[Stage Direction]
in "le Canada"
Mr. LIC.UORI LACOMBE (Laval-Two Mountains):	On a question of privilege, I
wish to refer to an item published in the Montreal newspaper Le Canada. It is entitled, "The R.C.M.P. Is Called". The newspaper continues:
Mr. Liguori Lacombe, Canadian party, Laval-Two Mountains, a good friend of Mr. Maurice Duplessis seems to have lost faith altogether in the provincial police.
Le Canada knows full well that I have, for the provincial police, as much admiration as for the R.C.M.P. Making up such a base false report is a proof of pitiably bad faith. Le Canada makes fun of the victims of Saint-Eustache-sur-le-Lac and surrounding district, where the owners of property on the shores of the lake of Two Mountains have lost more than a million dollars besides having their furniture, verandahs and other exterior furnishings stolen from their homes.
Mr. SPEAKER:: Order! I beg the hon.
member to please note that according to the rules of the house, one must be brief on a question of privilege.
(Text):


Mr. LACOMBE:: Will you kindly speak
louder, Mr. Speaker? I cannot hear you.

Privilege-Mr. Coldwell
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, I do not understand, because I cannot hear you.


James Horace King: I asked the hon, member to note that according to the rules of :tihe house, a question of privilege must be presented as briefly as possible.


Liguori Lacombe: Mr. Speaker, I know
of an hon. member to the right who spoke half an hour on a question of privilege. I know you for a fair and impartial man and . . .


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go ahead.


Liguori Lacombe: It was Le Canada itself
who provoked this previous call on the police for the protection of the victims of the flood, who have had their properties pilfered by five or six hundred bandits coming from no one knows where. The lakes and navigable stream belong to the federal government who themselves authorize the raising of the water level when allowing firms to build dams under their benevolent supervision.
This is the reason why I asked the Right Hon. the Minister of Justice (Mr. Ilsley) for help from the R.C.M.P., because the provincial police could not cope with the situation.
(Text):	'




[Stage Direction]
Mr. M. .J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar): Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege. In today's Montreal Gazette there appears an article written by the Gazette staff correspondent which is headed:
C.C.F. said worst offenders in wholesale M.P. print-grab.
Utilization of the public printing bureau by M.P.'s-notably C.C.F.-as a means of churning out election and political propaganda at public expense, underlies recommendations for sweeping changes in procedure contained in a report tabled in the Commons today by the joint Senate-Commons committee on printing.
The brief report is framed in unsensational language and gives little hint that a number of flagrant breaches of the privileges accorded members of parliament of securing printed copies of their addresses were encountered.
I wish to say that members of parliament who order reprints pay for them at the rate laid down by the printing bureau and approved by this house. This is a libel on the whole parliament, although my own party is particularly mentioned. I wish to draw it to the attention of the house.
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: I should like to say just one word. I agree with my hon. friend in what he says as to the privilege of hon. members having their speeches reprinted, but I hope he will agree with me that hon. members have gone much' further than that in what they have expected the printing bureau to do and in what they have had the bureau do. They have not confined the reprinting to the reprinting of a speech but have arranged for a printed1 cover, for photographs, headings, and the like which have nothing whatever to do with reprinting the speech. May I also say this, that frequently speeches have been reprinted with parts of the speech altogether omitted without giving any indication that this has been done. That I think is entirely wrong and should not be permitted.


Mr. COLDWELL:: That is a matter for the house to decide. May I say, sir, that if covers and photographs are permitted, members are entitled to ask for them if they pay for that privilege. As a matter of fact that has always been done by members who have ordered their reprints done in that way. It is merely to make them attractive. It seems to me that the attempt is being made to make reprinted speeches as unattractive and as unreadable as possible.


Mr. WARREN:: I think hon. members are losing sight of the most important point in this connection. I do not think the privileges of this house allow or should allow a member of parliament to strike out parts of a speech that is reprinted from Hansard.


Mr. KNOWLES:: We do not.


Major James William Coldwell: I agree with that.


Ralph Melville Warren: Why should any member be allowed to take an extract from his own speech and another extract from another speech and have that published as the official Hansard report?


Major James William Coldwell: I agree with that.



REPORTS OF COMMITTEES

[Stage Direction]
Seventh report of the standing committee on public accounts.-Mr. Picard.
Fourth report of the standing committee on agriculture and colonization.-Mr. McCubbin.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. H. R. EMMERSON (Westmorland) moved that the first report of the joint com-

Redistribution
mittee of the Senate and the House of Commons on the printing of parliament, presented on Monday, July 14, be now concurred in.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Monday, July 14, consideration in committee of Bill No. 18, to readjust the representation in the House of Commons-Mr. Mackenzie King-Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.
On section 1-Short title.
Mr. BRUNELLE:: Mr. Chairman, may I first thank the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) who was kind enough to give me this opportunity to speak at this time, he having adjourned the debate yesterday. I promised him that I shall speak less than ten minutes.
I wish to say a few words in answer to the speech made yesterday by the hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains. May I say first that in this matter of amalgamating the two constituencies of Laval-Two Mountains and Argenteuil, I spoke wfith the hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains at his request and as a friend rather than as a member of the redistribution committee, and all I said and all I wrote to him was for the sole purpose of rendering a service to one who I then thought was an honourable friend, one who I then thought was a gentleman.


Liguori Lacombe: Mr. Chairman-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


The CHAIRMAN:: Order.


Liguori Lacombe: Mr. Chairman, I want that remark withdrawn.


William Ross Macdonald: I would ask the hon. member to withdraw. He implied that another hon. member was not a gentleman.


Hervé-Edgar Brunelle: Mr. Chairman. I said, and I am going to repeat it. that I was trying to render a service to one who I then thought was an honourable friend, one who I then thought was a gentleman.


Liguori Lacombe: I want that remark withdrawn.


William Ross Macdonald: If the hon. member is implying that the hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains is not a gentleman, he will have to withdraw that remark.


Liguori Lacombe: On, a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman, in accordance with rule 41 of
the House of Commons I insist on the hon. member for Champlain withdrawing that remark.


Hervé-Edgar Brunelle: Mr. Chairman, his conduct and his way of speaking yesterday show that he is a gentleman. It is up to the house to judge.


Liguori Lacombe: Mr. Chairman, that is an insinuation worse than the other.


William Ross Macdonald: Order. The rule is yery clear. If the hon. member is making a statement that is offensive to the hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains he must withdraw it.	,


Hervé-Edgar Brunelle: I am not in the hon. member's class; I withdraw it completely.


Liguori Lacombe: That is worse than the first statement and he must withdraw; otherwise I shall make a motion of censure against this man who has no right at this time to sit in this house because we are now discussing his case.	.


William Ross Macdonald: Order; the hon. member has withdrawn the remark. He may proceed.


Hervé-Edgar Brunelle: In this connection, sir, let me make it plain that I was not moved by any sort of conviction that the hon. member sitting on the opposition side of the house was any danger to the Liberal party, or that, sitting with us he would be an asset to the Liberal party. I was moved by kindness only. I never thought that one could be as ungrateful as the hon. gentleman is, but ungratefulness is not his worst fault or weakness. He now tries to give the impression, first, that I went to him and, second, that I tried to induce him to cross the floor of the house and, third, that I offered not to touch his county, to use his owns words. These three statements are false. He came to me-*


Liguori Lacombe: Mr. Chairman, I deny this statement.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Liguori Lacombe: He came to me privately. The hon. member knows that.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Mr. MACKENZIE:: Order.


Liguori Lacombe: Mr. Chairman-


William Ross Macdonald: Order.


Liguori Lacombe: The hon. member knows that privately and publicly by his letter he came to me-


William Ross Macdonald: The hon. member may continue.
Redistribution


Hervé-Edgar Brunelle: If the hon. gentleman is the gentleman that he wants me to call him he should keep quiet and sit down.


Liguori Lacombe: I will never admit-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Order.


William Ross Macdonald: Order. When the hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains was speaking yesterday he objected to interruptions and I sustained him. At this time I must ask him not to interrupt.


Mr. FLEMING:: Can you keep hon. members opposite quiet, Mr. Chairman?
Mr;. MACKENZIE: A prophet in Israel.


Hervé-Edgar Brunelle: Mr. Chairman, this is another example that the truth hurts. He came uninvited to my room and with tears in his eyes he begged me to help him.


Liguori Lacombe: I deny this.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Sit down.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


Hervé-Edgar Brunelle: He said that the amalgamation of Laval-Two Mountains and Argen-teuil meant his political death; that he could not successfully fight Mr. Heon and that we were giving a constituency to the Tories.


Liguori Lacombe: I deny that absolutely.


Hervé-Edgar Brunelle: Second, he himself volunteered the statement that he was about to cross the floor of the house and that he was gradually preparing for it.


Liguori Lacombe: I never said that; I deny this.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: He is sitting with the C.C.F. now.


Hervé-Edgar Brunelle: Third, I never promised not to touch his constituency. I could not carry out such a promise. No one who is reasonable will believe that I made such a promise. The hon. member knows or should know that I did not make such a promise, but he may not remember what took place.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Liguori Lacombe: On a question of privilege,
I do not know what the hon. member is about to say, but his insinuation is absolutely false.


William Ross Macdonald: Order. That is not a question of privilege.


Liguori Lacombe: And he must withdraw.


Hervé-Edgar Brunelle: I say that he may not remember what took place, but I do, and further, T am known as being temperate in my words and actions.
[The Chairman.]


Liguori Lacombe: On a question of
privilege-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Order.


William Ross Macdonald: Order.


Liguori Lacombe: According to standing order 41 the privilege of hon. members must be respected in this house. Standing order 41 reads:
No member shall speak disrespectfully of His Majesty,-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Liguori Lacombe: -nor of any of the royal family; nor of the governor or person administering the government of Canada; nor use offensive words against either house, or against any member thereof.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: That is right.


