of Parry Sound is a great deal larger than Muskoka and while it does not have
July 9, 1973

as many private cottages it has a great number of resorts and campsites.
These thousands of summer residents are welcome to our vacation paradise, Mr. Speaker, but I think it will be agreed that with the great increase in population the many services under federal jurisdiction are increased correspondingly. Many of these people are now working much shorter hours, and in a very few years they will have more leisure and less working time and will be extending their stay in these summer homes. With rapid transit facilities increasing, in all probability they could be classed as residents of Parry Sound-Muskoka. We could end up with the population of Toronto being decreased and ours being increased considerably.
I am aware of those provinces which will be hard hit. Members are looking very unhappily at the great province of Ontario in which my constituency is located. It should be looked at in two ways, on the basis of southern Ontario and northern Ontario. Northern Ontario will lose two seats, and southern Ontario will gain five. The province will have a net gain of three seats. Hon. members from northern Ontario will certainly react against this. They have done a good job of looking after their constituencies, which are now large engough if not too large. I hope the commissioners will give consideration to this problem. Those of us in rural parts of Canada feel we have as much as we can properly look after. I am aware of what has been stated here, namely that this pure democracy-one man, one vote. We might as well go the other way and have so many votes per square mile. Some city constituencies would not come off too well if the equation were worked both ways. This is why special consideration must be given to rural Canada and the members who represent it.
When speaking some weeks ago on the housing bill I mentioned that everything was oriented to the cities. We seem to be forgotten about. At that time I stated the the map of Canada would probably be redrawn; the ten provinces would be thrown out and there would be new provinces of Toronto, Montreal, Winnipeg, Vancouver, Calgary and probably one other. The rest of us would be out in the bush. We know about the discrimination in the city compared to the rural areas as outlined by members representing urban constituencies. However, it is the people in rural Canada who have been fattening the city people. We do all our buying in the cities which are the centre of everything. The rest of us are more or less left out. On the present basis of representation, maybe we will at least get back part of what should be ours.
I feel there should be a free vote on this question. There are many members on the government side who feel the same way. They do not want the rural ridings decreased or enlarged. We believe members representing city constituencies should be able to handle many more people because they do not have the same problems.


Mr. Ralph Stewart (Cochrane):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say a few words with regard to this bill before us. I congratulate the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling) on his argument. I feel it could be supported by all members who represent rural areas. The attitude of the hon. member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton (Mr. Dick)
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension was very surprising. The area he represents is not a city constituency it is a rural constituency. He talked about gerrymandering and the like; that was surprising. Obviously, he is against the bill because the parts of his constituency that are being removed are the Liberal areas. He would be keeping a Tory constituency. It is surprising he would express that point of view.
I am a little concerned about the use of the word "gerrymandering". It is as though there were something unclean or uncouth about politicians doing the work of politicians. Who knows more about politics than politicians? It is like handing medical matters to somebody who is not a doctor. Who knows more about dividing our areas and the intimate considerations of our constituencies than members of parliament? Yet there are people who throw around the word "gerrymandering" as if there were something clandestine or something to be gained by a politician speaking in favour of or against the redistribution of seats in Canada. This is ridiculous. The ones best qualified are those who sit in this House. We know the problems, both socioeconomic and geographic. With regard to northern Ontario, it is obvious that those who are trying to make the decision with regard to dividing the constituencies have never even travelled in the area. They do not know anything about the area.
When listening to the hon. member for Peel South (Mr. Blenkarn) the other day, I was amazed. He is a typical Toronto member who expresses a typical Toronto attitude. Toronto runs the province of Ontario. Now they want to run Ottawa as well. They would like all the members to be from Toronto. This is as unbelievable as the commission that was appointed and the commissioners who drew this map. Some months ago the commissioners made a proposal. They drew an initial map. They took away two seats from northern Ontario, leaving ten. We objected to that and made an appearance before them. When the commission was in Ottawa, several of us made representations on the basis of the socioeconomic conditions and the vast geography of northern Ontario. The commission ignored them entirely. Not only that, but at a hearing in North Bay the commissioners told our people that the members from northern Ontario, even though we had to be here for an important vote in the House that day, were disinterested and had not even bothered to come and present their views.
It is unbelievable that a justice of the Supreme Court of Ontario would go before our people in North Bay and say we were not interested enough to present our views. Almost every one of us went to the courthouse in Ottawa and made our views known. We stated what we thought should be done in the north. We pointed out that the divisions were not based on logic and did not take into consideration the facts of life. For example, we pointed out they were trying to block off an area known as Hearst which is French-speaking. They were including Hearst in an English-speaking area, leaving where that town does all of its business separated from it. We pointed that out to them, as well as a number of other things.
Because we drew to the attention of the people that the commission knew nothing about northern Ontario, had never been there and were not concerned about our basic interests, they were so upset they drew up another map

July 9, 1973
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension which was entirely ridiculous. It was so unbelievable it is hardly worth consideration. Most of what is now the Cochcrane constituency is to be the proposed Albany-Nipigon riding. It would extend from the Quebec border to the Manitoba border. That is ridiculous. I have not measured it but it is a distance of 600, 700 or 800 miles. As anyone who has been in northern Ontario knows, there are differences between northwestern Ontario and northeastern Ontario. They also created another constituency to be known as Cochrane-Timiskaming. The only reason it bears the name Cochrane is that it includes the town of Cochrane.
The whole district of Cochrane has been thrust in elsewhere. They have made a little hump around Cochrane in such a way as to isolate the town from its traditional lines, together with such places as Smooth Rock, Kapuskasing and Hearst. It is utterly unbelievable. This is the reason, it seems to me, we must support the bill before the House and get rid of this effort which has resulted in so much criticism from Ontario and, as far as I can see, from other provinces which are equally unhappy about the way in which things have been done.
I can understand that in British Columbia people would say; "We are getting more seats, so we would like this proposal to go ahead." But the measure before us, if passed, does not mean they will not get more seats in any revised system or redistribution. Their population has increased and they will, of course, get more representation. So they need have no fear on that score. It is simply a question of extending the time so that we may have an opportunity to come up with something better than is before us now. And it will not be difficult.
Finally, I should like to say this: representation by population is a great theory. It is a great principle in certain countries. But it is not a principle which can be applied in Canada and it is time we recognized this fact. We cannot act strictly in accordance with the idea of representation by population. If we do, we shall find there are territories which cannot possibly cope with the results. The hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka mentioned fall fairs. There is no sitting member from Toronto who understands what it is to deal with 20 different municipalities, 20 different municipal councils.


An hon. Member:: Right on.


Ralph Wesley Stewart: This is what we are faced with in our areas. Then again, we are engaged in a more personal kind of politics. In the cities most of the electors do not even know who their member is. But in our ridings they do, and they expect their member to deal with them on a more personal basis. It matters much more to people in Kapuskasing, for example, that they should be able to deal directly with their federal member than it does to someone in Toronto who is probably in contact anyway with various government offices. These are considerations which should be kept in mind. It is not a question taking anything away from anybody; it is a question of providing equitable representation in the House of Commons to people throughout the country. That is why I urge all members to support the bill so we can get these crazy

maps out of the way and come up with something better in the next 18 months.


Mr. Charles-Eugene Dionne (Kamouraska):: Mr. Speaker, since the issue of re-arranging the electoral map first arose, after the 1971 census, many protests have been heard from all sides, which shows that the method used is undoubtedly not the best.
It is not a very difficult task to calculate the number of electors in a particular region and then to fix the boundaries of ridings so that they contain 70,000 or 80,000 electors. The important thing is to bear in mind the geographical location and the distances and not to forget the services to which electors must, none the less, be entitled, such as being able to meet their member and to make the representations they think appropriate at the opportune moment. It is the act which authorizes a commission to act in this way that should be amended, so that it can better meet present needs. Various suggestions have been made, among them one concerning the number of members. This suggestion deserves to be studied. It would undoubtedly be possible to improve this situation.
The bill being debated is aimed at suspending the operation of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act. This delay will, I hope, make it possible to improve the situation. Why do we not amend the act so that this problem of representation can be solved to the best advantage?
Section 3 of the bill before us reads as follows and I quote:
An electoral boundaries commission established pursuant to section 4 of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act following the decennial census of Canada in 1971 is discharged of its duties and ceases to exist thirty days after it transmits its completed report to the Representation Commissioner as required under section 18 of the .. .
This means that the work of the commission is suspended and the Kamouraska constituency electors are quite happy about it because when someone suggested eliminating the Kamouraska constituency from the federal election map I received representations from various groups which have been in existence for many years in a constituency where parishes have commemorated their tercentenary last year, two years ago and again this year.
During a regular session of the new Chamber of Commerce of La Pocatiere, they expressed their concern about the attitude adopted by the authorities and about the implication of a readjustment of federal electoral boundaries.
The general assembly proposed that the Federation des jeunes Chambres du Canada franQais take a stand in connection with the new federal election constituencies and the reduction of Quebec representation in Parliament.
The mayors of various municipalities of the area have held several meetings. In fact, when I attended ont of those meetings they prepared a brief which I would like to quote partly so that this House will know the attitude of the officials of each municipality. This is from a brief prepared during a meeting of the Kamouraska council and I quote:
.. . during the regular session of the Kamouraska county council, held December 13, 1972, the mayors were apprised of the threaten-
July 9, 1973

ing elimination of the county through its division in two sections, one of which would be annexed to the Bellechasse county and the other to the Lower St. Lawrence county.
. . . the mayors were unanimous in protesting vigorously and set up a special committee to defend the interests of the people before the "federal electoral boundaries readjustment commission" . . .
. . . the conditions set out to appear before the Chevalier Commission did not allow the people affected by that redistribution of federal electoral boundaries to be heard easily. Maybe that commission abides by the rules of democracy but the fact still remains that only a few privileged will have had access to it, particularly in the Gaspe region and Lower St. Lawrence.
. . . the riding of Kamouraska whose name is of Indian origin and dates back to 1674 when Governor Frontenac awarded that seigneury of Kamouraska to Louis-Olivier Morel de La Durantaye, and settlers arrived there in 1695.
The riding of Kamouraska since the Confederation of 1867-
It is true that at that time the results of elections were not known because of rather orthodox election methods which already existed, and I continue to quote:
-the riding of Kamouraska-had 31 federal general elections and which allowed illustrious men like the Pelletiers, the Carrols, the Lapointes, the Steins, the Marquises and others to reach the heights of politics and the judiciary.
.. . the riding of Kamouraska which forms a well structured geographical entity with its chief town in St-Pascal, a classical college at Sainte-Anne de-la Pocatiere which has a long established reputation, the Chapais House in Saint-Denis, the novel by Anne Hebert from which the movie "Kamouraska" was produced-
-of course, the chairman of the commission perhaps had not seen the movie "Kamouraska" at that time-
-a whole history dating back many centuries that the people cannot renounce by accepting the disappearance of the name of Kamouraska.
So I think I have pointed out quite clearly that the voters of Kamouraska want to keep the name of their riding which has an historic past of which they are proud, and I am pleased to represent the voters of that riding since they decided to entrust with me the great responsibility of representing them in the parliament of this country.
[ English]


Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to speak at length in this debate as I know other members are anxious to express their views. However, I think I should say, as a member from the province of British Columbia, which under the present readjustment procedure expects to gain three seats, that I look upon the bill before us with very grave doubts. I recognize that there are problems under the present Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, and some hon. members have eloquently spoken about these problems; but as a member from the province of British Columbia I am anxious to see the present increase of three seats, from 23 to 26, which will take place under the readjustment proposal.
As I said a moment ago, I am conscious of the fact that there are problems in relation to the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act to which some hon. members have referred. However, with respect, I suggest to all hon. members that these problems are largely regional. It seems to me there is no particular reason this House could not pass legislation which takes into account these regional
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension difficulties without necessarily at this time postponing indefinitely, or for at least 18 months or longer, the certainty of three new seats for the province of British Columbia. I think when I say this I should point out that if I was looking at the question from a completely personal point of view I would be very much in favour of this bill because it would be to my personal advantage, as a politician, to run within the boundaries of the riding as they were on October 30, 1972.
My riding stands to be changed very substantially as a result of redistribution and, in consequence, I will be losing part of the neighbourhood in which I grew up. I will be losing from my riding a substantial part of Vancouver South where I have campaigned, not just in the one election when I was fortunate enough to be successful in that I was elected, but as well in the previous election. Therefore, I will be losing, as I think other hon. members will, a substantial area because of redistribution and the support of people I have, hopefully, represented with diligence during the last half a year or so. This will create problems because one might always expect or hope that these people will be supporters in another election.
From a personal point of view, everything would impel me to vote for this bill. I think my fundamental duty, coming from the province of British Columbia-which ought to have an increase in the number of seats-is to keep the interests of my province and its voters in mind, and that must overrule any particular preference I might have.
I think it is probably fair to say, coming from an urban area, that I agree with hon. members who have said that if you have too much adherence to the principle of representation by population this country will become lopsided, in a geographical sense, in a very severe way. While it is all very well to say we do not represent acres, trees, mountain ranges, lakes, meadows or prairies, those parts of our country have to be cared for and they must have someone speaking for them. That part of the country which becomes the hinterland as more and more people move into the city is none the less very important to us.
I recognize that we must find some accommodation between the principle of representation by population and the problems properly put before this House by hon. members who represent rural ridings who are finding it increasingly difficult, if not impossible, to properly represent vast geographic areas. Because I recognize there are problems which must be solved, I say to all hon. members I am prepared to support this bill in its reference to the committee; but I will not be prepared to support it on third reading unless there is an amendment which will, while looking after the needs of ridings that require special attention, assure the province of British Columbia of the 26 seats it ought to have now. I hope that with the help of colleagues in all parties I will be able to move an amendment so that the parts of this bill which are necessary can go ahead, but at the same time retain for my province the additional seats which the present readjustment will give it.


Mr. Jim Fleming (York West):: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. I might say that I was spurred on to make a few comments on behalf of my constituency by the comments

July 9, 1973
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension a few minutes ago of the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Stewart).


An hon. Member:: Do you know where that is?


James Sydney Clark Fleming: Yes, I do; I had the good fortune-and I wish more of the young people in our cities could do likewise-of travelling in northern Ontario. I not only enjoyed the natural wilderness but I also saw the mining towns, met the people and saw the problems peculiar to those areas.
It was mentioned a few moments ago that one of the problems in the city results from the fact that there are so many conglomerates and so much activity that the people do not know the borders of their ridings and in some cases do not even know who is their member of parliament. I realize that as metropolitan areas increase in size, this confusion also increases and creates an even greater disparity between urban and rural ridings.
If the problem in rural Canada is related to distance and geography, I suggest one of the greatest problems in an urban riding results from the number of municipalities which exist in such an area. This results in almost hopeless confusion for the representative. One finds great difficulty in deciding who is responsible for various things, who, and what level of government one should approach to find a solution, and so on. The hon. member for Cochrane said that urban representatives realize the problems which are inherent to those who have many municipalities within their constituencies. I certainly know the problem, because if I don't have 20, I do have three within my constituency. My people are confused, not only about their federal riding but also about the municipal area and questions such as which is Rexdale, which is Etobicoke versus Rexdale, what is North York compared to Downsview, and what is Weston compared to York and Mount Dennis. There are all those problems and confusions.
There is also lack of the spirit of a particular community which I believe many of our rural areas have been able to maintain. There is lack of the friendliness of rural Canada where one knows his neighbours and where roots are set down. The people of my area who are confused are not from Toronto, if you go back in time, but are from Cochrane, from western Canada, from northern Quebec, from the Maritimes, from Italy, from Germany or from Great Britain. There is great confusion involved in getting to know one another. There is confusion of knowing who to go to.
This confusion is added to when there is the problem of redistribution. My riding, according to the latest recut of the map, is split entirely differently from the way it was split a month or two ago. This is the result of the representations I made to the Ontario division of the redistribution commission. The commission saw fit to take my advice to the effect that my area had been cut up improperly. However, the members of the commission did not find my solutions correct. They brought in their own solutions. When I looked at their solutions and their wisdom, I must admit that they have done something I believe is better than the suggestion I had already made to them. They managed to develop the riding so that in fact one does

represent Rexdale only, and another new riding represents a portion of Etobicoke and does not wander into another municipality.
They did, indeed, separate the North York portion from the York portion and took a divided community that has been established for many years which was enveloped by suburban growth, Weston, and in fact put it into one area which will become York South Weston, and I think handed over to the leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Lewis) a very sound riding for his particular political philosophy.
It has been done in this way, and if this particular redistribution were to go through I would hope this would not change again in eight or ten years hence and that the planning would start to be done within the urban areas to take into consideration the needs of the various pockets within suburbia or within the city core, because we have pockets or communities every bit as much as rural Canada has.
I support this bill because I believe in the principle of representation by population, but also I very much respect and am very well aware of the problems faced by our rural representatives. There are the distances involved as much as there are the benefits of neighourliness or lack of confusion and confrontation because of roots having been put down. There are established municipalities which are understood by rural voters. Some of these benefits are lost by the redistribution. In turn in urban areas it happens when we are trying to build the community that first steps are lost by this act of redistribution. Yet you come back to representation by population, and I believe in it.
I hope this bill will pass and that in time we will find a solution that would guarantee in our cities an identifiable base, would guarantee no further erosion for rural Canada and also would give us within the suburban areas a chance to establish an identity as a political area no matter what party is involved, an area where people can understand what it is, can seek assistance directly and can understand who the member of parliament is and where the boundaries are. In that way we could be more effective and the constituents could better understand the role of the federal level of politics. So I support this bill, not because I do not believe in representation by population-it must be continued-but because I believe if we are to give representation by population we must also protect our rural communities.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to enter this debate, but I was moved somewhat by the speech of my colleague, the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Stewart) a few moments ago. He and I from time to time have disagreed with regard to various things we have discussed in the House. However, it has always been the friendliest kind of disagreement. I believe we understood each other on those points. Today I am pleased to be able to stand in the House and say I listened to his speech with great enjoyment. I understood the points he was trying to make. I might say that originally I came from a small town on the St. Lawrence River and therefore understand the difficulties involved and the feelings that people sometimes have in these areas because of disorientation. I say to him that I enjoyed his speech
July 9, 1973