Liguori Lacombe: No member may reflect upon any vote of the house, except for the purpose of moving that such vote be rescinded.
I ask the hon. member for Champlain, if he is an honourable man, to withdraw these words.


Hervé-Edgar Brunelle: Mr. Chairman, I said that I am known as a temperate man in my words and actions. I was speaking of myself.
I will admit, however, that I made a mistake by listening to him and by taking pity on him. That is the only mistake I made. The committee alone could decide. I do not wish to give the impression, however, that the hon. member has disturbed me much, but I must state the facts. The ravings of the hon. member yesterday would only be ridiculous if they did not reveal such a lack of respect for the truth and for one's word of honour. ' During the two conversations I had with the hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains it was made plain and it was emphasized by the hon. member himself that he was speaking off the record and in a confidential way.


Liguori Lacombe: Never.


Hervé-Edgar Brunelle: And when he tries to be sarcastic as to my diplomacy he again forgets that the contents of my letter are only the substance of what he himself said during these two conversations-


Liguori Lacombe: Absolutely false.


Hervé-Edgar Brunelle: -about the Tory party. Mr. LACOMBE: Absolutely not.


Hervé-Edgar Brunelle: But he goes farther. He tries to make that letter say or mean what it does not say and what it does not mean.

Redistribution
There is absolutely nothing in the letter to show I was offering him any favour for his coming to the Liberal side of the house, but he translates wrongly and wickedly the last paragraph of that letter so as to make a sort of case against one whose help he besought so ardently. Why did he not read the text of that letter, a copy of which I have in my hand? I am going to read it in French.
(Translation):
April 2, 1947.
Mr. Liguori Lacombe, M.P.,
Ste. Scaolastique, P.Q.
My dear colleague:
After you left yesterday, I thought of suggesting to you that, after this recess, when Hartt is introduced in the chamber, this would be a proper occasion for you to cross the floor.
(Text) :
This all follows what he was telling me during this conversation.
(Translation):


Liguori Lacombe: I never said that.
(Text):
Mr. Chairman, I want the hon. member for Champlain to withdraw that statement.


William Ross Macdonald: Order. I must ask the hon. member not to interrupt.


Liguori Lacombe: I never made that statement.


Hervé-Edgar Brunelle: I quote:
(Translation):
May I suggest that you prepare for the newspapers a statement about Communism and the dangers of numerous parties, which can only benefit the Conservative party, which party the great majority of French Canadians do not want to see leading the government.
I should like every one to note the next paragraph, on which the hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains bases his assertion that I offered him certain advantages. It reads as follows:
The more I think about this, the more I am convinced it will be to your future advantage.


Liguori Lacombe: To your future
advantage".
(Text):


Hervé-Edgar Brunelle: I defy anyone who
knows French to say that that sentence is an offer of some advantage or favour to the hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains. It means this, and again I defy anyone who knows English and French to say that it means anything but this: "The more I think of it the more convinced I am you will later felicitate yourself." That is no offer, and that is all I said, and I think that for once he
would have had occasion to felicitate himself if he had come on the floor of the house and pointed that out. He would have had occasion to congratulate himself. In his eagerness to hurt one who tried to help him he translates as follows: "The more I think about this, the more I am convinced it will be to your future advantage." That is the work of a man who wants to be called a gentleman.


Liguori Lacombe: That is the right translation.


An hon. MEMBER:: You cannot translate your own speeches.


Hervé-Edgar Brunelle: There is no mention or implication of future advantage in my letter. In disfiguring a text in such an unscrupulous way, the hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains has shown his true colours. He will some day come to regret the wrong he tried to do me for the good I tried to do him.


Liguori Lacombe: Mr. Chairman-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Liguori Lacombe: On a question of privilege,
I want the hon. member for Champlain to withdraw that.


An hon. MEMBER:: Why?


Liguori Lacombe: The hon. member for Champlain says he tried to help me or to do good for me. I am not condemning him because he is Herve Brunelle but because he is the member for Champlain, and a member of the committee on redistribution. That is all.


Hervé-Edgar Brunelle: He has been preparing and rehearsing this shameful attack for almost two months. The wrong meaning he has wilfully given to my tetter was premeditated. It shows malice aforethought. Yesterday's speech of the hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains was nothing but a crying display of lack of decency and of lack of honour.


Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: At the time of the adjournment last evening I was dealing with certain circumstances connected with the alterations in the boundaries of Lake Centre constituency, and in placing before the committee the situaton with regard to that constituency, I am following the course taken by the Prime Minister when he was leader of the opposition in 1933. The Prime Minister in 1933 pointed out that there were certain principles that should be followed and they were referred to yesterday afternoon by the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario. The Prime Minister also pointed out then that above all there should be fairness in the matter of redistribution.
l'<rliflribulion

I am not going to refer particularly to what the Prime Minister said, unless somebody wishes to have it on the record, but he said he thought the time had come when some means should be adopted whereby redistribution would cease to be a cause of recrimination or injustice, indeed of liquidation by a method that has been followed in the past on certain occasions. Certainly under Sir Robert Borden there was no question of unfairness.
Some lion. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: The Secretary of State apparently has not read the debates, because Sir Wilfrid' Laurier at that time agreed that it was not unfair and there was never any dispute in the house. That indicates only one thing, that my hon. friend has not read what took place at that time.
Mr; GIBSON (Hamilton West): Oh, yes: I have.


John George Diefenbaker: In 1933 the Prime Minister pointed out the unfairness of leaving a measure like this to the end of the session. Presumably there was a desire to have the session closed at the earliest possible date, and the debate continued for four or five days. The Prime Minister on that occasion used certain words which I wish to adopt now. He pointed out that coming in at the end of the session and introducing a measure such as this is unfair and indicates a desire to eliminate members of opposing parties without enabling them to place their position before the house and the country. What he said on that occasion was quoted in part yesterday by the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Stewart) and I wish to read now from page 5235:
Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King (Leader of the Opposition):	Mr. Chairman. 1 think it
desirable to point out immediately the unfairness of the government having left consideration of this most important measure until the very end of the session. That fact of itself, it seems to me, is prima facie evidence of a desire on the part of the administration to exercise its power as a majority to press through this bill under circumstances which are most unfair to the minority in the house.
Then he quotes what Sir Wilfrid Laurier stated in 1892. In the second column, page 5236, he quotes the words of Sir Wilfrid Laurier:
I protest against this system too long indulged in by this government, of delaying their most important legislation until the last days of the session when members are naturally anxious to get away to their own business.
Then the Prime Minister said:
I say there is an ominous parallel between "mat was said by Sir Wilfrid Laurier on that [Mr. Diefenbaker.l
occasion and what we on this side of the house are compelled to say today. This government also has adopted the practice of waiting until the end of the session to bring in its most contentious measures. It has deferred until the very end the measure with respect to the salary of the chairman of the tariff board, the measure with respect to radio broadcasting-
Sir, history certainly has been repeated here.
-and the contentious measure concerning shipping, the debate in connection with which was concluded only a day or two ago.
The Prime Minister adopted then the attitude which I am trying to adopt today. He said, "I place before you the situation regarding Prince Albert." He spoke at great length. I think his speeches in connection with the matter covered some seven or eight pages. As reported at page 5238 of Hansard, he averred as a fact that the power of redistribution is a trust to be exercised in fairness. Then at page 5239-and I am epitomizing now instead of reading-he said if there was a desire to compromise unfairness and remove injustice, the opposition would cooperate; otherwise they would fight. He placed his situation before the house and the country. The voting strength of the house was much as it is today. IVe hear over the years that, things are changing and that members do not take the interest today which they used to take in the great and grand old days. The debate started on May 16, 1933; it really commenced on May 22, and ended cm Saturday, May 27. Of all the members in the House of Commons then, only sixty voted; twenty-seven were paired and the rest of them apparently were absent from the house. I suggest this, and I do so only in passing because the Prime Minister in 1933 indicated that some method must be found whereby fairness will be achieved and the liquidation of political opponents prevented or denied. I suggest consideration of the Redistribution Act of the United Kingdom. It. is a matter which might well come up. It cannot come up at this session, but it might be considered. It is entitled the "House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act, 1944	In the United Kingdom the
matter of redistribution is under continuous review; a permanent boundary commission has been set up. There are several boundary commissions, one in England and one for the several other parts of the United Kingdom.


Mr. MacNICOL:: There are four.


Mr. DIET ENBAKER:: Yes. A report is made to the house from time to time. It is a continuing activity which, of course, would

Redistribution
be 'different from the procedure here in Canada. Provision is made that-and I read from the act:
A report of a boundary commission under this act showing the constituencies into which they recommend that auy area should be divided shall state, as respects each constituency, the name by which they recommend that it should be known, and whether they recommend that it should be a parliamentary county or division of a parliamentary county or a parliamentary borough or division of a parliamentary borough.
Then the secretary of state lays the recommendation before parliament together with the statement of 'the reasons for the modifications which are indicated. Then the draft is approved by resolution of each house of parliament. That, commission is one which is above partisanship. Parliament still rules; parliament still controls; bub parliament would no't act unfairly against, a political opponent. If the recommendation of this committee were to the effect that a certain change should be made, it would adopt it even though it might be helpful to an opponent. The commission is composed of the Speaker of the House of Commons, who is chairman of all four commissions. The commission for England consists of the chairman, the registrar general, the director general of the ordnance survey and two other members, one appointed by the secretary of state and the other by the minister of health; and no member of the House of Commons or of either house of parliament of Northern Ireland is permitted to act on such committee. The purpose there is simply to do away with this decennial fight which 'takes place over the question of redistribution. Over and over again, as one reads the record, one can only be dtruck by the fact that there have been wrongs done in the past. But the Prime Minister, over and over again, when wrongs were done, was one who loudly protested and took a stand on behalf of those better things which I ask him on this occasion to carry into effect in connection with the present measure.
I do not intend, sir, to follow an acrimonious method. I shall place 'the facts before the Prime Minister, through you. The first fact I place before the committee is this. While in certain constituencies there is little or no interest on the part of the electors, by-elections take -place such as the one yesterday and only a small proportion of the people entitled to vote cast their ballots.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.
Mr. G-IBSON (Hamilton West): A greater 'proportion of Tories.
Mr. DIEFENBAIvER: Let me tell my hon. friend this. I did not want to be acrimonious; I was dealing with the facts.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh. oh.
Mr. DIEFENBAIvER:	My hon. friend
speaks about yesterday.


An hon. MEMBER:: Y'ou spoke about it first.
Mr. DIEFENBAIvER: I go back a few years, and in 1932 again the Prime Minister pointed out how unfair it was that minorities should represent constituencies in parliament. He dealt with the situation at length, and I refer particularly to what he said at that time. He said one thing which would have to be done would be to bring in a system whereby minority representation should be done away with. I am in this position, sir, of being a minority representative when I deal with this, as are, I believe, 146 other members of this house. When dealing with redistribution the Prime Minister dealt with this very question, and he said this, as reported at page 5422 of Hansard:
I believe that the only true method of securing a representative parliament is by a system of proportional representation properly worked out with regard to the dominion as a whole. 'The reform should commence with the cities and the larger municipalities in our country. When the Liberal government was in office we introduced into this house a measure of proportional representation in connection with city constituencies. It was fought for some little time, there was considerable opposition from the then opposition and tile measure was not proceeded with.
Then he went on to give the reason why electoral reform, which is demanded today on every hand across this country, was not brought in by his government between 1921 and 1925:
It was not reintroduced because the government of the day had not a majority in the other chamber which would ensure its enactment, and there were more pressing matters requiring attention. I might add the late Liberal government did not have a majority in the senate all the time it was in office. If we had had a majority in the other house upon which we could have relied we would have proceeded with our proportional representation measure.
Then followed these prophetic words:
If we are ever returned to power a proportional representation measure will be a feature of the Liberal platform and programme of legislation.
Well. sir. that was merely carrying out what the Prime Minister himself said would be good for this country in 1919, when he achieved the leadership of the great Liberal party. At that time he introduced before the Liberal convention of that day certain poli-
Redistribution

cies that should be brought into effect, one of which was acceptance of the principle of proportional representation. I had not intended to digress on this, but I point out that the promise of electoral reform may not have been carried out because of the fact that if it had been carried out minority candidates would not have been elected in this country.
Returning to the subject from which I was diverted by the Secretary of State, I was dealing particularly with the numbers who vote. The constituency of Lake Centre was created in 1932, comprising two existing constituencies, one to the west of Last Mountain lake to which I shall make reference in a moment, which was known as Long lake, and the other east of Last Mountain lake which was known as Last Mountain. Of course the reason the name was chosen was that there was a dispute as to what should be the name and someone suggested that since there was a lake down the centre it should be called Lake Centre. In the last election ninety per cent of the electors of that constituency exercised their franchise.
I have said, there is a lake down the centre, and I have told how very difficult it is to get around that constituency even without taking into consideration the knob which is placed along the top line of the riding by the addition of the three townships from Humboldt. In looking over the record I was interested to learn that this is not the first time the matter of the difficulties in connection with that constituency has been raised in this house, for in 1933 the then member, Mr. Totzke, dealt with the matter. He was the member of the redistribution committee of that year representing the then opposition, and1 at page 5256 of Hansard he saidi
. . . before I take my seat I wish to bring to the attention of the committee the one constituency which I think is the worst of all in Saskatchewan, that is the constituency of Long Lake. This constituency has been a little low in population, it is the only constituency in the whole province where a decrease of population has been shown during the last ten years. But it is bounded on all sides by natural boundaries, on the one side the Saskatchewan river and the Qu'Appelle river. On the east side is Last Mountain lake. As I said before, the Saskatchewan river can be crossed at various points by ferry, but on the west side of this particular constituency is this Last Mountain lake, which is sixty or seventy miles long and there is no way of crossing except by rowboat or motorboat; there are no ferries on the lake. So if the member for the constituency lived on one side or the other of this lake he would have to go around the end of the lake to visit his constituents on the other side.
I point out the fact that in order to get from one point in that constituency to another perhaps eighteen miles distant one has to travel

from 80 to 110 miles around either the top or the bottom of the lake. That was one of the reasons given as to why the population of this constituency should not be kept to the same level as that of the adjoining constituencies. That argument has no force now, however, because the, population is greater than that of the constituencies adjoining it both east and west, even without taking into consideration the three townships to which I have referred. I have already dealt with the fact that these townships on the north side cannot be reached by any railroad passing through the constituency. One can go into Saskatoon or one can go up to Lanigan and travel a matter of seventy to eighty miles in one direction, and then come back practically over the same line of track in order to get into those townships. I have here the redistribution map of 1924, at which time the present Prime Minister was also Prime Minister. I point out the circumstance that these three towmships were not included in either Long Lake or Last Mountain; they were in Humboldt, where they have continued to be over the years.
In regard to the southern part of the constituency I again point out that the area being removed from Lake Centre has been in either Long Lake or Last Mountain for over twenty-three years. The whole area has belonged to one or the other of those constituencies; and again I point out that the area amputated is the portion in which in fact there was a majority for the sitting member.
Now, Mr. Chairman, there may be some question raised in regard to the committee itself. I want to say, and I want to be fair in what I say, that as far as the committee was concerned we met for a total of possibly forty minutes. That is the entire period during which the committee met. There was no acrimony, but I did say before the committee -and I have my words here-that when this matter came before the house I would have my say. I said the matter would be brought up on the floor of the house, where it could be discussed and considered.


Mr. HARRIS (Grey-Bruce):: That was
before the main committee?


John George Diefenbaker: Yes.


Walter Edward Harris: Did the. hon. member express any reservations in the subcommittee?


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, yes. 1 said: "I can advance various arguments regarding the constituency of Lake Centre and the redistribution thereof. I reserve my right to discuss it when the bill comes before the house.

Redistribution


Walter Edward Harris: That is in the main committee?


John George Diefenbaker: Yes.


Walter Edward Harris: But I asked if you had expressed any reservations in the subcommittee.


John George Diefenbaker: If the hon. member for Rosthern were here I would say what was stated in the subcommittee. I am not introducing any acrimony-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: My hon. friend the Secretary of State laughs. I can point out what was said to me under the original plan which was submitted. There would have been an adverse majority of five or six thousand as far as I was concerned.


Walter Edward Harris: We are concerned about the bill which was reported by the committee.


John George Diefenbaker: That is all right; I am answering the Secretary of State. After some argument a number of townships were removed from the constituency of Yorkton, and four or five townships were removed from Humboldt.


Mr. GIBSON (Hamilton W'est):: The hon. member took part in all that discussion; he was a member of the committee that made this report.


John George Diefenbaker: Isn't that interesting? In 1934 Mr. Totzke, a Liberal member on the committee, from Saskatchewan-if my hon. friend wants the page I can give it- agreed to the change in the boundaries of the Prince Albert constituency, but when it came before the house he pointed out one circumstance after another and finally the change was made after representations were made to the Prime Minister. Oh, yes; the same story was told in 1932 when Mr. Totzke made himself perfectly clear on that occasion as I do on this occasion.
I am not going into any further arguments at this time. I am asking the Prime Minister as the person who enunciated these great principles in 1932 to apply them, not only in Kamloops, not only in Muskoka-Ontario; I ask him particularly to apply them as far as his political opposite is concerned, my leader in this house, and I ask him to apply them in connection with Lake Centre constituency. He said in 1932 that the people can speak only through their member. The people in the southern part of that constituency have asked to be continued in Lake
Centre. On behalf of those in the north end I ask first, that they be represented by someone who is fitted to represent them by reason of the geographical location. The addition gives the constituency the grotesque appearance of intentional manipulation.
There are other matters to which I shall not make reference now. There will be something said about population. I have the 1941 figures and I also have before me the 1945 figures. In 1941 Melville constituency, represented by the Minister of Agriculture, had a population of 43,847. By 1945, through the removal of people from that constituency, the population had been reduced to 43,568'. According to the figures given by the hon. member for Rosthern, 5,000 from the constituency of the Minister of Agriculture are being tacked on to Lake Centre. Deducting 5,000 from the 1945 population of Melville leaves that constituency with 38,568. In 1941 Rosetown-Biggar had a population of 32,375, but bf 1945 that had been reduced to 28,495. An addition is being made to the constituency of Rosetown-Biggar which will bring its population up to approximately 31,300. Lake Centre is now raised from approximately 34,175 to 43,300.


Mr. WRIGHT:: What figures is the hon. member quoting? I understood that under the present arrangement Rosetown-Biggar has 40,100.


John George Diefenbaker: My hon. friend is perfectly correct. Those are the figures they gave us, but they based the populations on the 1941 figures.


Major James William Coldwell: That is the law.


John George Diefenbaker: I appreciate that.


Mr. RINFRET:: Stick to those figures.


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, yes, stick to those figures. Many have left since 1941 and I am speaking about the populations today in these various constituencies.


Colin William George Gibson: The statute requires us to use the 1941 populations.


John George Diefenbaker: I am sure I do not need the helpful interruption of my hon. friend to be aware of that. I am pointing out the situation today in so far as the populations of those three constituencies are concerned.


Walter Edward Harris: If you had made that perfectly clear in the first place there would not have been these interruptions.