which was delivered with clarity and in an articulate manner.
I, for one, commend the commission in the province of Ontario for the work it did. When I appeared before the commission it was the first opportunity I had had to appear before a commission of this nature, although I had listened to hearings earlier when a professional colleague of mine appeared before the commission. At that time I remember the very articulate arguments put forward by the hon. Joe Green, now a member of the Senate, and hon. Richard Bell, now a practising lawyer in the city of Ottawa. They were both members of this House.
On the occasion of my appearance before ths commission I was struck with the kindness and the attentiveness which the commission directed to the members who appeared before them. I am satisfied that all the representations made to that commission have not been of a political nature. I am satisfied that members who expressed various points of view were in fact expressing the points of view of the areas they represent.
In this debate we have heard what I might call the absolute rural viewpoint and the absolute urban viewpoint. I do not know whether it is possible to reconcile the two. None the less, it is the work of the commission to reconcile them if the commission is to function. I support the bill because I think we must consider a number of factors in the course of redistribution. I, frankly, agree with the hon. member for Cochrane when he says there is a place for politicians in this, the essence of the political process, the bedrock of the political process in Canada, namely, the delineation of the boundaries of constituencies.
Whether the politician is a member of this House, an aspirant to this House or a former member of this House, there is a place for all the collective wisdom of those politicians. I believe that this bill will give that kind of opportunity for the political side to actually intervene in the process as something more than merely counsel for a particular cause. In that regard, the so-called foisting of the resolution is a good move on the government's part and I support it.
Secondly, I want to say that my area is perhaps an amalgam of extremes. In the northern part of the riding there is a very highly concentrated area which is either blessed or plagued, depending on your point of view, with people being stacked one on top of the other in high-rise buildings. It is suffering from the whole problem of transportation and is concerned with the question of housing. It has all the problems of a highly concentrated urban area. Toward the middle of the riding and into the southern part there is a very strong agricultural belt which feels itself somewhat ignored. At the south end there is the St. Lawrence Seaway system with the small towns and villages in that area. Throughout the whole area there are different interests.
I feel that if I have any quarrel with the commission, it is that perhaps it has looked too much at the numerical side of things in the report, in terms of merely representation by population, and has not looked hard enough at some of the social, economic and sociological pulls which keep a community together, bring a community together and preserve it and the traditions which go with it. Some
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension people say we should cast off some of these traditions. In my respectful submission, Mr. Speaker, our traditions are extremely important, even the local ones, and they ought to be considered. For instance, there is a proposal that the historic village of Richmond be removed from a riding that is associated directly with the national capital. In respect of my riding, it calls for a place such as Stittsville to be removed from that orbit. It calls for a township such as Goulbourn to be moved out of the orbit of the national capital where the county council to which those municipalities owed their allegiance had its county seat. Some say that this is not really important, but out of that early, sound, local government tradition developed the economic base, and Richmond, Stittsville and the developing area of Goulbourn are now becoming the dormitories for people who work in the national capital and for many of those who look to the federal government for employment.
Those are considerations which the commission, perhaps by its terms of reference, cannot take into account as well as can a person who is interested in public life, whether that person is a member of the House or otherwise. This is why I say that the point made by the hon. member for Cochrane is important. You have to consider the limbo land, so to speak, between the north and south of a riding such as mine. What happens to the town of Kemptville? Is there a geographical pull to Ottawa, or is the pull to the city of Brockville where the representation commissioners would like to put it? This is part of that tradition as well. We must remember it. I think it is important that these traditions not be forgotten.
I do not want to fault the commission completely, because it did listen to what I at least consider to be a very important representation with respect to the location of the new ridings as proposed. I said to the commission that they should preserve, in part of what is now the constituency of Grenville-Carleton, the name Carleton since it has such a long and distinguished history which goes back to the time of the dissolution of the district of Bathurst. The commission did see fit to recognize that name and call the riding, in part, Carleton.
They also recognized the fact that the great, growing area in part of the riding taken out of Grenville-Carleton by this redistribution bill is situated in the municipality of Nepean which, despite the boasts of some of my colleagues from Toronto, Montreal and other places, is perhaps one of the fastest growing and most municipally conscious municipalities in the province of Ontario. As a result, the new riding proposed to encompass part of it is called the riding of Carleton-Nepean. I would rather have had the names reversed because the words flow together a little better, but I am quite happy that this important tradition, the old and the new, has been recognized by the commission.
The importance of this bill is that it will give all members of the House and those who are interested in the future of the House an opportunity at least to go again before a committee of the House, I hope, and advance views as to why tradition should be recognized and why the very important social, economic and other pulls should be recognized.

July 9, 1973
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension
One further reason is perhaps peculiar to any constituency that intrudes upon or is part of the national capital area. In the province of Ontario, for better or for worse, the local municipalities which make up the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton-which is the first region in the province of Ontario-are now going through their own traumatic problems of amalgamation. As a result of this there has been a certain unsteadiness, a feeling of instability and of impending change that has come about in the political process, albeit related to the other political process in which we in the House have the honour to participate.
I believe that by delaying at least another form of political upheaval we will accomplish some form of stability while another jurisdiction worries about the form which the local government, the very bedrock of government, shall take, and that we will not be contributing to further instability and possible fears of change and disorientation. As the last speaker mentioned, the importance of maintaining orientation cannot be overemphasized.
For that reason I am very pleased to support this bill. I suppose I can be forgiven if I say that I also have a selfish reason for wanting to support it. My constituency is varied and interesting. I told my colleagues, through you, Sir, about the variety of life in the community and the honour it is to represent it; but more than that, let me say that in my particular situation I have the honour to represent the area in which I was born and raised, where my children go to school and where my parents live, as well as the area from which my family sprang. I suppose there are some members in the House who in a society which has become mobile have that opportunity, but I dare say there are few indeed.
Frankly and quite honestly-I hope this remark will not be misinterpreted-I enjoy representing this seat, with the background I have in it. I want to see this area preserved for that very selfish reason. I ask my colleagues, through you, Mr. Speaker, to give weight to the remarks I have made on this bill, especially with regard to the first items which I mentioned which are extremely important. I am very pleased today to have the opportunity to support the general submissions made by my colleague, the hon. member for Cochrane.
[ Translation]


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I simply wish to make a few comments about the bill now before us in order to express in this House the wish of the people from the riding of Bellechasse as regards the amendment of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act.
The boundaries of the electoral district of Bellechasse were substantially changed in 1965, as a result of the electoral map redistribution. During that same year, parliament had passed a legislation that assigned to independant commissions, in each province, the responsibility for the readjustment of the representation in the House of Commons.
The Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act provides, and I quote:
For the decennial census taken in the year 1961 and for each decennial census taken thereafter, ten commissions shall be estab-

lished in the manner provided in this Act, to consider and report upon the readjustment of the representation of the provinces in the House of Commons required to be made upon the completion of such census.
The act states strict and specific rules that govern the division of provinces in electoral districts and the establishment of their boundaries. The first rule provides that the population of each electoral district in a province must correspond as nearly as may be to the electoral quota for the province.
And the electoral quota of a province is obtained by dividing the population of the province as ascertained by the census by the number of members of the House of Commons to be assigned to the province.
The act also states that it is possible to depart from the strict application of this rule if special geographic considerations, including in particular the sparsity, density or relative rate of growth of population of various regions of the province, the accessibility of such regions or the size or shape thereof, appear to the commission to render such a departure necessary.
Is short, Mr. Speaker, in each province the commission was responsible for the electoral boundaries readjustment and for compliance with the regulations enacted by the law. I think it is a question of mathematics and the commissioners did not have to sit for weeks to make this redistribution. I consider that grade 12 students were able to compute the census figures and to make the division to try to adjust rural parishes and to try as much as possible to comply with the standards enacted by the law.
Then the revision of the representation of the provinces in the House of Commons and the readjustment of the electoral map in 1965 were made from the 1961 census data. According to these data, the electoral quota of the province of Quebec was established at 71,070.
Taking into account the margin of 25 per cent under and over the electoral quota, acceptable limits were from 53,303 to 88,837 people. According to the first representation order made in 1952, the riding of Bellechasse had 32,513 people in 1961.
In 1968, after the revision, the new riding of Bellechasse included 69,075 people. According to the law, the new boundary commission for Quebec was established after the last census in order to inquire and to report on the readjustment of the representation of the province in the House of Commons.
The new electoral quota for the province has been set at 83,719 inhabitants per constituency. Taking into consideration the allowable margin of 25 per cent under and above that quota, the limits are therefore 62,798 or 104,649. As a rule, according to the 1971 statistics, the Bellechasse constituency remains within the limits of the allowable minimum margin.
However, the Electoral Boundaries Commission has suggested new boundaries for the Bellechasse constituency. Under that new proposal, the entire area of the Lower St. Lawrence between Quebec City and Riviere-du-Loup is substantially altered as a result of the abolition of the Kamouraska constituency.
By the way, Mr. Speaker, I must say that I support the comments made a few minutes ago by the hon. member for
July 9, 1973

Kamouraska (Mr. Dionne) about the review of that legislation. The hon. member for Kamouraska was quite right in letting the House know the reasons why the public organizations of Kamouraska objected to the disappearance of this historical riding.
This is also why I support his remarks wholeheartedly, because by removing the electoral district of Kamouraska, another rural riding is going to vanish and we will have one member less in the House of Commons, and goodness knows that the people in rural ridings need more than ever, their representatives in assemblies like this parliament, in order to let their situation be known and obtain as much help as possible for the development of their sector.
As I said a moment ago, the electoral map has greatly upset the area I have the honour to represent. Prior to 1968, there were three members: one representative for the electoral district of Dorchester, another for the electoral district of Bellechasse and a third for the electoral district of Montmagny. After the readjustment of the electoral boundaries, all this territory was entrusted to only one member, therefore, two rural ridings were automatically eliminated. The Dorchester and Montmagny constituents felt somewhat frustrated because the names of their constituencies had been dropped.
Mr. Speaker, this is quite normal: there were three names for only one territory. There were consultations between the commission and some people and, finally, the name Bellechasse was retained; nevertheless, the voters from what used to be the Dorchester constituency were used to the name Dorchester, which had a past, for this constituency was quite historical; as to the Montmagny constituency, the change created something of a schism.
Those who took part in the 1968 election campaign had to be very tactful not to make matters worse with words and names, but to try and make the people understand that it had been done with the best intentions, even though it did not appear quite acceptable to them.
Mr. Speaker, I consider that some principles should orient any changes in the representation, the first one being-and I insist on this-that between changes in the representation, the electoral boundary readjustments should be limited to the absolute minimum.
Human beings are slaves to their habits and radical transformations of electoral districts should be avoided as much as possible. To this end, I think that every effort should be made toward relative permanency, that boundaries should be so set that an increasing population could readily adapt to them and also, aim at making the least possible changes necessary. That is a must, particularly if we want to ensure appropriate and stable political parties.
The proposed distribution departs substantially from provincial boundaries. It is again a thorough change that gives rise to certain problems such as those we had last fall, for example, when help was provided for farmers whose harvest had been damaged by frequent rainfalls. So a conflict arose that is not yet entirely resolved precisely because of those differences between federal and provincial electoral boundaries.
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension
The main factor to be considered to have truly representative members in the House of Commons is cultural, social and economic homogeneity between ridings, which rural members really insist on. I cannot blame them for it, I am a rural member myself, and I understand perfectly their feelings. That is why I want to express to the House the feelings of those people so greater consideration will be given to those ideas when the government decides within the period set out in the act to revise the act, to introduce amendments or even write a new act that will be more consistent with the aspirations of the people.
For my part, I consulted a number of my follow citizens in the riding of Bellechasse as well as many others and most of them are very aware of the important factor of cultural, geographical, economic and social entity and unity.
Mr. Speaker, may I be also permitted to emphasize again the utmost importance of the difference between rural and urban ridings. In my years as a member I noted on several occasions that rural members are overloaded in comparison with urban members. Let me explain: I do not mean by that that urban members have no work; that is not it at all. I mean that comparatively-and I am going to explain it a little more later-the representatives of rural ridings, because of the sheer area, must necessarily give much more time to their duties. Indeed, since the last revision of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, rural ridings have been expanded, which requires the member to travel miles and miles every weekend in order to keep in contact with the people he represents. And this contact has become more and more necessary if you expect the member to make the required representations in full knowledge and in due time.
The member of parliament must be present not only politically, but also on the social and economic planes. This is why we must reckon with this factor. It is much easier, in my view, to represent 80,000 people concentrated in a city than 60,000 people scattered through a huge rural territory.
Consideration must also be given to the fact that the member who represents a rural riding travels at his own expense within its limits, at rather considerable expenses. That is why we insist-and I congratulate the hon. members who brought up the matter during this debate-that the government should decide, as soon as possible, to help with setting up an office in every riding, with proper services, to accommodate the population. This, not to accommodate the member but the people. It would be the member's office, regardless of his political affiliation, where the people could contact their member or, through the secretaries, Ottawa. Our constituents would find it easier to get in touch with us while avoiding substantial travel expenses and saving time and hardships. I think this is a service which should be created urgently for our constituents and which would permit parliament members to discharge their duties more completely and efficiently.
Another aspect of the problem which should also be considered is the fact that rural areas are less and less populated and if we maintain the current criteria it is obvious that rural citizens will have less and less representation in this House and that the province of Quebec will also lose a few seats which would be most

July 9, 1973
Adjournment Motion
unfortunate. I object to the Quebec representation being reduced because it is one of the four provinces which participated in the foundation of the Confederation. I would be quite unhappy if, because of this act, the number of Quebec members should diminish.
I would also emphasize again that we should not overload the rural area members from the population standpoint-I would suggest between 50,000 and 60,000 people- so as not to weaken the contacts they should have with the population if our democratic system is to be reinforced. Only yesterday I saw how it was necessary for a member of parliament to be closer to the people and in a position to be in contact with them if he truly wants to be their spokesman and convey their ideas to the authorities.
I hope that in view of the time period provided for in the bill the government will have the opportunity and the time required to prepare amendments or a legislation which would truly reflect the people's aspirations, in other words a legislation which would eliminate the shortcomings of the law because if the current law was implemented it would entail new complications. In fact, several provinces other than Quebec would be frustrated. Suffice it to study the reports of the various commissions to find out how many members some provinces would lose, for instance.
I suppose, in view of the fact that our Canadian population is increasing, it is not normal that the number of representatives in this House should be reduced. For all these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I shall make a point of supporting the bill and to vote if required.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Lundrigan).


John Howard Lundrigan: I wonder if it is permissible to call it five o'clock, Mr. Speaker?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser)-National Defence-Jericho defence land; the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles)- Social Security-Old Age Security Act and Canada Pension Plan; the hon. member for Peel South (Mr. Blen-karn)-Airports-Toronto terminal No. 2.
It being five o'clock p.m., more or less, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, notices of motions.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS


Mr. Tom Bell (Saint John-Lancaster) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of reviving the Canadian merchant marine.
He said: Mr. Speaker, once again I am speaking on a subject of which I have been a strong proponent since I came to this House many years ago. This subject, the revival of the Canadian merchant marine, is one of fundamental importance to me, to my home town of Saint John and to the constituency which I have the honour to represent. It is one that must be discussed if any serious and responsible approach to the problems of regional disparity in the Atlantic area is to be considered. It is a subject which must be faced in the planning of any future development in the Arctic. It is one which is of prime importance to the west coast and its expanding relationship with the Far East. Such revival will be of increasing importance as Canada plans to manage effectively its continental shelf resources. Lastly, the subject of a merchant marine is directly related to Canada's position as one of the world's great trading nations.
I want to say at the outset that I consider a merchant marine only one area of an over-all marine policy that requires immediate review. Perhaps I should clarify the term "marine policy" for those on the government benches who may, by some chance, have heard the expression but who obviously have never grasped its meaning or significance. By "marine policy" I mean a clear, concise and comprehensive policy covering not only a Canadian-owned merchant marine-and that is both coastal and deep sea-but also ship-building and repair, ports and harbours and related specialized marine educational facilities.
The Liberal government's various policies on this subject, where they exist, have always been ad hoc, hodgepodge; they have never been co-ordinating, and have often been conflicting. Although Canada possesses one of the longest coastlines in the world, government thinking has created the impression that we are as landlocked as Zambia. Yes, Mr. Speaker, as someone has said, we truly are a nation of landlubbers. At the present time Atlantic Canada continues to suffer from the highest rate of unemployment in the country-a rate which would be considered disgraceful and unacceptable in any other nation with an appreciation of social conscience.
The Atlantic region continues to see its brightest and best trained young men and women leave the area in search of employment elsewhere, leaving those who remain to face an increasingly heavy burden of taxation and the like. Federal policy-makers and advisers have apparently accepted this situation as inevitable, designing programs which at best only maintain the status quo. The gap between our region and the rest of Canada continues merrily on its way.
July 9, 1973