John George Diefenbaker: I can give knowledge but I cannot give intelligence. I am
Redistribution

pointing out the situation today in those three constituencies. I am not giving the situation based upon the 1941 census; I am giving the situation based upon the latest figures. They indicate that whereas the constituency of the Minister of Agriculture is substantially reduced, whereas a portion of that constituency which voted strongly against me is being added to Lake Centre, Lake Centre is now separated with a lake through its centre. In 1932 that argument was advanced as to why it should not be as large as the other constituencies. It is now increased in area very substantially on the east side and in addition three townships are added on the north side.
I do not want to be unfair. I do not want to lose those constituents on the south end. They have been there for years and years. They have no voice in this house and on their behalf I appeal to the Prime Minister. If you want to add on population, add it on, but above all remove the portion on the north end which has an appearance which I do not desire to designate at this time. This is a persona! matter and I would not have brought it up had it not been that the Prime Minister who was in the same position in 1932 explained that it was the only way in which a member could properly represent his constituency. On that occasion !he said that he spoke for the constituency of Prince Albert and, sir, he did. I speak on this occasion for the constituents of Lake Centre who are unable to present their views in any other way except through me.


Mr. MACKENZIE  ICING@: Mr. Chairman, yesterday, the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario said he did not regard me as Lord God Almighty. I am rather surprised that he found it necessary to make that confession in public. I did not think that anyone had ever suspected him of having strayedi so far from the faith of his fathers as to imagine anything of the kind. I say to him and to my hon. friend who has just taken his seat: Please keep that thought in mind when references are made to me at this time as to what it may be possible to do in regard1 to the particular measure that is before the committee.
The hon. member for Lake Centre has said that he would make his appeal to Caesar. That was the line of appeal which he made yesterday and I understand that, according to him, it is an appeal to Caesar he is making this morning. May I say to my hon. friend that I do not. regard1 myself as Caesar, nor have I ever attempted to take the role of a Caesar. I do not intend even to imitate Caesar, or to attempt his role at any time.

If my hon. friends opposite wish to know my position it is this: I regard myself as a humble servant of this House of Commons. In all my dealing with hon. gentlemen opposite as well as with hon. members of my own party during the time that I have been leader of the government I have sought to keep that thought first and foremost in mind.
May I say that with much of what my hon. friend from Lake Centre has just said I am in most hearty accord and agreement. I think I made it very clear at the beginning of this session when I spoke on the question of redistribution that I myself would like to see the whole question of redistribution of the constituencies taken out of the hands of hon. members of the House of Commons and placed before a commission of judges. I have here the daily Hansard of February 3, 1947, and I read my words as spoken at that time:
1 believe I have covered all that I think it desirable to say at present, beyond giving my hon. friend an assurance that the redistribution measure will be brought in at an early date in this session. I still hold the view which I expressed before. I personally would prefer a commission of judges to make the redistribution of seats in this house, but I do not believe that the majority of hon. members take that view, and in that particular I am prepared to accept the will of the majority. I hope, however, the day will come when the House of Commons of Canada will see the wisdom of allowing its redistribution to be made by some impartial tribunal and not by the members of the house themselves dealing with the matter in committee as it has been dealt with in former years.
There I was referring to what I had said in 1933, which I think has already been quoted. I said in 1933:
. . . My own view, and I have come to it after observing pretty carefully what has been taking place and what has been said in debate in this house as well as in the corridors, is that redistribution should be taken out of the hands of the House of Commons, where the parties are immediately interested, and should be put in the hands of a commission of judges. I would have that commission composed of judges selected in equal numbers by both sides of the house. The redistribution, if it is carried out in a fair way has not to do with party advantage at all. It ought to have solely to do with seeking to effect a fair and impartial division of the constituencies. and if three judges were named from one side of the house and three from the other, and if the choice were made, if you will, from among those who had been in politics and who therefore may be presumed to know something about conditions generally as they exist throughout the country, I think a redistribution which would be regarded as fair might be arrived at.


John Ritchie MacNicol: If you fix on judges wrhy not follow the practice in Great Britain, South Africa, Australia and, New Zealand as it has been outlined in the house this morning-that

Redistribution
is, appoint men who are familiar with laying out constituencies? I am strongly behind the Prime (Minister's proposal.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What I was reading from at the moment was the statement I made in 1933. I was going to go on to say that I agreed wuth my hon. friend from Lake Centre that we have an excellent precedent in the act which was passed by the United Kingdom in 1944. But what I was quoting was what I had said in 1933. The British Act was enacted subsequently. I myself would have welcomed this House of Commons adopting such a measure at this session, but this House of Commons did not share my view, and I am not a dictator in this House of Commons. I made that very clear at the time. I spoke to my own following both in the government and in this house. I was told that if my particular view were pressed it would1 be assumed that I was reflecting upon the integrity and the ability of hon. members of the House of Commons, which is the last thing in the world I would ever do or wish to do or be thought willing to do. It was for that reason I bowed to what I 'believed to be the view of the majority in this house, though I thought at the time and still think it was a mistaken view. I would hope that what has been said this morning and what has been observed in the course of the consideration of this redistribution will cause whatever government may be in office at the time of the next redistribution to adopt the reform which I have been advocating and which I believe is a very necessary and a very wise one. If the present debate has done nothing else except to help move that reform one step forward it will not have been in vain.


Major James William Coldwell: In view of the Prime Minister's remarks would' it not be possible to defer this redistribution and have the work done by a body outside of parliament?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I made very clear at the outset that there were two methods of procedure we could adopt. The house made its decision and I am abiding, by the decision of the house. When the committee was appointed there w-as no appeal from the other side to any extent-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Does the Prime Minister know-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I know my hon. friend took objection, as he does more or less to everything.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Does the Prime Minister Know that the proposal for a commission was the subject of a motion voted on in the house?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I know as much
about the proceedings of this house as any hon. member.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There was a vote on it and the Prime Minister was not here for it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I know all about the vote and all the rest of it. My hon. friend interrupted me before I had finished my sentence. I said that I heard no one join in my appeal, and I was going on to say, from the official opposition in this house.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I appealed. I have been in favour of a commission for redistribution for a long time. But the right hon. gentleman said that the house had voted for the present procedure.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I know that my hon. friend has always favoured this reform and he is quite right. But I was speaking of the official opposition as represented by its leader in the House of Commons, and I was not joined in that appeal which I was making to the house to have a commission deal with this question by the leader of the official opposition at that time. The house made its own decision. It decided that this year it preferred to have redistribution .made by a committee of the house, as has been done in all the years past. The committee was appointed and I have yet to learn of any members of that committee to whose names exception has been taken by those serving on the committee. As far as I know, all members of that committee conducted their business as honourable members of this house and I have yet to hear exception taken in that particular to their proceedings.
The house having decided on the method which it wished to follow in having this redistribution made, and having acted upon it, the bill having been brought before the house, given first and second readings, sent to a committee to be dealt with; brought back from the committee and being before us at the present time, it is ridiculous to suggest that we should now conclude our proceedings and allow redistribution to stand over for another session. The only thing that can properly be done now is to continue with the measure and have it discussed on its merits as it is being discussed at this time.
May I add this further word. Thus far we have heard in this debate for the most part only from hon. gentlemen opposite. I imagine there will be something to be said from this side of the house as to the reasons why certain decisions were made with respect to particular constituencies, and I assume that those reasons are within the knowledge of all mem-
REttSED EDITION
Redistribution

bers of the committee. They are not within my knowledge because I was very careful, as I have said, not to seek to influence any member of the committee in any way. I have gone out of my way to avoid seeking in any way to influence any member of the committee while the committee was at work, because I knew among other things that the constituency of Glengarry was one of the constituencies that would come up for discussion and that I was 'the member for Glengarry at the present time. I made it pretty clear I think at the time I was honoured by the electors of that constituency in its representation in the House of Commons, that I appreciated their kindness in allowing me to represent the constituency for this parliament, but I also made it clear to them, at the same time that I did not intend to seek representation of that constituency in another parliament of Canada. Bo may I say to hon. gentlemen opposite, when they compare what was done in other constituencies with what was done in Glengarry, that so far as I am concerned my hands have been and are perfectly free from seeking to influence anyone to try to keep what has been called the Prime Minister's constituency in a preferred or particular position.
The house has made its own decision as to how it wishes to proceed in 'the matter of this year's distribution, and I would suggest that we do not at this time attempt to alter that procedure.


Mr. WHITMAN:: I suppose this redistribution problem that comes up once every ten years after the census of those years ending in "1", is one of the most difficult and controversial problems that come before the house. Fortunately it comes only once in ten years. Governments are always criticized for whatever action is taken.
Before I begin my remarks I wish to explain to the hon. member for Peace River that my interjection of yesterday was not with the thought of being smart, or with the thought of sniping. My own division of Mount Royal, which I shall discuss later, is one that is affected by this redistribution, and I just wanted him to admit that as he went along.
Bill No. 18 which we are now discussing has a preamble which reads as follows:
Whereas the results of the census of 1041 necessitate a readjustment of the representation in the House of Commons, pursuant to the provisions of The British North America Acte, 1867 to 1946, and the other statutes in that behalf:	Therefore His Majesty, by and with
the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:

Then follows the bill. In the explanatory notes we find section 51 of the British North America Act which establishes rules for the present readjustment of members in the House of Commons and which reads as follows:
51. (1) The number of members of the House of Commons shall be two hundred and fifty-five and the representation of the provinces therein shall forthwith upon the coming into force of this section and thereafter on the completion of each decennial census -be readjusted -by such authority, in such manner, and from such time as the parliament of Canada from time to time provides, subject and according to the following rules:
It is worthy of mention that the old historic province of Quebec will be represented in the new House of Commons in a more equitable manner than it has been in the past. That may be the reason for such violent criticism as has manifested itself in this debate, although, Mr. Chairman, it is noticeable that the criticism today is not as violent as it was yesterday.
I was interested in the historical review which was given by the hon. member for Vancouver South with respect to that portion of British Columbia whence he came. I have always found the history of Canada interesting, and I was going to suggest to the hon. member that he sit down and peruse the historical background of the city of Montreal. If he does that he will find it interesting. When he told us about the gallant Quadra I was reminded of Maisonneuve, Champlain, Jeanne Mance, Dollard Desormeaux, and many others who have made the history of Canada so glorious.