I am convinced that this kind of thinking stems from the conscious or unconscious acceptance of that old, simplistic and completely erroneous argument that says maritime prosperity died when the era of wooden sailing ships ended. I have never, and will never accept this argument for it implies that maritimers cannot build or sail new, modern ships. The shipyards of Saint John built the finest sailing ships of the day. The Marco Polo, for example, built by Saint John craftsmen, carried our flag to the four corners of the world as the fastest clipper ship on record.
While I was serving in the merchant marine during World War II, it was generally accepted that the finest ships' officers and the most able sailors were more often than not men raised in the outports, the fishing villages and harbours of the Atlantic provinces, clearly showing that a proud maritime tradition did not end with the passing of wooden ships.
However, it is not my intention to appeal to nostalgia but, rather, to point out the revolutionary changes in shipping which now present Canada with an unsurpassed opportunity to take advantage of these human resources of the Atlantic region. Coupled with this opportunity presented by trends in shipping is the challenge facing Canada in developing the Arctic and exploring for offshore resources, a challenge which demonstrates vividly our inadequate marine capabilities. But first may I mention the new world trends in ship characteristics. The astonishing technological developments in world shipping in the past decade in terms of size, automation and specialization have created a situation where ships built prior to 1960 are often completely obsolete when competing with newer ships of their respective trades. The most obvious of the prevailing trends in shipbuilding is the increase in size of the individual ships being built. This is certainly true with regard to the tanker and bulk carrier fleets.
A few years ago a 50,000-ton tanker was considered a giant of the trade. Today, this same sized ship is used primarily for semi-refined products in the coastal trade. In 1963 tankers of over 60,000 tons dead weight comprised only 5.2 per cent of total fleet tonnage, but by 1972, tankers of this size formed 60 per cent of the total tonnage. Of the 983 tankers on order as of April 30, 1972, about 39 per cent of the ships and 83 per cent of the tonnage was accounted for by tankers of at least 150,000 tons dead weight. Of the latter, 47 per cent of the ships and 83 per cent of the tonnage was concentrated in the 250,000 to 300,000-ton category.
There has also been a parallel increase in the average ship tonnage of the main bulk carrier types. Between the years 1960 and 1972 there was a 66 per cent increase in the average tons, dead weight, of ore carriers. During the same period the average size of combined ore or oil carriers tripled and combined bulk or oil carriers nearly quadrupled, while the average tons, dead weight, of other dry bulk carriers doubled.
However, today there appears to be stabilization of the growth in ship size. It seems we have reached a plateau in this regard, and although the economies of scale related to the bigger vessels still exist there are practical and managerial problems involved in their operation which
Canadian Merchant Marine
make large scale production of ships above 400,000 tons dead weight unlikely in the immediate future.
Along with increasing size and automation in shipping developments has come increasing specialization in function. The current trend has been away from the multipurpose or multicargo vessel and toward ships designed for and employed in the carriage of a particular commodity. The days of the tramp steamer and old Liberty ships are gone. They have given way to the container vessel, the roll-on/roll-off ship and other specialized carriers.
What does all this mean in terms of reviving the Canadian merchant marine? I feel these factors are favourable for such a revival. The period of rapid and revolutionary changes in world shipping appears to be about over and the present conditions left by these changes seem well suited for Canadian shipping needs. The 200,000 to 250,000-ton tanker and bulk or oil carrier would give us the economies of scale of the large vessels and fit in well with our import export demands on shipping, while not presenting us with any practical managerial problems. It should also be pointed out that this is most likely the best sized ship for use in the Arctic, a subject I will discuss in a moment.
The reduced crew size brought about by semi-automation should go a long way toward overcoming the old problem of higher Canadian crew costs while at the same time creating an acceptable amount of on-board employment. However, it must be noted that these on-board jobs will form the smallest percentage of the employment generated by a merchant marine. It is deceptive to only compare the number of crew jobs to the capital outlay involved in a Canadian fleet and exclude the thousands of new jobs in related repair, supply and service industries that such a fleet would bring about.
Any observer of the rapidly increasing interest in the development of the Arctic and our offshore mineral resources must be struck by the glaring inconsistencies of government policy in this area. On one hand we hear loud proclamations about our sovereignty over the Arctic and vague rumblings about extending the territorial boundary to the edge of the continental shelf, but on the other hand government landlubbers appear oblivious of the need to have Canadian vessels and crews used in the development and exploration of our resources in the north and our offshore waters. In short, we see the establishment of national goals, and yet one the most obvious vehicles for obtaining these objectives has been ignored by the government.
How can we expect other nations to take seriously our claims of the right to manage offshore resources and sovereignty of the Arctic when we possess neither the marine capability of enforcing such claims nor the vessels needed for the exploration and transshipment of these resources? More important, we have given no indication we plan to obtain this kind of capability.
We must act now to implement policies which will permit the true revival of the Canadian merchant marine-a merchant marine which will provide the vehicle for obtaining our stated national goals, a merchant marine which will generate employment in those sea-related insdustries in which we have traditionally excelled, and a merchant marine which will enable us to

July 9, 1973
Canadian Merchant Marine
play a role in the sea lanes of the world more in keeping with the proud maritime tradition of the people of both our coasts.
Please notice that I am not advocating the establishment of a merchant on the scale of Great Britain, Japan or Norway which would compete with those existing large national fleets. Rather, I favour a Canadian fleet designed and tailored to Canadian needs, a fleet which would provide the nucleus of future expansion and become a steady source of work for the on-shore repair, service and supply industries.
What exact form government assistance required for the revival of the merchant marine should take is debatable. What is not debatable is that some kind of government assistance is needed. There have been numerous studies, reports and briefs on this and related subjects-one every year at least for the last ten years. The time has come for action on these reports. In light of the non-partisan support my motion has received in the past from all quarters of the House, I propose we set up a special committee composed of members from all parties to study the proposal and make recommendations to the government as to the kinds and forms of assistance needed for the revival of a Canadian merchant fleet.
The committee would include hon. members from the St. Lawrence area who have an interest in this subject and who have been promised action on it every day of the week by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand). And at election time he really makes it a big issue. Here is a great challenge for an enterprising minister of transport. We have had a lot of do-nothing ministers around for the last decade. The only one who did anything was Mr. Pickersgill. He was criticized, but at least he had an objective, a wish to do something about the railways and he went ahead and did it. The present minister should accept this challenge and recognize that something can be done. He could develop the necessary vessels required in the exploitation of our resources in the Arctic and off our coasts. It is a challenge to all concerned to use our technical knowledge, know-how and experience in this field and not let these assets be wasted. It is a challenge to the Canadian government to state firmly that these are Canadian resources and that Canadians, and only Canadians, shall utilize those resources.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Raynald Guay (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member for Saint John-Lancaster (Mr. Bell), I have had several opportunities to take part in this debate concerning the merchant marine. Recently, on February 21 during my speech on the budget, I pointed out the importance of creating a Canadian merchant marine, a field in which our country has not played a part for several years although Canada's import and ^ export trade places it among the most important nations in the world.
I added that there would be tremendous benefits for our economy in view of the ever increasing quantity of goods and commodities such as seeds, oil, minerals, coal, timber

and many others that must be exported from Canada. In this field it is difficult to accept the almost complete absence of Canadian ships or ships flying the Canadian flag and I already made this a matter of national prestige.
I have not changed my mind since, quite the contrary. I become more and more aware of the need to establish a Canadian merchant marine since there is nothing so apparent as the total lack of a sea-going merchant marine.
Such a situation is most abnormal in a country which has a wealth of the expertness and industrial resources required to build and operate a merchant marine.
This gap in our commercial development affects all Canadians, whether they rely on merchant marine for access to markets or operate ships or build them as is the case for my constituents.
My interest in the matter is therefore twofold. First, as a Canadian believing in the economic need of immediately putting up a merchant marine, and afterwards as a representative of the Levis constituency and of all the workers of the shipyards for whom I am the spokesman in this House.
Right now, the situation is all the worst because Canada has a marine tradition of which it is proud.
In the years following 1867, our country was in 4th place amongst the nations which had a merchant marine. As shipbuilders, we ranked third during World War II, just behind the United States and Great Britain.
What is possible in times of war should also possible in peacetime for constructive reasons. A modern merchant marine would guarantee the expansion of our foreign trade and would actively contribute to an increase of our exports. It would provide jobs for thousands of Canadians. It would perforce bring about a technical modernization of an important sector of our heavy industry. It would provide additional income for several allied industries and various communities.
The 1970 Hedlinmenzies report considered the economic feasibility of a Canadian merchant fleet and showed that certain prototypes of ships would ensure the viability of such a fleet. I understand that bulk and container type ships would be better adapted to our needs; this is easy to prove and to comprehend if one looks, for example, at our ever-increasing exports of Canadian wheat.
With regard to the ship sizes analysed and suggested in the report, my personal conclusion would be that in view of the tough competition now going on between bulk carrier ships, Canada should think about being a leader in this field since, in any case, a one million ton bulk carrier Canadian fleet would make up only a small part of the world's fleet of such ships, or slightly under five per cent. The day of the 10,000 ton ship is gone, and when one considers those now being built in Japan, it is time to take some precautions if we want to make this a profitable enterprise.
Most of our markets are distant ones, and several years' experience have shown that the longer the voyage, the larger the ship should be. What is more, further savings can be realized through full automation, this saving on manpower. It has also been demonstrated that the heavy

tonnage cargo ship saves about 50 per cent per ton-mile on fuel.	.
Since, to all appearances, we are greatly in need of large bulk carrier ships, since we have considerable experience in ship-building, and since our shipyards, especially those in my constituency, are capable of carrying out a project of the scope suggested, it only remains for the government of Canada to enact the necessary legislation.
With reference to the notice of motion moved by the hon. member for Saint John-Lancaster (Mr. Bell), it is my opinion that we should immediately begin to study, prepare and adopt legislation to provide continuing assistance, by the most appropriate methods, to Canadian shipowners, seamen, shipyards and maritime workers, as well as to suppliers of materials, components and equipment; a policy of this nature would be of permanent benefit to all classes of Canadian society.


Mr. Harry Olaussen (Coast Chilcotin):: Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot of argument in this House on the recommendations contained in the Darling report; we have heard a lot of argument in favour of the construction of a Canadian merchant marine. After so much has been said, I believe the time for idle chatter is over. It is time for us to start planning for a Canadian merchant marine in which we can take pride. In this way we could provide ships for Canadian seamen and employment for workers in our Canadian shipyards.
We have heard in the last few months arguments for and against the Darling report. I think this report constitutes the basic requirement for future expansion of a Canadian merchant fleet. It is, therefore, with much concern that I view this whole report and its future relationship to a Canadian deep sea merchant marine. There is no doubt that politicians in the Atlantic provinces are opposed to this report on the ground that rail and water transportation rates will increase and that the economy of the Mari-times will be jeopardized as a result of such an increase. I do not buy that argument. I think there are other economic factors that must be considered in light of this report and in light of what we should be dealing with now and in the future. We have all heard of the Darling report and how Canadian ships should be allowed to ply between Canadian ports. We have heard about the resources in the Arctic and the offshore areas which in future will require the services of Canadian ships. We have listened to these and other arguments as to what should be done.
Another area about which I am concerned is the development of a Canadian shipping fleet. There is no justification in the argument that corporations such as IBM, Crown Zellerbach and others have been established, to the tune of millions of dollars, when B.C. shipyards are in need of work and help is not forthcoming. Surely British Columbia, with its high unemployment rate, requires some consideration when it comes to shipbuilding.
We have seen how the shipyards in eastern Canada have proven themselves very efficient and capable and will no doubt prove themselves capable of building more ships in the future, particularly if we pursue this policy in relation
Canadian Merchant Marine
to a Canadian deep sea merchant fleet. We have been shortsighted in the past with regard to these needs. Previous governments could have helped toward the retention of a fleet such as we had during the Second World War, but they have been very shortsighted and have given in to the interests of companies such as the Canadian Pacific, Irving of the maritimes and others who feel they can develop more through their own interests. Where the interests of people are concerned, surely Canadian interests are more important than the interests of these companies. It is time we got away from this kind of smokescreen.
We have seen how dummy corporations are set up to serve these private interests at the expense of the people of Canada. It is time the government took a dim view of the activities of these dummy corporations and did something more practical and justifiable in order that we might develop a merchant marine of which we can be proud. The merchant marine has helped a great deal toward the development of this country. We should reinstate this service in order that the young people of Canada can serve in it and see the world. They could then be part of the economic development of this vast sector of our economy.
We must be longsighted with regard to areas such as the Arctic and offshore development. We must be longsighted in the interests of the Canadian taxpayer. We have to institute a policy whereby the merchant marine can be developed. We must develop a policy through which it will be economically feasible to develop a deep sea merchant marine to serve the interests of this country. It is to this end that I have spoken on a number of occasions in this House in support of the Darling report. If we are to develop a deep sea merchant marine we must develop a policy along the lines recommended in that report. This must be an initial step.
A merchant marine along the lines I envisage will, I believe, soon become a reality. It must become a reality. But it requires interest on the part of the Canadian people and the Canadian government. I look forward to the expansion of our shipbuilding industry on the west coast and on the east coast. I look forward to increased employment in the shipping industry and other industries directly and indirectly associated with it. I have no doubt that this will become a reality, because water transportation is vital.
I therefore urge the federal government to make its position known in respect of the Darling report and to carry out an immediate study for the development of a merchant marine by the establishment of a Crown corporation to initiate such development. The government's interest in the matter is absolutely essential, and steps taken to boost this country's economy must be reflected in this interest. Only by being realistic about the needs of a growing economy and by following Australia's recent action to reserve the coastal shipping trade for Australia- building and manning vessels-can this country put itself in a more favourable position for a future thrust in the deep sea trade.
In conclusion, I hope very sincerely that the government will carry out a policy which will reflect its interest in the needs of this country, a policy to serve the needs of Canada in the future.

July 9, 1973
Canadian Merchant Marine


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased and honoured this afternoon to be able to second this resolution. To me, here is an opportunity to bring substance to our national motto, with the deposition of this motion by the hon. member for Saint John-Lancaster (Mr. Bell) and my seconding it as the member for the riding of Esquimalt-Saanich. By passing the motion we would be giving meaning to our motto "A mari usque ad mare".
This also gives me an opportunity to enlarge on the theme which I began to develop during my participation in the budget debate. When I was speaking then, with the limitations in time which were imposed, I was able to deal with only two aspects of what I have called a Canadian marine services policy, those two aspects having to do with the coastguard and pollution.
The third and fourth elements of my plea for a real, live and thriving marine services policy for Canada, which I enjoin the government to adopt, are related to the merchant marine and to shipbuilding. My interests in this subject are of prime importance to shipbuilding in the area which I represent. I also have a very deep sentimental attachment to this subject because of an experience I had during the war. It was a matter of great pride for me to arrive at Port Said one sunny afternoon in late 1942 and to find I was being asked to escort the ship Princess Marguerite. This ship at one time plied between Vancouver and Victoria, and it was then a troop carrier. Unfortunately the Marguerite was later lost but I am glad to say not while I was convoying her.
I am aware of all the objections that have been levelled at the notion of a revived merchant marine for Canada. I know that many of these objections are formulated by experienced and well-meaning people. I do not question their sincerity; nor would I venture to question the lessons of the experiences they have had. In some cases, those experiences have been enough to drive the most devoted sea-dog alive from the sea and make him into a confirmed land-lubber. But this must not cause us to turn our back on our natural tradition and our national inheritance.
Canada's merchant marine, built up during the war and maintained for a time after the war's end, was not an outstanding success as a peacetime exercise. The reasons for its failure have been mentioned by some speakers, and doubtless there were many. There is no need here and now to attempt to assign blame for the failure that the CMS unquestionably was in peacetime. It really did not get off to a good start in civvy street, but let us leave it at that.
The merchant marine I envisage is not one that would be run by the Department of Transport; far from it. I want to see a privately-owned merchant fleet for the carriage of goods to and from Canadian ports and for the carriage of goods in other international trading as well. It is not my intention, even if it were within my capabilities, to describe how an effective merchant service should be run. What I intend to do is to outline some of the reasons prompting me to urge upon this House and the government to adopt policies favouring the re-creation of a Canadian merchant fleet. My purpose is to lay before this