John Ritchie MacNicol: And La Verendrye; do not forget him. He was famous.


Frederick Primrose Whitman: If these gentlemen are sitting upstairs today looking down on us they must be amused at the debate which is taking place in the House of Commons on redistribution.
I am pleased that we are to have representation according to the population of Canada. I hope the legal minds of all parts of Canada will not be turned toward interpreting this act to the detriment of any province. I want to compliment hon. members of the opposition who have so frequently and so well quoted our Prime Minister and Sir Wilfrid Laurier as authorities on redistribution. They have produced good authority. But let us remember that a committee of the house was set up to make recommendations to the government as to the changes that should be made in the divisions themselves. I was not a member of that committee, nor

Redistribution
did I make any representations to it until the report was brought in. The recommendations have been embodied in Bill No. 18, and whether we like it or not the new House of Commons that will be elected will be more truly representative of the people of Canada.
I have heard of the woes and the trials of those hon. members of the opposition whose constituencies have been changed and who feel that their chances of reelection are not as good as they previously were. However, I am not going to discuss them. I want to discuss for a very short period the changes which have taken place in my own division of Mount Royal and which have not been to my liking nor to my advantage. If we go back to the redistribution which took place after 1931, and of which the hon. member for Davenport was chairman, we find that many changes were made. These changes were not made in the interests of the Liberal party, and I think my hon. friend will be one of the first to admit that they were made with a view to assisting the government which was then in power.


John Ritchie MacNicol: You are speaking of what province?


Frederick Primrose Whitman: I am speaking of the redistribution which took place in 1931.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I bad to do only with Ontario, and I will defend every seat that was laid out. It went through the house without change.


Frederick Primrose Whitman: Correct, as this will.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I had nothing to do with the other provinces.


Frederick Primrose Whitman: This will go through without change as well. The constituency of Mount Royal as set up at that time was composed of that portion of Montreal known as Notre Dame de Grace, the municipality of Hampstead, the municipality of Montreal West, the municipality of Ville St. Pierre, and about half of the city of Lachine. One could speak at length on that redistribution, but it is sufficient to say that in 1935 the Conservative member, the late W. A. Walsh was elected with a majority of 4,226. Right here I want to pay a tribute to the memory of the late W. Allen Walsh. I do not believe there has ever been a member sifting in this house with higher ideals nor a higher regard for the principles of democracy.
In 1940 it was my privilege to win the division with a majority of 6,539. Even the Montreal Conservative sections showed general support of the government of the day and a sympathetic understanding of the problems 83166-360J
we were facing. Again in 1945 I was elected with a majority of 3,549 and the municipality of Ville St. Pierre in that portion of Lachine which is in Mount Royal division gave me 2,500 or 2,600 of the majority. Imagine my feeling of loss when I find that Ville St. Pierre and that half of Lachine is being detached from Mount Royal and placed in another constituency. I do not accuse the committee of gerrymandering my division, since in 1941 it had a population of 84,295 persons, and I realize that redistribution must mean a changing of the division of Mount Royal. The main part of the old Mount Royal division is to be known as the division of Notre Dame de Grace and if the population of Notre Dame de Grace is substantially in accord with 'the policies of this government I feel they will elect a supporter of it.
I think I should refer to another aspect of this redistribution. When I saw the report of the committee I found the municipality of Montreal West had been transferred to the Jacques Cartier division. The traditions and the outlook of the people of Montreal West were more in keeping with the section known as Notre Dame de Grace or with the new Mount Royal division as it is being set up. After I had received representations from Montreal West residents, and after consultation with the Minister of Finance I suggested to the committee that Montreal West could legitimately become part of the new Mount Roval. T'his suggestion was adopted and Montreal West will, under the setup, become part of the new division of Mount Royal which is shown on this map of Montreal.
The subcommittee of the province of Quebec has, in my opinion, made a fair and just allocation of the electors of that province, and especially in the island of Montreal. It has been a difficult task, but I will accept the recommendations as embodied in Bill No. 18.
I was going to make an appeal to Caesar this morning, but since we have no Caesar and since we have no dictator I think I will make this appeal to the government itself. My appeal will be somewhat different from the appeal of the hon. member for Lake Centre. I appeal to the government to pass this redistribution act so that the province of Quebec will have fair and proportionate representation in the new House of Commons. I appeal to the government not to allow the small differences of opinion of a few members to influence the greater decision that will give fair and just representation to our province. I appeal to the government, in the words of St. Paul's epistle to the Corinthians, chapter 15, verse 58: "Be ye stead-
Redistribution

fast, immovable." And I mean steadfast and immovable in justice and in fairness to the electors of Canada. When an election is called, if I have the honour to contest the new seat of Notre Dame de Grace, I will contest it as a supporter of the government and will abide by the decision given by the electors of that division.


Mr. HACKETT:: I have understood from
the Prime Minister that it is not the intention of the government to yield to the suggestion that has been made to it that redistribution be done over by what it pleases some to call an impartial body. That being the case, it is probably futile to discuss the constitution of any such body. If that discussion ever becomes pertinent I shall place before the house my own reasons against the appointment of judges to such a commission. The right hon. gentleman who leads the house has indicated in no uncertain terms that he does not share my views as to the impropriety of appointing judges for the solution of quasi-political problems. I think he must concede that the appointment of judges to draw an electoral map of Canada, especially where three of the judges would be of one political stripe and three of another, would be a great misfortune and a great folly. It would be dragging these gentlemen back into the dust of an arena which they had long since escaped, and it would be possibly a reason-a reason at least in the minds of some evil minded people

for appointing a man to the bench, that he might at some later time be used for a task of this description.
I will satisfy myself by saying that if such a proposal ever comes before the house and I happen to be a member I shall resist it, as I know all lawyers and judges will resist it, and as I believe everyone who thinks well of our legal institutions, especially of our judiciary, will be bound to resist it.
The purpose of my few remarks this morning is to deal with a matter that is at least non-partisan and, I believe, non-political. In the schedule of the Quebec constituencies, the constituency of Wright has disappeared and is being replaced by the constituency of Gatineau. I said in the committee, and I repeat here-prompted by numerous protests received from people who hold this view- that it is unfortunate that a great historical name should be unnecessarily obliterated from the geography and from the official records of the dominion.
Philemon Wright was born in the year that Canada passed from the old allegiance to the new, in 1760. It is just 150 years ago this year that he established the community

out of which Ottawa has grown. He and the group of 30 or 40 people whom he brought with him redeemed this section of country from the wilderness. For over three generations the area adjacent to Ottawa on the Quebec side of the Ottawa river has borne his name.
Wright came up the river as the head of a numerous company. I find in his own language, in an article which he contributed to the Canadian Magazine in 1824, a description of that epic journey. Here are a few lines:
And in 1797 I came again to Canada and visited Quebec. I then viewed the country on both sides of the St. Lawrence, the whole of the distance from Quebec, until I arrived at the Ottawa or Grand river in the township of Hull, taking time to explore and examine the country, more particularly the parts bordering on both sides of the Ottawa or Grand river.
The next year he came with a large company of people, with horses and cattle. He cleared away the forest, he developed power on the rivers, he built mills and started the flourishing settlement of Hull and the settlement which, as I said a moment ago, later extended to this side of the river and became the nation's capital, Ottawa.
The name Gatineau is one that is well known. In fact, Mr. Wright was known in his day as the king of the Gatineau. Possibly it has another king today. Be that as it may, his was a great name, a name that should not ruthlessly be erased from our annals. Gatineau was a fur trader who, tradition says, was drowned in the river in 1680 something. His name is carried by that great river and is also borne by a provincial constituency in the province of Quebec, which however is not coextensive with the new constituency which, according to the bill, is also to bear the name of Gatineau.
I am going to make a motion, seconded by a great great grandson of Mr. Wright, the effect of which will be that the name of "Wright" will be rescued from quasi-oblivion. I would recall to the committee that Philemon Wright was a pathfinder, a pioneer, a Canadian whose story all should remember and whose example many should follow. I therefore move, seconded by Mr. Percy Wright:
That in the Quebec schedule the word "Gatineau" be deleted and the word "Wright" be put in its place opposite the figure "18" on page 21.


William Ross Macdonald: It has been the custom of the chair to receive the amendments and then to consider them when we reach the schedule.


John Thomas Hackett: That is true, Mr. Chairman, but possibly that rule applies to matters which are political. This is not a political

Redistribution
matter. It has to do with retaining a name which is historical. I had hoped that- it was one which hon. gentlemen opposite might, in the circumstances, be willing to deal with a little differently than they would with a matter included with the acrimony of party.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am sympathetic in many ways with the remarks the hon. member has made with regard to the name of the constituency. I think when we come to deal with these matters individually a certain latitude might well be allowed to hon. members in the expression of their views to any effect, but I think it would be a mistake to depart from the course which we have been following up to the present, namely, that of allowing hon. members to bring their motions to the attention of the committee, have them seconded and placed in the hands of the chairman, and not taken up until we come to deal with the bill section by section. Unless that procedure is followed, I am afraid it would be regarded as an injustice by those who have followed that course.