House the reasons which make me believe in the need for a merchant fleet under a Canadian flag.
The main argument I make for a merchant fleet is that a trading nation like Canada is, and will remain, a self-made hostage to flag carriers of other nations until we have a flag carrier of our own. Canada simply cannot afford not to have its own merchant fleet. We condemn ourselves to mediocrity and stunted progress by failing to come to grips with this fundamental fact, not only because of our maritime tradition but because of our productive capacity and our status as a trading nation.
It stands to reason that flag carriers-leaving aside flags of convenience-like Britain, Japan, Norway, Holland, Sweden, Germany and the United States, give preference to their own products when transportation decisions have to be made. I am not arguing in favour of a chauvinistic policy or the Jones Act. I believe that a Canadian merchant marine can stand on its own feet and float on its own bottom. Tnere is money in the international transport of goods, and for an exporting and importing nation like Canada to allow its goods to be carried in foreign bottoms is to cut down on our full trading potential and to pay out excessive, and non-taxable, transport costs to boot.
What about marine insurance? We miss out and our businessmen miss out on all these counts-on carriage of our own goods, on the carriage of others' goods, on marine insurance and, as I shall mention in a minute, on shipbuilding and related services.
I have lived in a number of countries abroad and, in common with what I do at home, I invariably examine foodstuffs on the counters as I do when I am out with my wife to stock up the larder on the weekend. It has been my experience that by comparison with the products that other countries can grow and process and export, Canada's produce is just not on the shelves of the world. We see Japanese goods, United States goods, British goods, French goods, Dutch goods, but few if any Canadian consumer goods. This disturbs me. It continues to disturb me and I think we should rectify the situation. The only way to get our goods on the shelves of the world is to get them there ourselves by carrying them on our own flag carriers.
The four principles of merchandising I venture to suggest are: a quality to suit the customer, a competitive price, a regular supply and firm delivery dates. We can meet the first two objectives if we get out and see what the market wants, and this, of course, our salesmen must do; but without our own delivery vans we cannot meet the second two. We cannot guarantee regular supply and firm delivery dates by relying on trampers, for one thing, or scheduled foreign-flag merchantmen for another.
Now let us get right down to practical plans. I suggest we should start fairly modestly: the Caribbean, Central America, the east-west coast routes. Once these routes have been developed, our flag has become established and our products have dug into the market, we can venture further afield. Then what about our wheat and other grains, ore, aluminum, potassium and coal? And our paper and lumber? Just think of it. Anyone who has visited a port within the past two weeks has seen foreign-flag vessels loading these products of Canada to take them abroad. We sell these commodities in vast quantities abroad. Yet we allow others to carry these goods abroad
July 9, 1973

for us. Should we not hang our heads in shame at such a gutless display of lack of enterprise by government?
Then what about our imports, the cars, the oil, the alumina, the tropical fruits, to which we have become so accustomed? Should we not have a hand in bringing these products to our shores? I think one of our problems is that we have been a favoured nation in many ways. We have been spoiled. We have a large market next door. The carriage to that market is normally overland. But our advantages are slipping from us. This is not an assured market for all time. In addition, we risk losing our birthright unless we see just how easily we have fallen into trading patterns that are made for us by others. We are virtually a one-basket nation. Our needs and many of our surpluses flow easily north and south, most of them overland. We buy our bananas from a nation that does not even produce bananas, and most of our coffee too.
What is ailing us that we are content to live in this way at the pleasure of another instead of going at it ourselves and plowing our own furrow? We once did. We were once a proud maritime nation. We have a long and proud maritime tradition. What happened to our Bluenose generation, our lumber traders from B.C., our tea traders? We used to build ships to carry the commerce of the world. We used to build our own ships and ships for others. We are on the verge of losing that art. There were once three large yards in my area; now barely one private shipyard can be said to exist. We just have not tried hard enough.
But what really has happened? We have not had government policies that encourage investment in this type of enterprise. We have allowed ourselves to be driven off the sea. These policies must be changed. We are paying for this in terms of an international trade record that is nowhere near as striking as it should be.
I was recently shocked to hear about a contract being let for German ships to be built in Germany to carry Canadian raw material from the Arctic to Europe. And shocked is the word when we can build our own ships to carry our own goods, preferably processed goods, to the markets of the world.
To my way of thinking, a Canadian merchant marine operated privately with appropriate subsidies-and no one is going to deny that subsidies will be required in this highly competitive field today-would have a multiplier effect in terms of economic growth and the creation of employment. The merchant service itself would offer challenging careers to enterprising and venturesome Canadians. The shipbuilding industry would take root again on both our coasts, as would all the related industries. I would like to think that we would have the wit and the wisdom to use more of our primary products to make our own plate for shipbuilding, and also more for our autmo-bile industry. Why do we ship ore abroad and import it on wheels? We are letting ourselves down. There would be expanded processing in the manufacturing sector of products for export, along with the advantages which come in economies of scale. This would help with the inflation and unemployment problems which have been besetting us and which are around our necks like an albatross. Also our internal transportation industries would flourish.
Canadian Merchant Marine
Along with these developments, I can see regional development forging ahead in a manner to brighten the eyes of eastern and western maritimers and in a manner that even the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Jamieson) has not dreamed about.
For a long time now we have claimed a special interest in the Caribbean. We have developed a taste for their products, but I will not mention them in the House. We use their products and they use many of ours. Here we could add a new and meaningful dimension to Canada-Caribbean relations, and in the process reduce our reliance on our neighbour immediately to the south for some of the products the Caribbean is so anxious to sell to us but which we import through the United States.
We are just not making the most of our inheritance. It is time we started to do so because in the process we will inevitably find solutions to many of the problems that beset us-the proper management of our resources, proper solutions to unemployment, to our production and trade problems. Incidentally we will find that we will also reduce inflation.
The unanimity that I have found this afternoon in the House I find most encouraging, and for these reasons I want to see this motion referred to the appropriate committee for further study and report. I hope we can arrange to do this.


Mr. Joseph-Philippe Guay (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to say that the minister has already discussed this question with the premiers of the Atlantic provinces, and another meeting of the officials is scheduled for later this month, in fact for July 18. The minister is interested both in moving as quickly as possible to extend opportunities for Canadian carriers and in satisfying the Atlantic premiers concerned that any change should work in their best interests.
I think it might be good to put on the record-and possibly there is no better way for one to reiterate it-the final words of Mr. Darling which he wrote on the last page of his report.
He said that the method which has been recommended for implementing a policy for Canadianization allows for varying rates of progress toward that goal. It does provide a means of escape from the static conditions created by existing legislation. However, he said, it cannot be assumed that the rapid attainment of the goal would be of unquestionable advantage in all circumstances. The purpose of the recommendation is not to provide protection for its own sake; it will be the responsibility of the industry, both management and labour, to increase efficiency and productivity, to take the lead in introducing new equipment and methods of operation that will offset the general higher level of Canadian costs.
The establishment of a deep sea merchant marine must be considered in the general context of an over-all transportation policy and, more particularly, in terms of an over-all maritime policy. Our present policy in these two regards is to utilize the world's shipping market for the transportation of goods across the seas and to support the Canadian carrier in the inland waters of Canada and the United States.

July 9, 1973
Canadian Merchant Marine
However, the government is continuously assessing the question of a Canadian merchant marine, and as recently as 1970 the Hedlin-Menzies report dealt specifically with this matter. The Hedlin-Menzies study was oriented toward the bulk trades rather than the whole range of cargo type vessels. The overriding reason for the concentration on the bulk trade was that, after initial analysis, it became evident that only very large vessels requiring a high capital investment offered prospects of their being economic. The analysis assumed that Canadian ships would operate in a competitive world shipping market and would receive revenues determined by world shipping forces. In these circumstances, the rate of return to a Canadian shipowner would be less than to a foreign owner of a similar vessel in the same trade, largely because of higher Canadian crew costs.
The report observed that while Canada has become the third largest trading nation in the world, only a small fraction of its overseas trade is being transported in Canadian registered vessels. However, at the present time our export and import trade groups are being well served by foreign flag vessels, and since our economy is so dependent upon foreign trade, the merchant shipping question must be viewed in relation to foreign trade development, and that is important. Any government policy to establish a merchant marine at very heavy expense to the Canadian taxpayer could have a disruptive economic effect by imposing the use of Canadian vessels for a substantial portion of the foreign trade.
An interdepartmental committee examined the findings of the Hedlin-Menzies report and observed that a great deal of money is being spent confirming the potential of gas, oil and ore resources in the north off-shore islands. On the assumption that it will be Canada's policy to foster the development of these resources, that export markets will be developed, and that ships will be a competitive mode to serve these export markets, there could be created a new and additional demand for shipping. This new trade would be served by specialized vessels capable of carrying various combinations of bulk cargoes and, above all, capable of sailing in Arctic waters.
The interdepartmental group concluded that, as an alternative to the present government policy towards a Canadian merchant marine, consideration should be given to, expending our experience and technical capability in the shipping and shipbuilding industries. They could be encouraged to design types of ships capable of competing, of carrying our new resources to markets, and of navigating in the arctic. It was suggested that encouragement be given to the Canadian shipping and shipbuilding community to make a start in this direction. Such a new departure might excite the enthusiasm of enterprising shipping and shipbuilding interests, and eventually create an environment in which Canadian registered ships could approach economic viability in international trading.
Subsequent to the interdepartmental review of the deep sea fleet question, the cabinet committee on government operations considered government assistance for the shipbuilding industry for the export of ships. In addition to agreeing to the extension of the export shipbuilding program, the committee agreed that an interdepartmental

task force should be established to report on the possible future role of the Canadian shipbuilding industry, including the manufacture of off-shore drill rig equipment, in terms of over-all national industrial strategy, taking into account considerations such as the international competitive environment and the degree of rationalization needed to ensure a viable and competitive industry. The task force has been led by industry, trade and commerce, with transport participating.
I am going at this point to put my comments in a different perspective. In considering the deep sea fleet question it is generally forgotten that Canada has, in fact, a substantial inland fleet.


Thomas Miller Bell: Baloney.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: The government's maritime policies over the past years have developed the growth and technical excellence of this fleet, much on the basis of shipbuilding policies and the construction of the St. Lawrence Seaway. The hon. member for Saint John-Lancaster (Mr. Bell) says baloney, but he does not know what is going on in his own area and ought to be very careful in making such comments.


Thomas Miller Bell: I said baloney to a merchant marine, not to shipbuilding.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: I repeat that the government's maritime policies over the past years have developed the growth and technical excellence of this fleet, much on the basis of shipbuilding policies and the construction of the St. Lawrence Seaway. It now carries over 80 per cent of all trade in the international waters of Canada and the United States of America. With a view to examining further policies which would expand the opportunities for this fleet, the government commissioned the Darling Report.
The Darling Report recommended that the coasting tiade of Canada be reserved completely for Canadian flag vessels, and further that the coasting trade laws should be extended to the continental shelf and Arctic waters. These recommendations, while apparently applicable to the coasting trade, have considerable implications for the deep sea fleet issue. The Arctic waters and off-shore areas require vessels of deep sea construction, and hence if these areas were reserved for Canadian flag vessels one might assume that in any future growth of our efficient inland fleet there could be foreseen a potential of a deep sea fleet. Again, however, this matter must be considered along with our resource policies.
The Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand), in a speech before the Dominion Marine Association and the U.S. Lake Carriers Association in January, 1973, expressed the view that important resource developments are in the offing which will present very great opportunities for the Canadian maritime industry, and there is a general consensus that the substantial part of this work should be performed by Canadians.
However, he said, the benefits to be gained from new policies to reserve these new and expanding frontiers to Canadian vessels could only be realized if the maritime industry responds with new technology and suitable ships
July 9, 1973

Exports



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
to move these resources. In the studies concerning the economic and technical requirements of these specialized ships, close contact is being maintained between the government and private industry.
The government is actively interested in developing new maritime policies where these can be shown to have over-all benefits for Canada. But in policy examination and in subsequent action we must rely, in the final analysis, on the co-operation and initiative of the Canadian maritime industry.
Having said all these things, Mr. Speaker, I would have liked to go further into the details of the 1970 Hedlin-Men-zies Report. It concluded that the Canadian net benefits generated by Canadian merchant vessels are extremely sensitive to cost projections, and Canadian rates of return can be significantly reduced-[DOT]
["Mr. Speaker, it is regrettable that the government allows problems to worsen in the extreme before it reacts. For the past few months in this House, every week, if not every day, the serious problem of rising food production costs has been emphasized. Many questions have been put to the various ministers responsible, but we have always received unsatisfactory answers that gave no hint of a solution to this serious problem.\nNow we are suffering from the consequences of this practice of leaving problems unsolved. Not only are the farmers in a difficult situation, with production costs rising and the cost-price squeeze getting tighter, but the consumers are also being hit by this rise in production costs, and from all sides we hear the farmers making representations and stating that, in despair, they will abandon their farms unless a solution is found quickly.\nMr. Speaker, I met yesterday with a group of producers from my constituency who told me of their fears over this problem. The cost of protein feeds is now very high, thus contributing to the unprecedented price rise for products of all kinds.\nThis evening, the minister has announced that in view of the American government's imposition of permits on the export of certain high-protein products, Canada is also forced to impose restrictions, until the results of the coming harvest are known, by obliging exporters to apply for permits to respect contracts signed before June 29.\nSo, I say this: to my mind, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie) should have been advised much earlier of the situation; he should have taken steps to force those exporters to keep a huge quantity of those protein-rich products and so enable Canada to keep up its impetus towards increased food production, and agricultural production in every sphere.\nA while ago, I heard the former speaker talk about the serious problems of western producers; but the problem also exists in the eastern provinces. That is why I say the problem is very serious and I urge the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce to study it further and more intensively with the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) with a view to taking other steps, as soon as possible, and ensuring Canada an adequate production to enable all producers to meet their obligations, to meet the needs in food products of the people, and also make reasonable profits, that an end might be put to that painful and\nElectoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension alarming situation, that is, the abandonment of farm lands. The situation has become disheartening.\nMr. Speaker, I therefore approve what steps have just been taken. Moreover, I hope, in fact, I am convinced that the government will get the support of this House in taking whatever measures are deemed conducive to remedy the situation, measures that will not be band-aids on a wooden leg."]
Thomas Miller Bell: How about the minister's promises?


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: The minister's promises will always be observed. You know that.


Thomas Miller Bell: He had better hurry up. He said five years.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: I don't know which minister the hon. member is speaking of.


Thomas Miller Bell: Your minister.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: The present minister has only been in office since January, 1973, and he is making terrific progress towards the target the hon. member mentions. I know that the results will be achieved in the manner to which we look forward to achieving results.
[ Translation]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: The hour appointed for the consideration of private members' business having expired, I do now leave the chair until 8 p.m.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
[ English]
["The hour appointed for the consideration of private members' business having expired, I do now leave the chair until 8 p.m.\nAt six o'clock the House took recess."]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. The hon. Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie).


Mr. Gillespie:: Mr. Speaker, if we may revert to motions I should like to make a short statement.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. I think we should first seek the consent of the House to revert to motions. I thought the minister was going to ask for it.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, we were going to wait to hear what he had to say first to decide whether we could give permission but we will give it anyway.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Is it agreed that the House revert to motions?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



Alastair William Gillespie: Through you, Mr. Speaker, I extend to the members of the House my appreciation. We have now reverted to motions and I should like to make a short statement regarding further export control of certain agricultural commodities.
As I indicated to the House on Friday, we are taking stock on an urgent basis of our own inventory of protein supplies, including the additional commodities placed under export control by the United States last Thursday. I refer to the United States announcement that 41 categories of commodities, including edible oils, animal fats and livestock protein feeds, would be subject to export control effective July 5. We are now able to make a better assessment of supplies and requirements as a result of requests for permits which have been received.
In view of the decision of the United States to extend their control, the government has decided to take further precautionary measures and to place certain additional items, including some edible oils, animal fats and livestock protein feeds, on an export licensing basis for the present time. A list of the additional items which are subject to export control from midnight, July 9, is being tabled with this statement.
With respect to these new items under control, the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce will consider export permit applications for these commodities provided that applications are supported by copies of contracts in existence on June 29 for shipments up to October
15.	As in the case of commodities placed under control Friday, June 29, exporters are requested to forward applications for export permits, supported by copies of contracts in existence on June 29, to the export and import permits division of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
Shipments of goods which are being placed under control today and are in the process of being loaded for export, or are in transit to an export port, will be permitted to go forward provided satisfactory evidence is given that contracts were in existence prior to June 29.
Applications for permits covering other contracts will be examined on a case by case basis. It continues to be the government's intention to ensure adequate supplies to meet Canadian requirements and to take into account the needs of Canada's traditional foreign customers.
Regarding the commodities placed under export control on June 29, we will issue export permits for rapeseed and flaxseed provided these applications are supported by copies of contracts in existence on June 29 for shipments up to October 15. We are continuing to monitor the situation closely and may find it necessary at a later stage to reduce the quantities allowed for export of these commodities should it be essential in order to ensure adequate supplies to meet Canadian requirements.
5432

July 9, 1973
Exports
Due to the shortage of soya beans and soya bean meal and the situation arising in Canada following the decision of the United States to limit exports, we will not be in a position to issue export permits for these products.
We are completing the assessment of the availability and requirements for rapeseed and linseed cake and meal and fishmeal, taking into account the requests for export permits which are being received, and a further announcement will be forthcoming.
I should like to stress that these actions by Canada are necessary precautionary measures to safeguard our market against distortions in world trade in protein feeds that may arise as a result of the shortages of animal protein feeds and United States control measures. The export controls are designed as temporary actions pending the stabilizing of the situation and the arrival of new crop supplies on the Canadian market.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, the minister's announcement tonight was, I suppose, inevitable. It was like the night following day.
In response to the action taken by the United States there seems, once again, to be little the Canadian government is in a position to do except to react. We have become too dependent on that country in respect to many edible oils and high protein foods. Now that their domestic supplies are threatened, and export controls imposed, we must protect our inadequate supplies until the situation has been rationalized. Some farmers have complained that feed costs are rising so fast that unless some relief is afforded them they will face bankruptcy. The rise in costs these last few months has been astronomical, of a magnitude unprecedented in decades.
Producers, on the other hand, are enjoying high prices for a change, a rare experience for some of them. If controls limit their prices unduly, they will not be encouraged to increase production, but this in the long run is the only solution. The only way that the situation can be rationalized in the long run is to increase production of these high protein crops and feeds. Unlike costs in the monopolistic and oligopolistic sector of our economy, the commodities that we are talking about tonight are those that operate in a market where the price is determined by supply and demand.
In these cases, the only way of meeting the demand at home and increasing our proportion of total world market supply is to increase production very substantially in this country. The situation in which we find ourselves tonight is really that of the government's chickens coming home to roost. This government did everything it possibly could to discourage oilseed processing plants in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Paul Theodore Hellyer: It did everything it could to discourage the kind of diversification and increased potential that this country needs and which would be good for Canadian farmers, both at the present time and in the years to come. What is required now is obviously greater imagination and initiative on the part of the government, policies designed to assist through technology the development of strains of

soybean, for example, which are resistant to cold and can be grown in our great western provinces as well as in southwestern Ontario.
We hope the government will learn something from this crisis in which we find ourselves. We hope it will not drift along and wait for the next act of the United States to which it will react. We hope this time it will show some imagination and divert some of the money which is being used in less productive ways to agricultural programs to assist Canadian farmers to expand and diversify their products, which would be very useful to them and rewarding in every respect in the years to come.
While we reluctantly accept this announcement, and without commenting on the retroactive feature of it, we hope the government will take to heart the lesson we have learned, stop this policy of drift from crisis to crisis, start showing some initiative and imagination, and give the Canadian farmers the kind of support they really deserve.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, the announcement tonight by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie) highlights the incompetence of this government and its mismanagement and bad direction of the farm economy. The minister is in the unfortunate position of having to develop a policy which in essence tries to cover the mistakes and correct the inadequacies of the minister in charge of the wheat board. If this House should do anything tonight, it should call for the resignation of that minister.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: You had your chance.


John Howard Lundrigan: You could have defeated him. Why do you want him to resign?


Alfred Pullen Gleave: I hear catcalls from my right, from the people who refused to put rye and the oilseeds under the Canadian Wheat Board, and refused any move toward orderly marketing to ensure a price for the farmer which would encourage him to produce those products which Canadians need.
We are the victims of a nineteenth century approach to our agricultural economy. We are the victims of planning for scarcity, which is what the government has planned for in the past number of years. They told the farmers not to produce wheat. They also told them not to produce rapeseed or barley. This is on the record. They now come with their export permits, their lack of capacity and ability to provide Canadians with the protein that is needed for our livestock industry. We fought for a decent freight rate policy for western Canada to move our processed oil and protein meal to eastern Canada. We had to fight on our own. If as a result of the situation we face tonight there is a redirection of policy for farmers and agriculture, that will be our only gain.
I have no confidence in the minister and his export permits. While the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce is pleading for the tolerance of this House so that he may issue export permits for vital farm products, the minister in charge of the wheat board is planning programs and policies that will destroy the control and administration of the Canadian Wheat Board over the
July 9, 1973

handling of feed grains. At the same time as the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce is asking western farmers to accept his controls, the minister in charge of the wheat board is preparing to destroy the very essence of orderly marketing upon which the western farmer depends.
I await the announcements of the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board. However, if they are of the kind indicated by press releases up to this time, I will not have any further confidence in the minister in charge of the wheat board or the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, who really does not know what he is talking about.
[ Translation]


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, it is regrettable that the government allows problems to worsen in the extreme before it reacts. For the past few months in this House, every week, if not every day, the serious problem of rising food production costs has been emphasized. Many questions have been put to the various ministers responsible, but we have always received unsatisfactory answers that gave no hint of a solution to this serious problem.
Now we are suffering from the consequences of this practice of leaving problems unsolved. Not only are the farmers in a difficult situation, with production costs rising and the cost-price squeeze getting tighter, but the consumers are also being hit by this rise in production costs, and from all sides we hear the farmers making representations and stating that, in despair, they will abandon their farms unless a solution is found quickly.
Mr. Speaker, I met yesterday with a group of producers from my constituency who told me of their fears over this problem. The cost of protein feeds is now very high, thus contributing to the unprecedented price rise for products of all kinds.
This evening, the minister has announced that in view of the American government's imposition of permits on the export of certain high-protein products, Canada is also forced to impose restrictions, until the results of the coming harvest are known, by obliging exporters to apply for permits to respect contracts signed before June 29.
So, I say this: to my mind, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie) should have been advised much earlier of the situation; he should have taken steps to force those exporters to keep a huge quantity of those protein-rich products and so enable Canada to keep up its impetus towards increased food production, and agricultural production in every sphere.
A while ago, I heard the former speaker talk about the serious problems of western producers; but the problem also exists in the eastern provinces. That is why I say the problem is very serious and I urge the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce to study it further and more intensively with the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) with a view to taking other steps, as soon as possible, and ensuring Canada an adequate production to enable all producers to meet their obligations, to meet the needs in food products of the people, and also make reasonable profits, that an end might be put to that painful and
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension alarming situation, that is, the abandonment of farm lands. The situation has become disheartening.
Mr. Speaker, I therefore approve what steps have just been taken. Moreover, I hope, in fact, I am convinced that the government will get the support of this House in taking whatever measures are deemed conducive to remedy the situation, measures that will not be band-aids on a wooden leg.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. MacEachen that Bill C-208, to suspend the operation of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.
John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, first may I say I hope the minister who made a statement on motions a few minutes ago will recognize the spirit of co-operation shown on this side of the House. We welcome statements on motions, and today is no exception.
It is somewhat coincidental that I should rise tonight to talk about redistribution so soon after we have heard a statement on motions, and various comments by hon. members in response, on a subject which has to do with agriculture. It seems to me that if our relations with the United States were on a better footing it would have been unnecessary for the minister to have made this statement. Our neighbours to the south seem to be much more progressive in their attitude toward agriculture than we are.
One of the most fundamental problems facing our nation today is the fact that the most productive parts of the country are so sparsely represented in the House of Commons. I could easily make tonight what might be considered a parochial speech, a speech which might delight some members of the House though it might not appeal to the hon. member for Peel South (Mr. Blenkarn), on the effect of the bill before us as it pertains to the constituency of Gander-Twillingate. But I believe we are talking about a subject which is fundamental to confederation, one which is causing frustration to Canadians and members of parliament today and having to do with the balance of representation in this chamber.
I take fairly strong issue with some of the speeches which have been made here in recent days. They have been, perhaps, a bit small minded, may be a bit political for the sake of some immediate political gain. I suggest we recognize the fact that parts of Canada which are extremely productive, which still have a tremendous capacity to produce, do not enjoy the representation they deserve. Looking to my right, I see an hon. member who has already taken part in this debate, the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling); the "Darling of rural
5434

July 9, 1973
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension
Canada", we might call him in our caucus, and perhaps this makes it unnecessary for any other member from rural Canada to come forward with a presentation.
However, there is a bill before us dealing with redistribution and I wish to present a few arguments to induce members to look at the representation in the House in a somewhat different light. If the bill were not passed, then in accordance with the process now in being the representation accorded to various areas of the country would be reduced. I am giving only one example when I mention my own province, where there would be a reduction from seven seats to six, though the population has almost doubled since Newfoundland became part of Canada in 1949.
But that fact is irrelevant to my argument that a seat should be lost in Newfoundland, or Manitoba or Saskatchewan. I am suggesting that if a federal system is to continue to operate in this country it will be necessary to take a serious look at the balance of representation in the House of Commons. Unless this is done, a challenge will be presented to the basis of confederation. Unless those areas which constitute productive parts of the country, areas which possess resource capacity, are given a proportionately fairer share of representation, I consider we are not heading in the right direction.
There are many reasons for saying that the issues facing us in the Atlantic region, for example, are not receiving due attention because our members do not carry sufficient political weight in terms of numbers. You can talk all you like about agriculture, for example, but if there are only 20 or 30 members representing truly agricultural constituencies it is almost impossible to influence government policy effectively.
You can rest relatively assured that these questions will not occupy the main attention of the government, mainly because of the fact that it makes little difference whether the government stands for agriculture or is against agriculture. It recognizes it can get elected without the agricultural vote. On the Atlantic coast we have 32 seats out of a grand total of 264; we have 12 per cent of the representatives in the Canadian House of Commons. It makes little difference to the federal government, whether it be this government or some other government, in which direction the Atlantic vote is steered in approving or disapproving federal policies. As long as this is the case you can rest assured that the Atlantic provinces or the western provinces are going to be mere appendices to the federal system.
I want to tell Your Honour and the House of Commons that unless there is some major departure from either the philosophy or the attitude of governments as they have existed in the past or as they exist today, or some major departure from the present system of representation in the House of Commons, then the alienation that is felt in Quebec, in the Atlantic provinces and in the western provinces will not only continue but will continue to grow. This is what concerns me more than the bill before us here today.
I am very sorry that my colleague who is a member of my own party is not in the House today, and if he were in the House I have a feeling that the least I would do would

be to strip him of some of the medals that he has gained from some of his political wars. I have read with care the remarks of my hon. colleague about the very narrow minded attitude that was expressed, and I am worried not only about that attitude, but I am afraid it might become the attitude taken by some other members of this House of Commons.
Anybody who suggests that the representation in the Canadian House of Commons should be based totally, primarily and solely on population really does not deserve to enjoy the benefits of a federal system and be part of Canada. This particular problem is so much more complex and so much more complicated than that. If you read the acts and regulations governing the terms of reference of the people who tried to recommend redistribution, you will see nowhere any guidelines governing the approach of these people in recommending redistribution.
My colleague the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser), in the meetings we have had, I do not mind saying quite openly has always made the point that population should not be the only consideration for redistribution of Canadian seats or representation in the House of Commons.
As I say, the whole process of redistribution is so much more complex. What I would like to see growing out of this debate and the committee report are some guidelines for a future body, whether it be a committee of the House of Commons or the redistribution agency that is given legislative power by the House of Commons, as to what should be the appropriate considerations for representation in the House of Commons.
I agree with my colleague from Peel South (Mr. Blen-karn) that population has always to be a dominating factor in determining representation in the House of Commons. I think it is grossly unfair for my colleague to have
200,000	people in his district and for me to be representing only 75,000 people. All other factors being equal, I think this is grossly unfair. Nevertheless, I know there are members from the urban parts of Canada, from Edmonton, Vancouver, Toronto, Montreal and Hamilton, who are representing people in excess of the 75,000 average we from the Atlantic provinces represent.
There are other factors as well. For anybody to suggest that Prince Edward Island should lose any of its representation I think would be rejecting the whole process of Canadian history. Prince Edward Island is a province that elected to come into confederation at the beginning, at a time when we as a province were waiting to see-and this could be a quotation in all the history books-if we could get the best deal possible out of confederation. We did not have the gumption to become part of Canada until 1949, but we are now proud to be part of Canada. Certainly you cannot argue that this historic fact is not one to be considered when you are determining representation in the House of Commons. I think this goes for those western provinces as well that elected to become part of this great country, in some cases almost a century ago.
I represent a district that is one of the largest districts in the House of Commons; at least, I get $800 extra on my expense allowance every year on this account. I think I am one of 22 other districts whose members get extra allowances based on the fact that they have such a heavy
July 9, 1973

geographic responsibility. I have oiten wondered if the hon. member from Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador (Mr. Rompkey), which by the way is one of the great resource frontiers of North America and the western world, the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), my friend from the Northwest Territories (Mr. Firth), my friend from Churchill (Mr. Taylor), and other members who represent these districts, have great difficulty in giving their constituents any representation and service under our federal system.
As a matter of fact, any time our friends from urban centres would like to visit my riding or any riding similar to mine and spend a week experiencing the difficulty of travelling around a district with the geography of any of the Atlantic provinces, or of most of the western provinces for that matter, they are quite welcome to do so. I would like to suggest that this would change their philosophy about more representation in urban Canada based on the need for service.
It is almost impossible for members from the rural parts of this country to give anything like an adequate service to their constituents. My colleague from St. John's West (Mr. Carter) is sitting here right now. People from the urban parts of his riding, unlike the rural parts, can walk into the Unemployment Insurance Office, a post office, a hospital, or any of the facilities of either the provincial or the federal government, with no transportation difficulty at all because all are within easy access.
I represent a riding that requires me to travel about
7,000	or 10,000 miles in a period of about two months. During that time I might get into each community for 10 or 15 minutes. I represent a total of nine island communities, and one of these communities is in the most easterly part of Canada, Fogo Island, 12 miles out in the Atlantic Ocean. On that island alone there are 12 little communities. It is a day's work to go to the island; it is three days' work to travel around the island. There are all the disadvantages of poor roads, the communications difficulties of a remote community. After a couple of days there I might get into each community for five or 10 minutes; then I have to go on to another community. Then I have a day's work to get back. After spending that much effort I have serviced about 5,000 people.
The basic reason we have to go into our rural communities is that the people expect to see you, though you certainly cannot give them anything like the commendable service you can give people in urban communities. You can walk around the average riding in Ottawa in a week, almost going from door to door. You can knock on every door and ask every old lady or every young woman or every eligible voter what their problems are. You can get on the open line program the next morning and talk about practically any subject.
However, Labrador is about as big as the Atlantic provinces put together. Even if you had the energies of Frobisher and the dedication of Dr. Grenville, it would take you the whole summer to get into each community for five minutes. This is the kind of situation we face, yet we have people like my colleague and others getting up in the House of Commons and talking about population being the only basis for redistribution of seats.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension


John Howard Lundrigan: Although I have been talking about history, population and geography, we also have resources in our area. My colleague and others have stood up and said you cannot consider the fact that you represent resources. You do not represent oil wells, you do not represent wheat fields, you do not represent mines and you do not represent timber resources, any more than you represent pavement or airports. I would like to say to this House and to the Canadian people that that is exactly what we do represent.
If we are not willing to represent the resources of our country, why do we not recognize that some other countries might be interested in these resources? We talk about foreign ownership. We have a population in Labrador the size of a small city, 25,000 to 30,000 people. Labrador feeds most of the mineral wealth of great cities. Most of the resources in the city of Pittsburgh come from Labrador. Most of the water requirements of the northeast coast of North America come from Labrador.
A couple of years ago we started and almost completed a billion-dollar project. In 1972 the Churchill Falls project, which was the largest project in the world outside of the American space program, employed 6,600 men and women on site in Churchill Falls. That project is going to be completed by 1976 or 1977 and will supply the electrical needs of the whole of the northeast coast of North America.
This project has never been discussed in the House of Commons. The matter has been mentioned by the hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador and on a few other occasions by other colleagues of mine, although they have barely mentioned it. No one has mentioned what the dividends are to the Canadian people, how the ownership is constituted or what the United States involvement is. We have "half a member" in this House of Commons to talk about a project which is worth $1 billion.
The Northwest Territories and the Yukon Territory are the great frontiers of North America, with all the mineral, oil and other wealth we need for the next 100 years. Yet we have only two members in this House of Commons representing these two territories which are larger than the rest of Canada. Do hon. members mean to tell me that this is not an issue when we talk about redistribution and representation?
How many people sitting around the cabinet table have an input in respect to the Northwest Territories, the Yukon Territory, or Labrador, the great resource frontiers? I say these factors are much more important in the long run to Canada than the proposition of the population we represent. I think if someone gave us a chance to represent some of the cities of Canada, three or four of us could make a pretty good job of it.
In talking about government representation, may I say I represent an area of Canada-and I think I speak for most of my colleagues from rural areas-which is practically without any form of government other than provincial and municipal. A federal and provincial system of government is almost unnecessary. In parts of Canada today municipal governments are highly sophisticated and have the ability to carry on the system almost without the

July 9, 1973
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension necessity of having reprsentatives in the House of Commons.
Almost every day in my office I receive 40 or 50 letters about every kind of problem one might imagine-social, welfare, unemployment and every other type. If someone wants to build a home on a piece of land next door, or if a lady has a problem with a neighbour, she writes to me rather than take it up with the welfare office or the municipal office. She writes to her member of parliament.
I am perhaps dramatizing the situation to show the problems that the rural representative on the federal side has in the House of Commons, but there is hardly a problem one could mention with which we are not confronted. I had a phone call from a constituent today who asked me about buying land from his next door neighbour. He wanted to find out who owned it, how much it cost and how he would go about buying it. All that urban members hear about are abortion matters, urban problems, housing and so on. We have these problems too, but we have to deal with real people and many other problems. Perhaps there was a television program which did not go over too well in our area. We might receive 100 letters from people telling us they did not like it, that they could not make up their mind about it, or something like that. As I say, we are dealing with real people and real problems.
Perhaps the only contact they have with the government is through their federal member, or in some cases their provincial member. I am not an unusual member of parliament. One could visit the office of any member of parliament from rural Canada and find that their phones are constantly ringing. They have two secretaries who are run ragged. Other offices are busy but they do not have the same type of problems we have. I am sure that in the city of Ottawa today the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) does not have to deal with these basic "gut" problems that we have in our areas.


An hon. Member:: He does not deal with any.


John Howard Lundrigan: I know he does not deal with the major problems, but I do not think he deals with the minor ones either. My colleague from Vancouver South told me-as a matter of fact I remember it quite vividly-of his concern that the redistribution which took place did not consider the concept of the community. He told me he felt it was necessary to do more than say to somebody that you are going to redistribute seats in the House of Commons and have 70,000 or 90,000 people in a riding, or 80,000 people with latitude above and beyond that median, because there is something called community in Canada.
The community of St. John's has 100,000 people. It is a beautiful, neat district. If the way we redistribute seats is to give 80,000 people in the city of St. John's to one member, another 20,000 people at the other end are cut away even though these people all have common values and common economic, political and social problems. These 20,000 other people are stuck into another district and have nothing in common with the people there. If that is how we distribute seats in Canada, I suggest there must be a major overhaul in respect to Canadian representation.
I do not wish to harp on this point, but I do want to say that in the overall distribution of seats the values of the Canadian people must be considered. From listening to the

arguments which have been presented during this debate one might draw the conclusion that everyone should live in the cities of Canada.


An hon. Member:: Who said that?