Mr. RAYMOND (Wright):: I had not intended to speak on the present bill, but after the remarks made and the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Stanstead, I think it is my duty to say a few words and to give some explanation concerning the suggested change in the name of the county from ''Wright" to "Gatineau".
If we look at this bill, there are two changes so far as my constituency is concerned. In the first place, the name of Gatineau replaces that of Wright. In the second place, some municipalities or parishes in the Lievre valley, having a population totalling 4,000 to 4,500 people which are represented at the present time by the Minister of Public Works, have been added to my constituency.
If we look back we see that the constituency of Wright was established in 1892 and was then composed of the present constituency of Wright, of the city of Hull and what is also today the remainder of the constituency of Hull. In 1924 an amendment was adopted which had the effect of dividing the constituency of Wright and forming two constituencies out of it; one named Hull, comprising the city of Hull, and what is at the present time the remainder of the constituency of Hull, leaving to Wright its actual limits under the name of Wright, territory in which, I wish to state right now, nearly everything is known under the name of Gatineau.
In 1939, the municipal council of the county of Gatineau, which comprises exactly the same territory as the present constituency of Wright, and which is composed of all the mayors of such territory, with the exception of the
mayor of Aylmer-because in the province of Quebec the mayor of a town is not a member of a county council-adopted a resolution. I think there are thirty or thirty-one members in this county council. The resolution was to the effect of requesting my predecessor in this house, Dr. Rodolphe Leduc, to ask this parliament to substitute the name Gatineau for that of Wright. I wish to mention here that this county council of Gatineau is composed of French-speaking Canadians and Englishspeaking Canadians. This motion was proposed by Mr. A. J. Earle, mayor of the town of Wakefield, an English-speaking and Conservative mayor, and was seconded by the mayor of Masham, who is a French-speaking Canadian and, I think, a Liberal. The mayors of my constituency had serious reasons to request such a change. As I said a moment ago, nearly everything is called "Gatineau" in my constituency of Wright. Those who have been in my constituency in the Gatineau district will hiave noted that. Wright is the same territory as the provincial county of Gatineau. It is also the same territory for land registration purposes and is named the registration division of Gatineau. For municipal purposes it is again the same limits, and the name is the corporation of the county of Gatineau. With the exception of the town of Aylmer, of part of the township of Hull comprising the village of Deschene and the township of Eardlev, this district which is the constituency of Wright at the present time is a district and a region which by itself is known by everybody as the Gatineau valley. If I were trying to get publicity for my constituency, I would say that, it is known as the wonderful Gatineau valley. This name "Gatineau" is so well known to designate my district that when a federal park was organized only a few steps from Ottawa and Hull, there was no question as to the name; it came naturally and it was named "Gatineau park".
While considering justly the late Philemon Wright, the founder of the city of Hull, which has not been in my constituency since 1924, as a prominent figure in our regional history, it seemed apropos to the mayors of my county-no matter to what racial group or political party they belonged'-in order to avoid confusion to request that this constituency be given the name by which it is known. I then, as dt was my duty to do, presented an official request that the name Wright be changed to that of Gatineau. Later on, only a few weeks ago, I was informed that some municipalities of the Lievre valley, having a total population of 4,500 souls, were added to my constituency. It will be agreed that it is quite natural that, I should wish to take
Redistribution

this opportunity to say that I am much honoured. by this addition to my constituency.
Although my request for a change in the name from Wright to Gatineau was made at that time, I thought then to suggest the name Gatineau-Lievre, but it would have been unfair to the remainder of the Lievre valley, the population of which is much more important than that of the portion which has been added to my constituency, to use the name "Lievre." And may I add that I did not ask to have the name changed in that way also because this part of the Lievre valley which has been added to my constituency is quite similar to that of Gatineau, not only in regard to its industries, its natural resources and scenic beauty but also in regard to the character of its origin; and the name "Gatineau" does not apply only to those living in the valley of that name but applies also to the Lievre valley, as it might apply also to many other districts, especially in the province of Quebec.
Not long ago Jean Paul Vanasse, one of our brilliant young journalists, wrote a fine article which appeared in the newspaper Le Droit, which very well expresses what the name Gatineau means to us. I should like to quote a few lines from that article, and I do so in the original French text:
(Translation):
Gatineau is a name which calls forth romantic recollections. This magic word conjures up in the minds of our grandfathers boundless and inexhaustible forests, long winters in lumber camps, the glorious era of brawny men whose axes, shining in the sun, sank into the hearts of vanquished trees. That name romantically evokes the life spent by successive generations in the Canadian forest, with its bitingly cold winters.


Léon-Joseph Raymond: The hon. member for Stanstead (Mr. Hackett.) stressed a few moments ago, the importance of cherishing past remembrances. I must point out to him that the name Wright will not completely disappear from my district because it deserves to be retained. In my constituency, near Gracefield, a municipality and a township bear that name, as also does a bridge at Ironside, near Hull.
While I dislike to voice the few remarks I am about to make, I deem it my duty to do so, and before resuming my seat, and on behalf of my electors, whatever their political feelings, their colour, their race or their religion may be, as well as in my own name, I wish to assure the house that in the Gatineau district we cherish the past just as much as does the hon. member for Stanstead. I may add in all fairness for the thirty-odd mayors who requested this change in name,

that they have in that connection no lessons to take from the hon. member for Stanstead.
(Text):


Percy Ellis Wright: It is with considerable diffidence that I rise to take part in this debate today. The hon. member who has just spoken has told something of the history of the Gatineau. I remember hearing that history, when I was a very small boy, from my grandfather, who told me not only the early history of the Gatineau but also the story of the trek from Wotton, Massachusetts, up the St. Lawrence river, when they cut the original trail across from the Ottawa to the St. Lawrence, following roughly the route of the present canal, and the establishment of the settlement on the Quebec side of the river, when there was nothing at all where Ottawa now stands. I have heard the story of the origin of Ottawa, of the first settlers who came up the following year, crossing the river and beginning the settlement on this side. It is a long story, one I should like to tell but which I am sure hon. members are not anxious to hear at this time. Naturally I am interested in seeing the name "Wright" perpetuated, and I would ask that the committee give serious consideration to the perpetuation of a name which at one time meant a great deal in this section of the country because of its historical connections with the early days. As far as possible throughout Canada I believe we should try to retain some of these old historic connections which mean a great deal now and I am sure will mean more in the future.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-Total number of members.
William Ross Macdonald: There is an amendment to this section. The hon. member for Yukon moves that section 2 be amended by striking out the words, "including that part of the Mackenzie district of the Northwest Territories lying west of the 109th meridian of west longitude". Shall the amendment carry? Those in favour of the amendment will say yea.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Yea.


William Ross Macdonald: Those opposed will say nay.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Nay.


William Ross Macdonald: In my opinion the nays have it.


John Ritchie MacNicol: You are going too fast, Mr. Chairman. It is one o'clock, and one or two of us would like to say a word1 on this section. There is not very much controversy about it.

Redistribution


William Ross Macdonald: I did not intend to go any faster than the committee desired me to go.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The hon. member for Yukon is going to speak on this; I would like to speak on it, and it is one o'clock.


William Ross Macdonald: We are on section 2, and I have put the amendment. If the hon. member would like to speak on it-


John Ritchie MacNicol: What can I say in half a minute?


William Ross Macdonald: It is up to the
committee.


John Ritchie MacNicol: You cannot put it through that quickly; it is more important than that.


William Ross Macdonald: Then if the hon. member wishes to speak on the amendment it can stand.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Yes, I would like to say a word on it, but it is one o'clock.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at two o'clock.
(Translation):


Mr. CAOUETTE:: Mr. Chairman, while the Halifax people were returning yesterday the Liberal candidate in a by-election, a municipal election was taking place at St. Isidore de Laverlochere, in the dominion constituency of Pontiac and the provincial electoral district of Temiscamingue.
With the support of the Union of Electors, Mr. A. Lafreniere, has won an outstanding victory over former mayor Aristide Ritchot, chief Liberal organizer for the Temiscamingue district.
(Text):


Mr. LESAGE:: There is no question of privilege in what the hon. member is saying. It is only political propaganda as usual. They cannot do anything else.


David Réal Caouette: What are the Liberals doing themselves?


The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN:: When the committee rose we were dealing with an amendment moved by the hon. member for Yukon to section 2.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I am sorry that during the lunch hour I was so busy that I did not have time to get even two ideas together, but I am going to do the best I can with the amendment. This question whether Mackenzie
should be put in with the Yukon was considered extensively by the committee. I can say that each member of the committee was quite fair and looked at the problem from the best point of view he could bring to bear on it. The recommendation which was made in the end, while not unanimous, was not acrimonious. I believe that if the committee could have found some way to achieve unanimity they would have done so.
I am going to confine my remarks to this section; I am not going to refer to anything else connected with the bill. I am one of the few members of the house who has been over this area from end to end, from north to south and from east to west.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I have been there too.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I said that I was one of the few. I know something about what a member of parliament would have to do if he is called upon to represent approximately
750.000	square miles, an area reaching for a thousand miles from one end to the other and approximately 500 miles north and south. I am sure I am not overstating it when I give those figures and I may be understating it. When I was at Yellowknife I addressed a public meeting. I just forget the name of the club, whether it was the board of trade or the chamber of commerce. This was some two or three years ago before the problem of redistribution came up. I was one of those who advised them that they should ask for representation in this house. I am convinced that if it is possible to give it to them they should have it if they want it.
The area is growing quite rapidly. I presume that there are 5,000 people more or less in the Mackenzie district covering approximately
750.000	square miles. When one enters the Mackenzie area he does so at Fort Smith, a very pretty little village of about 150 population on Slave river. I do not think I am exaggerating. I do not want to either exaggerate or understate. From Fort Smith it is almost 200 miles to the next stop at Resolution, near the mouth of the Slave river. This is not right at the mouth, you go around the mouth of the river to the west until you come to Resolution. If you are going to Yellowknife you fly across the lake from Resolution, a distance of perhaps 100 miles.
The next community if you are going northwest towards the Mackenzie river from Resolution is Hay River. I hesitate to quote any figures, but there are only a handful of people there. Then from Hay River you go to Providence where you find another handful. It is just an airport. From Providence I believe the next stop is Simpson, and then
Redistribution

Wrigley and then Norman Wells. All these places are just Hudson Bay posts. Norman Wells was a thriving little centre, but I presume since the war has ended it has shut down. Normally there would not be more than fifteen people at Norman Wells. Then the next stop is Fort Good Hope, where there is a mere handful of people, it being just a Hudson Bay post; then Arctic Red River where I do not imagine there are more than two or three white people. At that time there was just one family, a very nice family by the name of Clarke. The next stop is Fort McPherson, a very small settlement, and the next stop is Aklavik itself.
I do not think I would be in error if I said that there are no more than 5,000 people in the Mackenzie district. I think that would b* the outside limit on the number of white people in the whole area. There are a number of Eskimo and Indians and I presume those Indians who fought in the war would be entitled to vote. As I say, I think 5,000 would be the limit on the number of people in this area which the committee proposes to join with the Yukon.
It is impossible to reach the Yukon from the Mackenzie by a Canadian plane because there are no Canadian planes that attempt to fly from Norman Wells to Whitehorse. I went across in a large United States government plane and in crossing from Norman Wells to Whitehorse we passed over two mountain ranges which were perhaps 9,000 feet high. Unless you fly there is an impassable barrier between the Yukon and the Mackenzie.
The committee discussed the problem most carefully. I want to say a word abou* the subchairman, the hon. member for Grey-Bruce. I am glad to see he is sitting with the minister. In the hon. member the government has a very courteous, careful, thoughtful young man. I was greatly pleased with the work he did in the redistribution committee. I have always found him fair.
Through the chairman or by his direction communication was had with the labour unions of Yellowknife and with the council there-the government appointed at Yellowknife-and with business men in that com-mpnity. The hon. member for Skeena and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre wanted, and very rightly so, as we all dads, to ensure representation for any people who wanted to be represented. I am not- sure whether the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre communicated direct but I believe the hon. member for Skeena did, and the wires he got back were of the same import as those sent to the chairman of the committee, that they would prefer to remain as
rMr. MacNicol.]
they are until after the next census and redistribution, which will be only four or five years away, when the whole picture will be changed again. In my opinion the people of Mackenzie should be given representation of their own. The area is big enough for that, and by the time the next redistribution comes round the population may have grown to a . size big enough for representation. That is what they want. All the communications I have seen, and I saw all that were received up to the time the committee finished its work, were opposed to representation if it meant being joined up with the Yukon, and
1	saw no communications to the contrary.
The communications from the Yukon also
asked that there be no linking up of Mackenzie with the Yukon. I do not see why we should force representation upon them if they do not want it. Even if they did, where is the representation to come from, the Yukon or Mackenzie? If it comes from the one district the other will be displeased, and vice versa. To me it seems sound common sense to return to the present situation and not to put Mackenzie in with the Yukon; or else move the dividing line to the west. I looked at a map at noon. The bill says meridian 109, but if you insist on mentioning the name Mackenzie, just move the boundary from meridian 109 to meridian 135, as far as Mackenzie is concerned, and that will put a little bit of the Mackenzie area in, and that is all. I do not think that all Mackenzie should be put in. The whole proposal is silly. There is little sense to it. But if you have to do it move the boundary from meridian 109 to meridian 135. It is nothing but preposterous for this house to pass clause
2	hooking the Mackenzie area west of meridian 109 with what is now called the Yukon. It would mean that you would have an area
1,000	miles in length from east to west and 500 miles north and south. That does not make sense. There is not a member who would want- such a constituency, and it would be impossible for him to visit it unless the government financed his visits to the- area. I have been over it from end to end, both the Yukon and the Mackenzie area, right down to Aklavik and the Arctic ocean.
The committee divided three to two, and that is pretty close. It might just as well have gone three to two the other way, but it happened to be three to two for this proposal. I am going to support the amendment of the hon. member for Yukon. He has been a good and faithful member, and whether he runs again or not is neither here nor there; I hope he does, but whoever might succeed him would have to go through what he would

Redistribution
have to go through. I am sure if he runs again he will be elected whether it be for the Yukon or for the larger area. But it is an impossible position to put any member in to ask him to represent an area of half a million square miles.


Mr. BLACK (Yukon):: Yesterday I discussed the bill in general and gave what I thought were most convincing reasons why Mackenzie should not be added to Yukon. To me the most potent reason is that the people do not want it. By telegrams, by their representatives, by their trustees, and by their local council, which corresponds closely to a provincial legislature, they have sent in petitions against this proposal. They ask to be left as they are, even without representation, rather than have the Mackenzie district or any part of it attached to the Yukon. Why the house should insist on Mackenzie becoming part of the Yukon is something I simply cannot understand. It is not fair either to the people of Mackenzie or to the people of the Yukon. Why the house should put through such a monstrous piece of legislation I cannot understand. Will anyone who is in favour of this proposal please say why?


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Chairman, there were some general remarks I might address to my friends opposite but we had decided to wait until the particular item was before the house in order to make an explanation. Therefore at the moment I shall speak only to Yukon-Mackenzie. The petitions that came before the committee had approximately 916 signatures, and of these only 370 were from the Mackenzie district, and 546 from the Yukon represented by the hon. member. There may have been other petitions filed in the house which did not come to the attention of the committee. We only dealt with those we had before us. I agree that 370 is quite a considerable number, but when you consider the estimate given by the hon. member for Davenport and the estimate given by the department that in the Mackenzie district there are over 5,000 white people, 370 is a relatively low percentage. Your committee had to decide what to do in view of the fact that the house in sending the bill to the committee had included in it the whole of the Mackenzie district.
The hon. member for the Yukon has given figures so that the house will understand how big an area it is that he would have to represent if he were the new member for Yukon-Mackenzie. In fixing the easterly limit at meridian 109 we took in all of the occupied municipalities, if you want to call them that, 83166-361
in the Mackenzie river district. So far as we know there is no settlement east of that line. The purpose of the amendment is clear. It is to give the vote to some 5,400 white people in the Mackenzie district. If we carry the amendment now suggested by the hon. member these people will be prevented from voting in the next election. I agree that they have not a vote now; but the purpose of parliament should be to extend the franchise if it is at all possible, and that is why your committee recommends this to the house.


George Black: Has there been any indication from these 5,000 people of whom the hon. member speaks that they want this legislation? Nobody wants it.


Walter Edward Harris: As the hon. member said in his speech yesterday, the demand for representation arose when the Yellowknife area began to increase in population in the last two or three years. These representations were made particularly last year to the minister who visited that area. On that basis we have been assuming that the people want representation. It is true that since that time the hon. member for Yukon has presented evidence, and good evidence, that they want a member for themselves; but in its wisdom the committee did not feel that it could grant that, yet it believes that these people should have representation.


Mr TUCKER:: I should like to say a few words on this amendment. We expect some great developments in that district in the next two or three years. We expect to ask many young Canadians to go up there and develop that country. It is a strange suggestion that we should create a situation whereby if anyone leaves any of the provinces-and it is possible that within the next three or four years as many as 5,000 young Canadians will move into that area-he should not have a vote. If this amendment carries it means that if people from the other nine provinces of Canada go into that area they will become disfranchised. I suggest that this parliament should not put a premium upon disfranchising people who move into that area to develop it. If young Canadians go into that area in order to develop it I do suggest that the carrying of this amendment would mean that they would be disfranchising themselves. It seems to me that that is not the proper thing to do.


George Black: That is what they asked parliament to do.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I find myself in
unwonted antagonism with some of my best friends who are behind me and around me

Redistribution

today. I want to support the amendment of the hon. member for Yukon. The wrong way of effecting what is I think a desirable reform is to add a tremendous territory to the historic reaches of the old Yukon. They have a tradition in Canadian history which is unmatched possibly by any part of this broad dominion. I believe, sir, that the time is premature. I agree entirely with the hon. member for Rosthern that the young settlers arriving in the far reaches of the Mackenzie should have representation in this house. I believe that this house should give immediate study to the proper representation at a future date of the Mackenzie area, but I believe it is unfair at the present time, upon very short notice to the Yukon territory, to add a limitless territory to a territory already very large. Therefore on grounds of tradition, possibly on grounds of sentiment, and possibly on grounds of the necessities of this occasion I find myself inclined to disagree with some of my friends around me and to support my good and gallant friend, the hon. member for Yukon.


Percy Ellis Wright: I am surprised to hear the Minister of Veterans Affairs make the speech that he has just made. As a good Liberal and Scotsman I thought that he would want any person who paid taxes to be represented. However, I believe that a good deal of this difficulty could have been avoided had the house seen fit to adopt the suggestion which we made last year when the British North America Act was amended. At that time we suggested that there should be a member for the Mackenzie area and a member for the Yukon area. That move of this group was blocked at that time on technicalities, and the wisdom of our suggestion is now apparent.
I believe, as does the hon. member for Rosthern, that people should not live in Canada who cannot be represented in this house, and we shall continue that under the present section 2, because there is not only a Mackenzie area in the far north, but there are also the Keewatin and Franklin areas. It is true the population is very small in these areas; but there we have established weather posts and mounted police posts, and other scientific groups are going in there to secure data. There will be a number of young Canadians located in both the Keewatin and Franklin areas who will be entitled to representation. I agree that it is an impossibility for any one member to represent the area which we asking him to represent there unless the House of Commons is prepared to make several amendments to the election act, amendments which will permit

transportation by air to be made available to the member representing such an area, amendments to the elections act which would make it possible for those young Canadians stationed in these outlying areas to vote by mail. It would be impossible to fly ballot boxes to every one of these individual posts, but if we are to have true representation we should at least give to these people an opportunity to vote. It is not enough simply to pass an act and let it go at that. That is not democracy. Democracy is carrying out the spirit of the act and making it possible for people whom we bring in to have representation. We are in an almost impossible position at the present time. Finally, I think we shall have to do what was suggested last
year.	We shall have to have two representatives for the north, at least two representatives for the area which is going to become of great importance in our Canadian economy as time goes on. These areas are entitled to representation even though the population may be small. The resources there are such that there should be someone in this house to represent that area.
Amendment (Mr. Black, Yukon) negatived:
yeas,	20; nays, 61.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 3-Division into electoral districts.
Colin William George Gibson: I would
suggest that section 3 be held over until after the schedule has been approved.