John Howard Lundrigan: You know exactly who I am talking about. I will not repeat the names of my colleagues because we have had enough of this. Everyone knows that some people feel very strongly that population is the only factor in redistribution. But I contend we must look at the values of the Canadian people too. Many people want to live in the rural parts of Canada. I predict that within the next decade many people who are now living in the urban parts of the country will want to seek the solace, benefit and beauty of rural Canada. My colleague from Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) talked about the quality of life, and I am sure there is no one more qualified to talk about it than he.
In conclusion, I wish to spend about five or ten minutes in trying to establish what are some of the factors I feel must be considered. I suggest to my colleague the House leader that I do not think the bill goes far enough. I shall not be satisfied until we have taken this thing through to the point where we have discussed all the factors influencing redistribution. I shall not be satisfied with legislation limited to the year 1974. I shall not be satisfied until we have legislative power given some direction by the Canadian House of Commons.
I have tried to touch on history, population, geography, resources, other governments' involvement in certain areas, the vagaries of the Canadian people and community of interest in certain areas. These are factors that I believe should govern the redistribution of seats. In conclusion, I want to touch, partly parochially, on two particular problems that strike home to me very forcefully.
One is resources, and all of the implications of resources as a factor in the Canadian governmental system. We became part of Canada-if I sort of edge my way into the ranks of Nova Scotians, Prince Edward Islanders and New Brunswickers-back in 1867 and thereafter. Newfoundland, as a province, did not become part of Canada until 1949, and ever since that date we have suffered the most chronic unemployment situation in the western world.
Today we have the Governor of the Bank of Canada, the Minister of Finance and statisticians talking about the fact that there is full employment in some parts of Canada. They are even talking about labour shortages. At the same time in the Atlantic provinces-and here I am sort of generalizing a bit-we have about 10 per cent unemployment. The situation gets worse in the winter months and better in the summer months. The best we can say is that we have a very heavy seasonal unemployment problem, which most of us can just tolerate because of the welfare scheme of the Canadian nation. But we do not like it because our people want to work.
There has never been a government since 1867 that had the gumption to take issue with the real problems facing this country, particularly the problems facing our part of the country. This has to do with the fact that we are part of the federal system, in which tariffs are designed to satisfy the needs of the heavily industrialized parts of the
July 9, 1973

country. I stress that we have nothing in the world against this. We are also part of this country where the economic policies of the government are designed to satisfy the majority of the people. We have nothing in the world against that. We want the people in Toronto and Montreal to be at work. We want the people in central Canada to be at work. We are part of this system in which the monetary policies of the government have to be designed to satisfy the great majority of the Canadian people, and we have nothing in the world against that either.
From time to time new monetary policies are designed to cool off inflation, to increase interest rates, and to make money tight. But what happens to us is that, each time there is a moderate fluctuation in monetary policy or tariff policy, we are getting it right in the rear end. And the same thing happens in western Canada. We end up bearing the burden of Canadian economic policies. I repeat that nobody since 1867 has ever had the gumption to come out and say there were going to vary their policies to satisfy new needs, or to satisfy our local needs.
I am predicting that even with the efforts of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion the problem of unemployment will continue to exist long after I have sat down in my seat tonight. Again I say that nobody has had the gumption to remedy this situation, the reason being that it is not politically necessary to draw up these kinds of policies to satisfy those parts of Canada whose people have problems. Some ten years from now I will be back fishing, or teaching school, or doing something else, and we will still have the same problems in the Atlantic provinces simply because it is not politically necessary for the central government to cater to the Atlantic provinces.
The city of Toronto has more parliamentary seats than Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island combined. The two Canadian cities of Toronto and Montreal have more parliamentary seats than all four Atlantic provinces. Why would it be necessary for the government to sit around a table and worry about economic policies as they affect the Atlantic provinces?
We acknowledge the fact that our colleagues from down east, the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) and the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Jamieson), are doing their best. I have absolute respect for them. They are men who put a great deal of energy into our Canadian system. But the fact of the matter is they do not have the capacity, the ability, the energy, or the time to represent the Atlantic provinces in a way that will bring about any substantial change in the direction taken by our provinces.
I have mentioned Labrador. It has huge deposits of iron ore and great mineral wealth that few hon. members even know about. You think we are a poor province? You can bet your boots we are not a poor province. The only member in this House outside the Atlantic region who has ever dealt with our resources in a knowledgeable manner is the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton), who usually thinks about a quarter of a century ahead.
We have this great resource in Labrador which is being harvested in the raw form, and shipped down to Pittsburgh in ships and trains. Nobody in our province is getting any real value from it. Would this situation contin-
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension ue to exist if we had 50 or 60 members of parliament representing that area who could bring pressure to bear on the government?
We have the continental shelf resources on the east coast. We have the resources under our sea bed that are now in dispute between the provincial governments and the federal government. How often do we hear members talking about them in the House of Commons? Not only do they not talk about them, but it is almost out of order when you stand up in your place in this House and talk about marine resources. Fish is almost a dirty four-letter word, like the "fuddle-duddle" that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) came out with. You simply do not talk about fish because that concerns the poorer element of the Atlantic coast.
We do not have 50 or 60 members standing up in their places and embarrassing Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) and the Prime Minister with the power of persuasion, and with their convictions about Atlantic resources. We do not have the muscle, the horsepower. How often have you heard the Prime Minister talk about marine resources? He does not know what the continental shelf is. He does not understand one bit about fish. The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) would not dirty his hands with fish and continental shelf resources. As a matter of fact, very few people in central Canada ever bother about them. Mr. Speaker, if I ever make the Globe and Mail on fish I will stand up on a question of privilege and say that something has gone wrong. Watergate, Viet Nam, and Mr. Pearson's involvement are big issues; fish is not a big issue.
Some of my colleagues and I have just returned from Iceland. Some of my venturesome colleagues have a little blood in them. They are descendants of people who came across to Newfoundland and really started the development of this great continent of North America. We asked the CBC if they would like to send a cameraman with us. Although we were not interested in political advantage, they said they could not send anybody.
The day after I came back I had a little time and I looked up CBC programming and found they were going to devote 12 hours to programs on the Moslem religion. I suppose that must cost about $4 million or $5 million. Yet they could not afford to send anybody with us. It would have cost them $3,000 to send a camera crew to Iceland where we wanted to compare the problems of the Icelandic fishery with our problems on the east coast of Canada. It all boils down to the question of political power and muscle. We just do not have any. If anybody is interested in redistributing seats, I think they should start looking at the country from a different perspective. I know that I am talking language that western Canadians also understand.
I am going to complete my remarks with a little comment about something called urban drift. All over the world for the last half century we have had what has been called the urban drift. Most people have a kind of Arctic lemming tendency, but people have to go to the big centres. Some people go there because they must; they are unemployed at home. A lot of our people from Newfoundland have gone to Toronto. Traditionally there has been a great exodus of east coast Canadians to Toronto. But in the last few years, whether hon. members have recognized

July 9, 1973
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension it or not there has been a tendency for people to start to look in our direction.
It always amazes me that the guys who grow their hair a bit longer, the guys we call hippies, were the first people who started to question some aspects of our material trip, our urban trip. On the east coast of Canada-I do not know what people experience on the west coast-we began to find that the hippies went out to little island communities that had been vacated by our people as a result of resettlement and other programs that the government had drawn up which encouraged people to move away frcm rural communities. Small farmers were discouraged from living on their farms and there was general discouragement from living in rural Canada. The government encouraged people to move away from rural communities, and we found that the progressive types were those who moved in.
I wonder if anyone here has read any of Mr. Thoreau's works? I am referring to his leaving society in the 1840's- Walden was the name of the place-and going to live as the hippie of his day in uninhabited parts, in the almost uncivilized wilderness of this country. The hippies have started to go back to the rural parts of this country where they have found something of value. They did not find smokestacks, congestion, traffic jams, heat waves, and all this kind of nonsense. They found pleasant people, uninhabited countryside, homes and places where they could till the soil and lead a normal, traditional life. They found a quality of life which our ancestors came here to seek. Many people in the mad drift for urbanism forgot all about this. I am saying that there is a tendency, one the government should recognize, for people to want to get away from some aspects of urban living.
I heard today my colleague from the south coast of Newfoundland, the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Jamieson), telling some of us at a little private gathering that he had spoken with the leader of the Russian people who said that even in that country they had tried to put some kind of a brake on the growth of urbanism but have not succeeded very well because some of the forces that encourage urbanization are almost uncontrollable.
In all countries of the world there has been a tendency to try to control the drift toward urbanization. Today we are experiencing two forces. First, there is the attempt by people to try to control urbanism because provincial or municipal governments do not seem to be able to control it. They do not know what to do with it. It is getting to the point where we just cannot control problems which tend to become magnified in the large urban centres.
I am saying to you, Mr. Speaker, that if the government of this country or any future government wanted to lend a small measure of support to the encouragement of rural living, they should start showing their real concern by placing more emphasis on the rural voter. This is what I wish to say in conclusion. I think it would be worthwhile, instead of supporting the philosophy which has been expounded here by some hon. members that we should base ourselves on the principle of representation by population, to consider trying to move in the opposite direction,

because year after year governments have shown a tendency to allow urban growth and drift of population towards urban centres.
Perhaps we should say to the Atlantic and to the western provinces that we will not reduce their representation, that we will increase it and give the urban member more support staff to carry on his role. If we were to do that, then I would say that there would be much more policy and economic, social and political direction emanating from the government which would be in tune with the country and in tune with the views of the majority of the people.


René Matte: Mr. Speaker, I believe that there was an obvious need to delay the application of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act.
In fact, several of my colleagues in this House have stressed various points, and have argued, in my opinion, in a most reasonable manner. They have spoken of demographic factors, they have distinguished between the rural and urban regions, and I believe Mr. Speaker, that all the hon. member were right.
Indeed, it is most difficult to give the usual consideration to the possibility of changing electoral boundaries when one considers the extraordinary size of our country and all the other human factors.
In my view, Mr. Speaker, before implementing the recommendations of the commission it is absolutely essential that the present legislation be completely revised, since an extremely important factor-and I would like to stress this-is forgotten, namely the different racial origins in of the people of this country. Mr. Speaker, by virtue of the underlying principles of the legislation, it could happen, in theory, that the French-Canadian element of the country, for example, would have almost no representation in this House.
That is a major factor, an extremely important factor, for if the principle were applied right now in the province of Quebec, for example, there would be two fewer constituencies, and if circumstances dictated that the population of Quebec were more stagnant than that of Ontario or the other provinces, it could happen that the number of members from Quebec in this House would drop alarmingly, and we would thus be admitting that those who no longer believe in Canada are completely right. There is, therefore, an urgent need to thoroughly revise this Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, so as to take basic factors into consideration. The hon. member who preceded me spoke in particular of the problems of Newfoundland; it is true that this province has special problems. The same may be true for other provinces.
I would specially like to stress the case of Quebec, for, in my opinion, it is extremely important to maintain the ethnic entities which are the very basis of our country.
Therefore, electoral boundaries should be based on that and the various basic elements in this country should be given the guaranty that they will be represented in this Parliament.
The population cannot be the essential factor to be considered and I believe the mistake in the present legisla-
July 9, 1973

tion consists in giving this factor too much importance, for on that account, Mr. Speaker, if one always relied on such a factor and gave it such importance, how could one consider all international organizations?
How for instance could the United Nations be an entity where each country is given distinct and full representation, if the population factors were considered? In that case, only extremely populous countries would have all rights.
Therefore, in this country of ours, made up of the provinces, we should consider those entities with respect to the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, so that each part or each area in this country is sure of having adequate representation in this House.
In order to achieve that, we should even consider changing the constitution if we have to. I wonder if we should not some day, after having passed laws to ensure in this House representation for all the elements in this country, consider the possibility of guaranteeing also the majority acquired rights and privileges, to consider even the establishment of some kind of veto right, so that we may never come to a situation where a strictly demographic majority could determine the future of a whole national entity in this country.
Such is the factor I wanted to deal with for my colleagues in this House as I believe it is extremely important. That is why I think we must support this bill and, in my opinion, encourage the government to consider in depth reforms in this matter, even if it meant amending the constitution.


Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, from the start I would like to say that I am delighted at the presentation of a bill to freeze the proposals already made by the commission, proposals that I and the majority of the members I have heard would rate as somewhat stupid.
As explained by the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte) and others who spoke before on the redistribution of the seats in the House of Commons or the representation needed for each province or each regions it seems that only one factor has been considered, the demographic one.
And it would be flying in the face of facts to refuse to make a distinction between rural and urban areas. Indeed, it is possible that in the largest cities such as Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver a member represents a far more substantial number of citizens in comparison with a member from a rural constituency, since the problems are more numerous as well as the representations made by the constituents to the member.
I wonder to what extent the commission takes that factor in consideration. I think that the commission must divide by x a population of 22 million inhabitants, but the sociological and economic factors which must absolutely be considered when a redistribution is involved seem to be completely neglected by the commissioners. I think that a lot of representations were made in this House recently with respect to business already in progress to have the House consider certain factors which we think are very important.
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension
The government responded with this bill presently before us to postpone the changes for 18 months. But to what extent during those 18 months will the commission be invited to consider the views expressed in this House?
And I think that it would be inadequate and even also ridiculous to have a postponement of 18 months if no changes are brought about in the methods used by the commissioners to determine electoral boundaries.
I think it is very important during those 18 months that the government ensure that methods used are well monitored so that the commission will recognize that it is impossible to have the same number of voters in both rural and urban ridings, considering all the differences, all the problems involved. I must congratulate all those members who on behalf of their provinces ask that representation be at least that which we have now plus a certain number of seats if the population increased enough to warrant the addition of seats.
But as a Quebecer I must ask that the representation of 74 seats be not reduced in the process, considering the original proposals made by the commission. I think it is important that every member make that recommendation and urge the government to consider the importance of representation first. If we assess the number of our voters we realize that most members represent very large ridings and that reducing the number of seats is out of the question. To the contrary, we would be inclined to think that it would be wiser and more logical to see that the number of members be increased, which would be fairer and more efficient.
Those are the few remarks I wanted to make on this bill, and I hope it will not merely be a deferment to allow the commission to act as it pleases, as it does at present. I hope the government will see to it that when readjusting the electoral boundaries of a given area the commission will consider the economic and social factors and as far as possible arrange in groups people whose mentalities are identified by themselves.
At present, the commission has ignored all these factors and we are wondering how responsible people can contemplate such a redistribution. If you have a little respect for the people, you must certainly separate them as it is done now, exactly like animals. In my view, we must consider these factors, reorganize our areas in order to have them better represented and so that they get from the government much more concrete results and also in order that members, from whatever party, may better fulfill their duties and responsibilities. I do not doubt that each member wishes to represent efficiently the people who have elected him, but starting with a logical electoral map, it will be possible to give a logical representation.


Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to give qualified support to this bill and to speak very briefly as an urban member from the province of Alberta. Some people are critical of any delay in the redistribution process and the updating of the electoral boundaries in light of the 1971 census. I am not happy with the delay either, but I take it from the remarks of the government House leader (Mr. MacEachen) on the introduction of the bill that the principal reason for bringing it
5440

July 9, 1973
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension in at this time was that if perchance an election were called in the next year and the electoral boundaries were in a state of suspended animation, we would not be able to have the election and parliamentary business would be held up. I certainly would not want to be party to holding up an election in the country.
The hon. minister went on to make a second point, namely that an 18-month examination of the redistribution process would perhaps give us an opportunity to arrive at some process better than the present one. To that I say a very hearty "amen." I feel so strongly that we need to improve the redistribution process that I want to give my support to the bill even though it means delaying redistribution.
As a result of the report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission, as has been so eloquently and interestingly enunciated by the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Lundrigan) tonight, we are now facing a very serious situation in modern Canada, namely the deruralization of Canada. I will explain what I mean by that. I speak as an urban member from Alberta. Alberta after redistribution holds the same total of 19 seats, but the city ridings of Calgary and Edmonton gain three seats at the expense of the rural ridings. In other words, rural Alberta will have three less seats. One might think that as an urban member I would be in favour of this since we would have higher representation from the kind of area I represent. Nothing could be further from the truth.
I want to indicate tonight the kind of objection I raised on April 2 when I made a personal submission before the Electoral Boundaries Commission of Alberta. I will speak about that at the conclusion of my remarks. The thrust of my argument is why I am in favour of this bill and why I am in favour of helping rural Canada to regain the strength it has been losing.
The rural constituencies are redrawn in a map we have before us. They are too large geographically, with the result they will be impossible to service. The disproportionately large populations in the rural constituencies compared with the smaller populations in the urban constituencies does a disservice to the needs of rural Alberta. This situation prevails across the country.
An assumption was made by the drafters that the urban population will grow. This also is a disservice to the rural constituencies. It is not the function of the commission to make this assumption. Indeed, I think the quality of life in Canada is hurt by setting up structures that make it more difficult for rural areas to maintain their viability. I argue the reverse, namely that it is in the interests of a balanced spectrum of life in Canada to protect the rural areas against the forces of an urbanized, technological society which is now prevailing against them. It is not the least of the functions of a rural member of parliament to protect the interests of rural constituents and legislate on their behalf.
It was said in this debate the other day that if the present redistribution were to be carried out, we would have in this House in a few years time 90 per cent of representation from 12 major cities in Canada. Everybody knows of the drift to urban centres. This would be the

consequence of a strict following of representation by population. Not the least of the consequences of that unfortunate situation would be that we would hear less in this House of the famous commodities of wheat and fish. As important as those two commodities is the transportation and marketing so necessary to ensure the economic strength of Canada across the board.
There is not only economic concern here but the very quality of life itself. The social problems of our cities have been mushrooming as a result of a very rapid expansion which is all to well known. I make an earnest plea that in passing this bill we encourage the government to set up the kind of commission that would be responsive to the total needs of Canada and would go beyond the very narrow limitation of thinking that is embraced by this slogan, "rep by pop".
As a western Canadian, it would be easy to second the observation made by Dr. Norman Ward, professor of political science at the University of Saskatchewan and vicechairman of the Saskatchewan Electoral Boundaries Commission, a very astute man. He said:
It is clear, in sum, that the western provinces, compared with the others, have not had their fair share of parliamentary representation in either the Commons or the Senate.
I want to support that argument. Much as I agree with the thrust of Professor Ward's observation that western representation needs to be increased, we must consider the over-all good of the country rather than this preoccupation with making the House of Commons totally representative of accelerating urbanization in this country.
I do not want to turn my back on the urban members of this House, of which I am one. Obviously our people need better service. We are servicing a great many people. But one of the ways in which we could move ahead in this area would be for the Electoral Boundaries Commission to apply the tolerance level more generously than they did, certainly in Alberta. In Alberta they tried to make constituencies with a population of roughly 85,000. It was much too even between the urban and rural constituencies. We argued they should have gone 25 per cent above in the population of urban constituencies and 25 per cent below in the case of rural, but they did not do that. That is one of the reasons so many members from Alberta, myself included, are adamantly opposed to the kind of redistribution we were offered.
The hon. member for Peel South (Mr. Blenkarn) made a very strong case which was the subject of some criticism. It is a very hard job to try and service increasingly populous urban areas. In this interim process we can come up with something better. Why does the government delay in providing constituency offices and help for members of parliament who are now acting as ombudsmen as well as parliamentarians and communicators with their constituencies? We are facing all the problems the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Lundrigan) so interestingly illuminated tonight. We need more help in the urban constituencies particularly. If we had that help, there would be less pressure on us to augment our number in order properly to carry out our duties. That is an interim step. The cost of constituency offices would be very small indeed compared with the cost we are ultimately going to
July 9, 1973

face by expanding the numbers in this House of Commons. I will return to that at the end of my remarks.
I want to indicate why I am concerned with the manner in which the Electoral Boundaries Commissions operate. I do not think they are responsive enough to across-the board needs, taking into account the historical and social considerations in constituencies. I ask Your Honour to bear with me while I refer specifically to my own constituency of Edmonton-Strathcona as a case in point.
In the period between 1968 and the beginning of this session in 1973, Edmonton-Strathcona was practically unheard from in the House of Commons. That is the second reason I am returning to that particular constituency. I want to indicate how it has been hurt, but not from the point of view of partisanship or politically, it does not make any difference because of the general situation in Alberta today with regard to politics. What I am referring to is the manner in which an arbitrary dissection of the historical riding of Edmonton-Strathcona has been made by crossing the North Saskatchewan river and bringing into Edmonton-Strathcona the southern part of the former Edmonton West constituency.
The point I am trying to make is this. Anyone who knows Edmonton knows how important the North Saskatchewan river is to the life of the city. You are either on the north or the south side of that river when in Edmonton. The community interest is greatly affected by that river. To draw an arbitrary line and destroy the integrity of a constituency with the name Strathcona, originating from the founding of the city of Strathcona, the terminal railway point between Calgary and Edmonton before there was any bridge across the Saskatchewan river, is to have very little regard for the community interests in Strathcona.
Even more important than that historical observation is the contemporary note that seems to summarize the problems we face in Canada today. I refer to a non-partisan group called the Strathcona Historical Society. It was founded about one year ago and is funded by the city of Edmonton to analyse the problems of old Strathcona which exists in the very heart of the former Strachcona riding on the south side of the city.
Today people are moving into this area. It is quickly becoming a high rise community. The commercial interests are very worried because there is no long range planning for the area. They are not sure exactly what should be done. The Strathcona historical group studied the problem for 10 months and brought in a plan for the revitalization of Edmonton-Strathcona.
This has a direct bearing on the subject of the bill before us because what this group has tried to do is to show that old Strathcona is a highly urbanized area in the process of change. The group wishes to reinforce not only the identity but the idea of old Strathcona as a commercial centre and as a residential community, as well as an arrival point; to create a sense of place, a focal point of a neighbourhood, one which gives a sense of community and so on.
They have drawn up a plan which would allow for the redevelopment of the area while preserving human values.
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension They propose in their plan a vision for the future of old Strathcona built on the environmental qualities and the architectural heritage of the area. Simultaneously the plan encourages an attitude toward future development which would be sympathetic to the preservation of the heritage and qualities of old Strathcona. By providing an image of a possible future, the plan is a way of encouraging the implementation of its own recommendations and objectives. As an alternative to the present ad hoc approach to urban renewal, the plan encourages not only the preservation of existing buildings but the reinforcement of a sense of place and provision of a method of continuity with the past, the present and the future.
When I appeared before the Electoral Boundaries Commission I brought with me representatives of the Strathcona historical group who were at that time concluding their report, and they, too, made a presentation to the Electoral Boundaries Commission in Alberta. In their presentation they pointed out the salient fact that the Electoral Boundaries Commission, in redrawing old Strathcona, had split old Strathcona right down the middle, drawing a line which anyone knowing Edmonton would think was imcomprehensible because it was drawn along the Canadian Pacific tracks. Then the line along the new constituency suddenly veered to the west along 82nd Avenue to 109th Street, thereby splitting 82nd Avenue in the heart of the old Strathcona community, the north side of 82nd Avenue or, as Edmonton calls it, White Avenue, being in the new riding of Edmonton-Strathcona, the south side being in the new riding of Edmonton South.
The community of interest was thereby broken. We tried in non-partisan terms to explain that the interests of the community of old Strathcona, which so many people are taking such pains to restore in a way which will be a credit to modern urban Canada, required us to plead with them to redraw the map and to draw the eastern boundary of Strathcona along Mill Creek Ravine or at least 99th Street, running right into the river, thereby preserving the integrity of the riding.
I must say in compliment to the Electoral Boundaries Commission that when I asked them to at least save the name of Edmonton-Strathcona they agreed to do this, but they put it on the wrong side of south Edmonton instead of keeping it where it should be, in the heart of the Strathcona area in order to keep the community of interest.
I have recounted these events tonight to illustrate why I believe that the government House leader was on the right track. I hope we will not allow ourselves to be detoured because of what might happen further down the road. It is my opinion he was on the right track when he said we must get something better in the way of redistribution. The only way I can think of to get anything better is to set up a new commission or, at least, to instruct the commission which exists to use broader terms of reference which we will provide in this House.
We need terms of reference which will not merely reflect the old slogan "rep by pop" but which will take into consideration social and historical situations as well as the modern situations we face. What we are hearing in this debate-and my hon. friend from Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Lundrigan) stated a number of different aspects of
26446-54^

July 9, 1973
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension
this subject-are some of the many reasons why hon. members feel this matter is so important. Many aspects of government are touched here, especially in the area of intergovernmental co-operation.
The reason I am so concerned about old Strathcona is that it is an area which I know will be requiring a great deal of intergovernmental co-operation. It will be looking for a great deal of co-operation from all three levels of government if the area is to be preserved. To arbitrarily split it up to form a federal constituency boundary does not make any sense at all. Which federal member returned from the area is going to come to the federal government to discuss the question of the financing of, say, the highway route which will have to go through along the present right-of-way of the CPR tracks? Complex questions of this kind will have to be dealt with and they are matters we would like to see the Electoral Boundaries Commission take into consideration.
Mr. Speaker, I conclude on this note: I think the totality of Canadian development in the kind of society in which we live would be far better served by preserving the rural strength of Canada, by paying more attention to boundaries, especially close to the highly urbanized areas, and, finally, if we can put it into practice immediately, by a greater tolerance toward such considerations as I have outlined. This might serve us temporarily over the next few years, bringing us to the point at which, obviously, the number of seats in this House will have to be increased as the population grows. Let us do this, though, in a way which is not rushed, in a way which will, in this decade of the 'seventies, serve the Canadian people better.


Ian MacLachlan Arrol: Mr. Speaker, I am against the passage of Bill C-208, an act to suspend the operations of the electoral boundaries act, because I do not believe the House has truly taken into account the effect of such a suspension.
Should Bill C-208 be passed, it would probably result in the country being in a state of confusion on this issue until 1978 or thereabouts. The wish of those supporting the bill is that the new electoral boundaries should not come into effect until after the next election. If, then, there is an election a year from now, 1974, and a majority government is in office for four years, it will be only when 1978 is reached the new boundaries will apply. Passage of this bill would therefore mean a continuation for five or more years of wrangling and insecurity, for there will never be agreement on where the boundaries should be. A change in boundaries which would satisfy one group of people will automatically cause dissatisfaction with another group of people. The more changes proposed, the more so-called solutions will be demanded.
Another consideration which should be taken into account, Mr. Speaker, is that after the next election each member of parliament would have to serve, or, at least, be alert to the needs of, two constituencies, the one in which he was elected and the one in which he would hope to be elected in the next election. There might be a temptation for some politicians after the next election to ignore the people in the section he presently represents because they would not be voting in the constituency he would represent in the next election. To avoid confusion, insecurity and divided loyalty the preliminary report of the Electoral

Boundaries Commission should be adopted by this House as soon as possible.
What about the provinces which would lose seats as a result of the adoption of the preliminary report? The solution is not to add 30 or more seats to the House of Commons, for if in 1978 we had about 294 seats, in 1988 we might have 400. Why not have 500 or more-bureaucracy compounded as we round the turn of the century? Increased membership in the House of Commons would not increase but would decrease the individual MP's effectiveness. Imagine the question period, Mr. Speaker, with 400 instead of 264 members vying for attention.


An hon. Member:: Yes, but 300 on this side.


Gerald William Baldwin: And when you had that many it would be no improvement.


Ian MacLachlan Arrol: I could imagine that the mere mention of wheat by one member would probably bring at least 100 members to their feet seeking your attention, and with the debate on capital punishment we would not have 200 speeches but closer to 400. The value, the importance and the influence of each member would be reduced in inverse proportion to the increase in the House of Commons membership. The House as it is now has clogged wheels, but imagine the situation in the future with hundreds more secretaries and research assistants, and greater demands on the library, the facilities and printing staff, messenger services, cafeterias, the restaurant and on the elevator system.
The problems of provinces which would lose seats as a result of redistribution could be solved another way. I would suggest that consideration be given to increased representation in the Senate for those areas which would lose members in this House. The Senate has traditionally represented regional interests. While Senators would represent special regions we would have the rest of the country represented by population. Let us not suspend the report; let us adopt it so we can get on with other legislation to solve the economic problems in Canada.


Mr. Norval Horner (Battleford-Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, I intend to support this legislation.


An hon. Member:: See if you can convert your friend who has just sat down.


Norval Alic Horner: We who come from rural Saskatchewan sometimes think that when you are only standing still you are winning. I hope in the next 18 months to come up with a formula for representation by members of parliament in Ottawa that will be fair to everyone in Canada.
In the last 15 or 20 years our representation from Manitoba and Saskatchewan has fallen from 38 to the proposed 24 seats. This is a drop from 10 per cent of the members to 6V4 per cent. It is strange that traditionally from those areas very seldom are there government members. There is a feeling out there of alienation from the rest of Canada. The government has recognized that it has not dealt fairly with the west, and is now proposing to make amends shortly in Calgary. What purpose would be

served by insulting that region further by decreasing its representation in Ottawa?
I think an MP's role can be divided into two parts. The first is to serve the constituents. It has been mentioned by many people that we are increasingly supplying the people with more and more services, with lip and leap and you name it. Every time we do a service for a constituent we add more work for the member of parliament.
Hopefully, then, we can come up with a formula which would allow us on an equal basis to serve our constituents equally. It has been mentioned by the hon. member for Peel South (Mr. Blenkarn) that we are the delegates of the people, not of acres of land or miles of shoreline. Unfortunately, the acres of land, the miles of shoreline and geography all have a bearing on our ability to serve our constituents. A very important aspect of the service of a member of parliament to his constituents is his acceptability to the people.
Recently we have heard talk about offices in our constituencies. This talk has been promoted by urban members. In a rural constituency this would not be of much help. If we could assist a member of parliament to travel about 200 miles one must travel between meetings, then that would be of more help. Our office in a rural area is really our car. I travel 500 miles on a normal weekend trying to be of service to the people in my constituency. I do not think members with a city riding would drive that many miles in a session.


An hon. Member:: And they would lose their way.


Norval Alic Horner: The other aspect of the role of an MP is a delicate one. Supposedly he comes here to represent the views of his constituents. If this delicate role was the only one we thought about, perhaps representation by population would be all right, but it is not. If we adopt the idea that an MP is l/265th of the House of Commons, then each person is sort of representing one in 80,000. That would work out very nicely if all we were doing here was representing the views of our constituents. It has been mentioned that representation by population is the formula presently used. The hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Guay) said it was the law. I do not think it is the law. We do not divide the total population by 265, come up with a figure and then devise representation for each province. That is not the law at all.
The law is that certain provinces have been given guarantees under the constitution, and if they are taken care of and their requirements are met, the rest of the country is divided equally and then the country has representation by population. We now have a precedent, as has been mentioned in the debate, under the constitution. The province of New Brunswick cannot have fewer than 10 members of parliament. In addition, under the constitution any other province that has a population greater than New Brunswick cannot have fewer than 10 seats. So Saskatchewan and Manitoba could eventually fall to 10 seats.
We in Saskatchewan are unfortunately very close to the province of Alberta. For a reason which is obvious and requires no explanation, rapid growth in Alberta seems to take place at the expense of Saskatchewan. But the precedent has been established by the constitution that we cannot fall below 10 seats as long as our population
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension remains higher than the population of New Brunswick. This is a strange law. We have 300,000 more people yet we are guaranteed by the constitution that we will have the same number of members of parliament.
I suggest there is lots of time in the next 18 months for us to devise a better formula. A far simpler solution would be to allow 10 members for New Brunswick, and for those provinces with declining populations allow one more member for each 100,000 population greater than New Brunswick. That would freeze Saskatchewan and Manitoba with the 13 members they presently have. The problem could be solved as simply as that, but this would require an adjustment and a change in the constitution.
Surely the constitution should serve us. We are masters of the constitution, not its servants. One could devise a much more complicated formula, but this would suffice for our purpose. If Saskatchewan gained 100,000 people and had a population of 400,000 more than the province of New Brunswick, we could possibly then have 14 seats. There is no reason the people in the west or on the Prairies should not be granted the same privileges and rights the people of New Brunswick have under the constitution. They may have been a little more astute at the time of confederation, but let us during the next 18 months be fair to all regions and all people of Canada. If we are to have representation by population, then let us have it. If it is to be done in some other way, fine, but let us be fair to everyone. I have no real quarrel with the way the map is drawn for Saskatchewan. The only quarrel I have is that if we drop from 13 seats to 12 seats, having had 21 not too long ago, this would be a bitter pill to take.
We, as well as others in rural Saskatchewan, are faced with the problem of sending better qualified people to Ottawa. The longer one remains a minority, the weaker one's voice becomes in the crowd. The trend is to the cities, and it is no wonder this is the situation because much of the legislation seems to force a move in that direction. We are legislated against in the rural areas time and time again. I shall not go into that here, but certainly I hope in the next 18 months, the time we are buying by supporting this bill, we will come up with something that will be more fair to the rural areas.


Mr. Reg Stackhouse (Scarborough East):: Mr. Speaker, one of the great privileges of sitting in this chamber is the educational opportunity every member has of listening to other speakers from various parts of the country. One hears the views they hold and learns the way in which they tackle problems in terms of their own background and the context of their own lives. This has been particularly true in respect of this bill. It has been very instructive to listen to speakers from rural parts of Canada address themselves to the bill which is before us and express the concern they understandably have that their communities might be underrepresented if the redistribution plan should be carried out.
We do not speak of the people in our ridings or regions simply as individuals but as people who belong to certain communities, communities which have interests, heritages and aspirations. These people feel that they may not be

July 9, 1973
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension
adequately represented, and understandably therefore they are speaking up for a new look at redistribution.
It is precisely for that reason that we must be concerned about the way in which there is a threat posed by the bill regarding the urban dwellers of this country being adequately represented. The people are not simply individuals isolated and living on their own. They too are members of communities which have concerns, needs and ambitions. They too have need for adequate representation, representation which they have lacked very much in this House of Commons and in the councils associated with it.
The great values of being adequately represented in this House of Commons is not simply that there is someone here who responds to your individual requests for assistance with pensions, unemployment insurance and other matters. It is that there is someone here who speaks up for your community and voices the needs, ambitions and legitimate desires of those communities in Parliament, in caucus, in committee and in the various other ways in which Parliament carries on its business.
It is for that reason that I believe we must be very seriously concerned about the urban communities of this country being given adequate representation. At the present time they are under-represented. The real and basic principle of democracy is the right of individuals to representation according to their numbers. There have been certain remarks even in this debate tonight in which the integrity and validity of the principle of "rep by pop" has been questioned. But this is a principle on which the whole membership of this Parliament is based, one we must honour and honour in the way in which we address ourselves to the challenge of redistribution.
It is only common sense that when a democratic body such as this House of Commons is drawn up, it will be based upon the way in which the population is distributed across the country. This common sense has clearly not occurred to all members here. Surely this ought to be something that every member would accept as a fair and just way of giving every Canadian that to which he is entitled, and that is adequate and fair representation in the Parliament which governs his land.
At the present time there are great numbers of Canadians in the urban areas of this country, including my own, which are under-represented and which do not have the opportunity for an equal voice in the Parliament of Canada. This is an intolerable situation and something with which Parliament must not be content. We know that in the British North America Act redistribution is something that is guaranteed to the people. It would seem that this constitutional guarantee is now being thwarted. Certainly it is in danger of being thwarted. We in this House ought not to be content with a proposal that would rob the people of the country of something their basic constitution gives them.
I hope, therefore, we will begin to think in terms of what is fair to all people of this country who have in large numbers chosen to live in urban areas. No one persuaded them to do this. No one led them by the hand to come to the big cities. They themselves chose to live there. Having so chosen they should have the right to be adequately

represented from those areas in the Parliament of this country.
Might I call it ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, I want to address some remarks to all hon. members tonight concerning the Department of National Defence lands in Vancouver known as Jericho lands.
I think in starting out I might remind all hon. members of some of the history of this. In 1942 when this country was at war the Department of National Defence acquired by lease 172 acres of land used for recreational purposes in the city of Vancouver. In 1947 the Department of National Defence was able to buy the land at a very low price. By 1965 the leader of the government during that abortive election campaign made promises about returning some of the land to the city of Vancouver, and by 1968 the present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) agreed that this land should be returned to recreational purposes.
By 1969 this governement had maintained its word up to a point; 72 acres of the total 172 had been returned to Vancouver. But the Department of National Defence retained 62 acres. There was also another 38 acres of defence land which the Department of National Defence did not return. The reason put forward was that this had to cover the cost of moving the defence establishment to some other place.
The plan of the Department of National Defence to be foisted on the citizens of Vancouver was that we should have a high rise, in spite of the fact that this was against all our ideas, hopes and dreams for that particular property in that particular place. None the less, the Department of National Defence persisted with this inane idea because some internal auditor in the Department of National Defence had to somehow balance the books-a balancing act that never bothered the government too much in other ways. The government insisted that this land, which is owned by all taxpayers of Canada, and certainly by myself and other hon. members, could not be returned to the city of Vancouver because, for some reason which made no sense to anybody and which was never explained to the citizens of Vancouver in any coherent form, the Department of National Defence used it to pay for the move of defence establishments many years after the war was over.

The question which the citizens of Vancouver are asking is: Why don't we get this land back? On January 26 my colleague, the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Clarke), raised a question in the House of Commons, to which the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Richardson) replied:
There is an agreement in existence between the government and the city of Vancouver. My predecessor has indicated that if the city wishes to reopen this agreement we would certainly be prepared to do so and to listen to representations.
Why was there an agreement? There was an agreement for only one reason-because the government said to the citizens of Vancouver that they cannot have the land back, that they will have to find some way to pay the department for the move. That is why there was agreement and the government took this attitude. The Minister of the Environment (Mr. Davis), who is here tonight, says "and so did the Auditor General". My point is this, that if the government concerns itself with urban affairs and is prepared to spend $33 million of government money-your money and mine-to acquire parkland in the city of Toronto, to which I have no objection, then why is this government so constipated in its imagination that it cannot find its way to transfer this defence land back?
If the argument which the minister has put forward is valid, why did the government return the 72 acres to the city of Vancouver? Because surely the same argument would apply. The fact of the matter is that this government is acting in a parsiminious, stupid, and ostrich-like way. It keeps on wondering and holds conferences to discover why the west is "brassed off". If ever there was an expression that puts it in a nutshell, that is it.
This matter may not be earth shattering, but if any member on the government side wants to know why they lost the riding of Vancouver Quadra, apart from the fact that the hon. member who now holds it worked very hard, let him go and ask the former member about the Jericho land.
This was the symbol of the kind of neglect to which we have been subjected by a centralized government that does not care about the west and does not have sufficient sensitivity to pay attention to the commonsense things that people tell it to listen to. I am startled and surprised at the fact that another hon. member from the same city from which I come can sit here and quibble at me from across the floor and try to defend the government's position.
This matter has been raised consistently in the House by my friend the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra. He raised it on February 27 and again on June 13, as recorded in Hansard. It was raised again on June 21, this time by my friend and colleague the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis). She asked the government for the reason for the double standard-which is the word I used later when I brought it up in the House-in the treatment of Toronto and Vancouver. This is the answer that the minister gave, as reported in Hansard of June 21:
Mr. Speaker, I am certain the hon. member knows that this matter is under negotiation . . .
This is the only answer we ever get. The reason it is under negotiation is that the government is not prepared to return the land. The government wants its pound of
Adjournment Debate
flesh out of it. There would be no negotiation, there would be no agreement, Mr. Speaker, if that were not the position that the government had taken. The matter was again raised on July 6 by the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis), as reported in Hansard, and it had been previously raised by me on June 29.
To add insult to injury, Mr. Speaker, here is an article in the Vancouver Sun of July 7 referring to a statement of another hon. member from Vancouver, the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Basford). The article reports him as saying:
. . . the federal government would be willing to meet with Vancouver city council to discuss the possibility of a federal-provincial housing complex on the 38 acres of Jericho land owned by the federal government.
If after all these years that is the way the government is thinking, then we are not being told the proper story. Mr. Speaker, I insist that tonight I receive from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hopkins) some complete and proper answers to these questions. We have been waiting for 20 years to get this land back and the people of my city are fed up.


Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the matter raised by the member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser) has been the subject of many questions in the House. On March 25, 1969, the Department of National Defence signed an agreement with the city of Vancouver governing the usage of approximately 140 acres of what is commonly known as the Jericho Beach property. The terms of this agreement provided for the turning over to the city of, for the sum of one dollar, 73 acres of waterfront property to be used as parkland.
As part of this agreement, the remaining 38 acres was rezoned as CD1-that is a "comprehensive development district". The zoning classification was selected by the city and permits the construction of garden homes and town houses. The opinion expressed at the time was that this zoning would enhance rather than detract from the surrounding community. For the record, this land was acquired from the province of British Columbia and the city of Vancouver during and immediately following World War II for either straight market value or the exchange of lands of equal value. The turnover of the 73 acres of waterfront property to the city of Vancouver is now complete.
I should like also to point out that the Department of National Defence has in the past made available to the city of Vancouver some very substantial land holdings. Stanley Park, consisting of over 900 acres, is on long-term lease to the city.


John Allen Fraser: How many hundred years do you want to go back?


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Valuable properties at Kitsilano Beach were turned over to the city. Other smaller properties have also been made available for the city's use. And now some 73 acres of very valuable waterfront have been handed over for only token consideration.
One cannot resist speculating on what the current market value of the total properties turned over by DND

July 9, 1973
Adjournment Debate
to the city of Vancouver would be worth today. However, the city of Vancouver has, through its dealings with the Department of National Defence, acquired substantial park acreage at virtually no cost.
The member for Vancouver South raises the issue of federal support to the city of Toronto for the acquisition of parkland. This was not DND land and is not related in any way to DND policy.


John Allen Fraser: What difference does it make?


Leonard Donald Hopkins: What is at issue is the Department of National Defence policy for the disposal of property, in this case to the city of Vancouver. These two matters are not related and should not be confused.
As a result of recent representations to the Department of National Defence by a few Vancouver citizens and detailed discussions with the city, the department has delayed the approved development of the remaining 38 acres. Departmental officials are currently discussing, with both city and provincial officials, various options for the future disposition of approved Jericho Beach development property. The department expects within the next two weeks to receive a proposal from the city of Vancouver.
Needless to say, any reasonable proposal concerning the remaining Jericho Beach property will receive serious consideration.


SOCIAL SECURITY-OLD AGE SECURITY ACT AND CANADA PENSION PLAN-POSSIBILITY OF LOWERING PENSIONABLE AGE TO 60-REQUEST FOR STATEMENT
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, on Monday, June 18, as recorded in Hansard at page 4840, I put a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) as follows:
Mr. Speaker, in view of the discussions that took place earlier in this session, but which were never finalized, concerning the possibility of lowering the pensionable age under the Old Age Security Act and the Canada Pension Plan to age 60, will the minister before the end of this session be making a statement on this matter?
The minister's reply was given to me in a very friendly manner but, even so, the answer was no. I then put a supplementary question to the minister asking if he would give consideration to the question of lowering the pensionable age as a priority measure during the lifetime of this parliament. The minister answered that he had been prepared to discuss the matter when his estimates were before the standing committee but that the standing committee chose otherwise. He concluded his reply with this sentence as found at page 4841 of Hansard:
This question is one that is being considered with all the other issues concerning the review of social security that is taking place with the provinces at the present time.
I have no doubt that it is because of that sentence that the parliamentary secretary, in preparing to make a reply tonight, has brought with him that orange book which of course outlines all of the matters in the field of social security that are now under discussion.

I raise this issue tonight not because I have anything new to say. It is simply a plain ordinary fact that the time has come for the eligible age for pensions under both the Old Age Security Act and the Canada Pension Plan to be lowered to age 60.1 believe that the people of Canada want and are ready for this kind of change to be made. They are prepared that it be done on a voluntary basis-in other words that such pensions shall be paid to those persons who are prepared to withdraw from the labour market. But I am convinced that the people of Canada want action in this field.
What concerns me very much is that in the earlier part of this session, during the time the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne was being debated and we were anticipating and waiting for the legislation respecting old age pensions, a great deal was said about this matter. It was said not just by some of us in this corner of the House but by hon. members to my right from the Progressive Conservative Party, and by many Liberal members sitting on the government side of the House. They urged that the pensionable age be lowered. If it could not be done for everyone they urged that it be done for spouses of pensioners or they urged that the age be brought down from age 65 to 64, to 63, to 62, to 61 and to 60.
I am sure that all hon. members will confirm that during those first couple of months of this session a great deal was said on this issue. But once the debate on the Speech from the Throne was over, and once the Old Age Security Act amendments had been brought in raising the basic pension to $100 a month and raising the amount of the supplement, very little continued to be said on this issue, except by a few of us who will not let it be forgotten.
I am concerned that the Minister of National Health and Welfare and his colleagues in the government may now think it is a quiet issue and that they do not need to be worried about it. I tell the minister, I tell the government, and I tell my good friend from St. Boniface (Mr. Guay) who is applauding what I am saying, that this issue will not die down. When the next election campaign comes along one of the questions that will be asked of members of all parties is this: "Why didn't you bring down the eligible age for pensions to age 60?"
It is nice to know that there are discussions on this question between the federal government and the provinces. It is nice to know that there are references to the lowering of the eligible age in that orange book entitled "A Working Paper on Social Security in Canada". But things that are the subject of discussion, things that get into white papers, working papers, white books and green books, have a way of surviving for a long time. I still have in my files a copy of the 1919 Liberal convention program and platform and I am still waiting for some of those 1919 proposals to be implemented.
What we want is not just discussion about this matter, not just the assurance that something will be done some day, that it is being considered along with all the other issues. We want the government to realize that in the seventies the people of Canada believe that the time has come for pensions to be made available at age 60, and we want action on this at an early date. We want it now.
July 9, 1973


Norman Augustine Cafik: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the remarks of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). As he said, he did not propose to say anything new. He has been talking about pensions in this House for a long time. I think all people would say he has represented pensioners very well.
It is quite true when he remarks there are members, not only in his party but on this side of the House and in other parties, who have taken a great deal of interest, particularly in the last couple of years, in the reduction of the pensionable age. In all fairness, I should say that in spite of the importance that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre attaches to this question, it is a complicated matter in that there are priorities to be considered. In our work paper on social security a number of other urgent social problems are brought to bear as well.
We in the department believe it is important that the provinces be consulted in these matters. They are now being consulted. The minister has indicated the interest he has in this subject. As the hon. member knows, he was quite willing to discuss the matter fully with the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs when the estimates were before that committee, and we attach a great deal of importance to this.
I point out to the hon. member that by adding those from age 60 to 64 to the pensionable age would add 801,000 people to the present number of 1,782,000 pensioners. That is a lot of people. It involves an enormous expenditure of funds, estimated to be in the billions of dollars. When one looks at the amount received by those who are now pensionable related to minimum wages in the provinces or to that which can be obtained under social assistance, one finds those who are pensionable are earning more than many who are working for a living in Canada today.
These things all have to be taken into consideration and put into their proper perspective. The provinces need to have some input in terms of their priorities as well. The department is very much concerned about this problem. It is looking at it in an active way and is in the process of discussing it and other social priorities at the present time. Hopefully something will be done which will benefit the maximum number of people in this country in the best possible way.


AIRPORTS-TORONTO TERMINAL No. 2-REQUEST FOR REPORT ON PLANS TO IMPROVE
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Peel South):: Mr. Speaker, on July 5 I asked the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) to report on his activities with regard to new plans to improve terminal No. 2 at Toronto International Airport. The minister said in an offhand manner he had answered the question before. I checked in Hansard my question to the minister of June 15, approximately three weeks before. At that time I asked the minister about plans for expanding terminal No. 2. The minister replied the terminal was to be built in three stages and there were plans to extend the terminal, but he was not going to let anyone see them. They were his private affair.
Adjournment Debate
Earlier the same day the minister said he did not build the terminal himself. A lot of people are unhappy about it, but the minister said not to blame him because he did not build it. The minister said he would not let anyone see the plans for improving the terminal. He said he knows it is an abortion, but it does not matter because it is only the Canadian public that uses it. As Air Canada says, the terminal is for our travelling convenience.
The minister said that when the terminal was built, it was decided it was good for people to walk half a mile before getting on an airplane. If this was a railway terminal the railways would be out of business. If it were a hog terminal the pigs would die of exhaustion. This was supposed to be a freight terminal. Because the government airline has no policy to control these things, it was forced to take over this freight terminal. We now have a freight shed being used as a terminal for people. It is a great terminal. It is true the floor is of cold concrete but there are some pastel colours on the walls. Aside from that, there is nothing modern about it if one excepts the modular steel chairs in the ante-rooms, so uncomfortable that no one can sit on them for more than two or three minutes before getting up to take a walk. There are no newspaper stands, no bars, no decent washrooms, not even a smoke-shop or a book stall. So unless a person is prepared, having got there, to walk back half a mile to buy a book or a newspaper, he can sit on one of those modular steel chairs and stare at the walls.
I am glad the parliamentary secretary is here to reply to me tonight because I know he enjoys travelling to Toronto and using terminal No. 2 with its excellent conveniences. Once upon a time-and this was in the good old days- airports were so designed that a traveller who had parked his car at an airport had no need to go outside in the open when the time came to use it again. But in keeping with modern design, cars now have to be parked as much as half a mile away so that on rainy or snowy days visitors have the privilege of walking outside and, later, sending their clothes to be dry-cleaned.
Sooner or later, the airlines realized that the corridor was some 1400 or 1500 feet long and that it would be nice to have electric current cars to make the journey. So they obtained two of these cars. Because they are powered by batteries, one car has always to be tied to the charging system. The other is usually employed to transfer Air Canada personnel to their places of work in the terminal- it seems to serve no other purpose. So this terminal is designed to be tough on the person suffering from a heart condition, tough on the woman taking her children on holiday, perhaps having to carry a child 1500 feet, tough on the businessman carrying a heavy case, and tough, even, on the hon. parliamentary secretary when he is carrying his bag. In short, it is cardiac alley.
The Ministry of Transport has not yet got enough sense to recognize this fact and do something about it. No, their idea is to make it longer. The have planned it that way. They have not shown to the public in Toronto or the rest of the country that they possess any initiative whatsoever. They know the terminal is a horror show. They know it is improperly designed and a danger to people using it. But

July 9, 1973
Adjournment Debate
they intend to extend it anyway because after all, there is a plan to extend it.
Instead of coming out with real leadership and admitting that this terminal is wrong, instead of acknowledging that people cannot be expected to use facilities of this kind, the minister says: Well, I have answered that question once, and I am not going to answer it again. In fact, he has no answers. The ministry has no answers. The government has no answers.
I say this to you, Mr. Speaker: the people of Toronto know the government has no answers. They know it every time they go to terminal No. 2. They know the tragedy caused by lack of leadership in this country. They know the way Air Canada has been abused, and they realise, when they see this airport and note its lack of facilities, that the government does not really care about Canadians and does not care about the travelling public. So much is obvious, because otherwise they would not put up with the kind of operation carried on at terminal No. 2. in Toronto. I hope the parliamentary secretary has some good answers for us tonight.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Mr. Speaker, we have the answer. The problem is that the hon. member for Peel South (Mr. Blenkarn) is not giving the new building a chance to work out the difficulties inherent in an entirely new operation the size of this one. We cannot agree with any of the comments he has made.
It is obvious from the hon. member's comments that he does not know terminal 2. Terminal 2 was originally multi-airline designed, primarily to serve wide-bodied aircraft, and not designed for exclusive Air Canada use. It became apparent before the building was completed that the original design was out of date and that Air Canada should either operate totally from terminal 1 or the new terminal 2. Careful study by both Air Canada and the ministry of transport led to the decision in May, 1972, that Air Canada's operations should be totally from terminal 2.
With this change in plan substantial additions and modifications had to be carried out to meet Air Canada's
requirements. This was done. The terminal is still not large enough for Air Canada's total gate requirements in the summer peak, and it will have to be expanded further, as was allowed for in the original plan.
The building has a number of excellent new features and systems; single-stop check-in so that any passenger can check in at any counter position with no need for further check-in at the gate; separate and much improved ticket sales areas; a special large wing for domestic flights open only to passengers; an automated baggage conveyor and sorter; a much larger Rapidair lounge area and curbside baggage check-in, to name a few of the items for the benefit of people travelling.
The difficulties of opening day were substantial, and this was expected; but steady and rapid improvements have taken place as contractors have finished delayed installation, as the usual bugs were eliminated from new systems, and as the public and staff became more familiar with the layout.
Planned phased staff increases by Air Canada have taken place, as have improvements to facilities both in the terminal building and its adjacent parking facility. Improvements to the inter-terminal bus service have been implemented and a courtesy bus service from the Terminal 2 parking lot is now operating. The tunnel linking terminals 1 and 2 will be in operation by mid-August. I suggest this was not taken into consideration by the hon. member.
Ministry and airline officers have co-operated in the identification of problems and in the solution of these problems. Observations made over the July 1 weekend of peak period operations revealed a smooth traffic flow with no serious delay areas. The status of correction of some past major problem areas is signage, aesthetics, walking distance and road signs, and if I have time I should like to go into that particular aspect.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. parliamentary secretary but his allotted time in accordance with the standing order has now expired.
Motion agreed and the House adjourned at 10.30 p.m.

Tuesday, July 10, 1973