William Henry Golding: Section 3
stands.


Mr. BRACKEN:: Do I understand that the debate on section 3 is to be delayed?


Colin William George Gibson: Until we come to the schedule. When we pass the schedule we shall come back to section 3.


John Bracken: I wish to say something on the whole question of the schedule, and I think perhaps I should say it now.


Colin William George Gibson: If we can pass the other sections of the bill then we can come back to the schedule andi have a further discussion on it. I think that is a more satisfactory way of dealing with it.


William Henry Golding: I think the committee did agree unanimously that on section 1 a general discussion would be permitted. Sections 1 and 2 have been carried. I think we should carry the sections as they appear and then deal with the schedule. I think that is the proper procedure.

Redistribution


John Bracken: I want to understand what the procedure is, now that we have passed sections 1 and 2. We come now to section 3, which contains the whole substance of the bill. Is it the understanding that you will hold this in the meantime and deal with the other clauses in the bill and then come back to 3 and from that proceed to the details of the schedule?


William Henry Golding: That is right.


John Bracken: Then you are asking now that for the time being we pass over 3.


William Henry Golding: We will deal with the other clauses and go on to the schedule and deal with 3 when the schedules are passed.


John Bracken: I object to that procedure, going on to the schedules and leaving clause 3. I wish to speak on the general principle in clause 3. I can do so now or later, whenever you allow it, but it will be too late after we have dealt with the details of the schedule.


William Henry Golding: If it is the wish of hon. members to deal with 3 now, that is perfectly in order.


Colin William George Gibson: The only reason for holding over section 3 is that it states that the provinces shall be represented as provided in the schedule to this act, and the schedule may be amended later. That is why I think it would be better to have the schedule agreed upon first.


Mr. GRAYDON:: If the schedules were to be amended afterwards, then clause 3 would automatically carry the change.


Colin William George Gibson: If that is understood.


Gordon Graydon: I think we could go on with section 3.


John Bracken: There are two matters I should like to touch upon in connection with this clause. The clause reads:
The said provinces respectively shall, for the purpose of the election of members to serve in the House of Commons, be divided into electoral districts, which shall be represented as provided in the schedule to this act.
The principle of this bill was approved when it was introduced into the house some months ago. The details of the boundaries of the constituencies were left to a committee of this house to determine. The recommendations of the committee now appear in the form of a schedule to this bill. I believe it is exactly the same as the committee reported, with the exception that the government has seen fit to change one of the recommendations respecting 83166-361J	'
the representation of the city of Halifax. The committee recommended that the constituency have two single members. The government has seen fit to change that recommendation and to continue the constituency as it was before, a two-member seat.
With respect to the principle of the bill, the house has approved of it. I wish to commend the measure in one respect. It gives a measure of equity to the province of Quebec, which for some years has not had fair representation in this house. We need not go into the reasons for that. I am neither commending the failure to take action earlier, nor am I criticizing it. But this bill now accomplishes a measure of equity, and it accomplishes it by increasing the number of members in the house, particularly from Quebec. And so I commend the present bill for the achievement of that purpose.
But I criticize the bill on other grounds, and the objections all apply to clause 3. I criticize it for the unfairness it creates in many constituencies in Canada, particularly in a few. I want to deal with this feature of the bill.
Some hon. members have said that the boundaries determined for certain constituencies in Canada are the result of coincidence. The fact is that some prominent officials of this party find themselves in the position where they feel discriminated against. I feel myself that the committee is to be censured for the unfairness which has been created in certain seats, and I propose to mention them; and in certain cases I propose, when we come to deal with the details, to move amendments made to them.
The boundaries proposed of certain of these constituencies leave the impression that partisanship was apparent somewhere in the work of the committee. The seats I particularly refer to, commencing at the west, are, first, Kamloops in British Columbia; second, the Yukon, about which we have had some little discussion; third, Lake Centre in Saskatchewan ; fourth, the two constituencies of Neepawa and Portage la Prairie in Manitoba, one represented by Mr. Miller and the other by myself; and, fifth, one in the province of Ontario, namely, Muskoka-Ontario, to which has been added a large section of the constituency of Parry Sound.
I want to deal with these very briefly, but before doing so I wish to discuss one question the Prime Minister raised this morning. In discussing the procedure followed in this house in order to achieve this measure of redistribution, the Prime Minister admitted that in days past he had favoured an independent commission or committee of judges to study the matter; but he left the impression that he had had little support from the house
Redistribution

in that idea, and he referred particularly to the leader of the opposition as not having supported that view. He thus excused himself from following the policy he had formerly advocated.
Let me say that in the early days of this session I did speak on this matter in the debate on the speech from the throne. Just in order that the record may be complete, I will read the words I used. I pointed out the position the Prime Minister had taken in earlier years and asked him to make a statement when he spoke as to how the matter would be approached this time. He did' not see fit to do so. I am not suggesting that he deliberately avoided it; perhaps it was just an oversight. But later on the member for Winnipeg North Centre moved a motion that an independent committee should do this job and it was largely supported on this side of the house. I myself would have voted for that amendment, and the only reason I did not-I ask no commendation for this-was that during this session, through courtesy to the Prime Minister when he was away on many occasions, I have not voted. My own remarks may be found in Hansard of February 3, at page 54. The amendment moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre will be found in Hansard of February 21, 1947, and the vote on the amendment which was opposed by the government, appears in Hansard of February 24, at pages 737-38. I wish to quote what. I did say in the debate on the speech from the throne. I know the Prime Minister did not recall that I had made these statements or he would not have made the comment he did this morning. But I said on that occasion:
Now I come to the question of redistribution. As anticipated, the speech from the throne forecasts the introduction of a measure to provide for the readjustment of representation in the House of Commons. It does not indicate, however, what method will be adopted to effect this redistribution, and I should like the Prime Minister to give this information to the house when he speaks. Hon. members may or may not remember that the redistribution effected in -many will not remember these early years- 1903, 1914, 1924 and 1933 was the result of the work of special committees of this house. I assume it is the intention of the government to adopt the same method at this time.
All the indications were that that was the intention of the government.
The Prime Minister will recall that in the debate on redistribution in 1933 he strongly advocated that the task should be taken out of the hands of the House of Commons. As reported at page 5425 of Hansard for that year he said:
I am now quoting from my own remarks in the House of Commons, in which I quoted

a few lines from the statement made by the Prime Minister. This is what he said.
-"My own view ... is that redistribution should be taken out of the hands of the House of Commons, where the parties are immediately interested, and should be put into the hands of a commission of judges. I would have that commission composed of judges selected in equal numbers by both sides of the house."
I continued as follows:
I imagine the fact that the Prime Minister, and not another party, commands a majority of the house, has led him to change his mind. There are only two comments I wish to make. I hope the bill will be presented and the committee established, if such is to be the technique followed, with the least possible delay. Hon. members will not wish to have this measure rushed through by the government majority in the dying days of the session.
Those remarks were made on February 3 of this year, and I continued:
In the next place, the opposition believes that the guiding principle must be the assurance of just and equitable representation, not partisan advantage. We sincerely hope there may be general agreement on the boundaries of all constituencies. I serve notice now that we will fight to the limit any attempt at manipulation of seats designed to give an advantage to the party in power.
I imagine that if the Prime Minister had been making a speech on this matter he would have used exactly the same words as I am using. In fact, they are only different words for expressing the same sentiments as he held in the past. I continue:
The people of Canada will not take kindly to any gerrymandering which would deny them the effective voice in government to which they are entitled.
The only other observation I wish to make on the matter is this. The Prime Minister left the imp'ression that the procedure in this matter is determined by the members of the House of Commons. I suggest in all respect that the procedure is determined by the government-as it was in this case.


Stanley Howard Knowles: A straight party vote.


John Bracken: The government brought in this measure. They determined to send it to a committee. It could have been done in another way. And it is not a satisfactory explanation to say that this house determines these things. The government failed to carry out the policy which the Prime Minister on many occasions in recent years has said was a good policy; and it is not a justification of the present procedure to say that the House of Commons does it. The House of Commons did not have any opportunity to do it. The government brought in this measure as it is, and the government majority refused to make any changes.

Redistribution
I come now to the boundaries proposed for these particular constituencies. I have mentioned that they should be fair, just and equitable, as I am sure every member of the House of Commons would want to see them. Let us look at the first one I referred: to- the one in the far western province of British Columbia, namely, Kamloops. The proposal in that constituency is to nearly double its size. It comprises now, in round figures, 35,000 square miles. It is proposed to increase it to 65,000 square miles. At a time when one constituency in Canada comprises only 500 square miles. Yet the proposal in the case of Kamloops is to increase its size. It now contains a population of some 35,00(1-that is the present estimated population; the so-called ration book population; not the population in 1941 but the actual, real population of today. It is proposed to increase it from 35,000 to 46,000. That is being done in a constituency which already contains twice as many people as the constituency which has been referred to, namely, Glengarry. It is proposed to increase the number in Kamloops to nearly three times the number in that constituency; and that in a territory which will comprise 65.000 square miles as compared with some 500 in Glengarry. One has only to present these facts for hon. members to question in their own minds whether a decision of that kind is just, fair and equitable.
Let us come to the next constituency coming east, or rather it is going north-the constituency of Yukon. This has just been deal with and in the opinion of the majority of this house the enlargement should not be altered. What happens there? It is proposed in this bill to add to the constituency of Yukon the large territory of Mackenzie. The constituency of Yukon contains some 200,000 square miles. The constituency which it is proposed to add to it contains 500,000 square miles.


William Henry Golding: Order. The constituency of Yukon has already been dealt with.


John Bracken: All right, Mr. Chairman. I was only going to take another minute, but if you deny me the opportunity of referring to it, I will not refer to it.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Go ahead.


William Henry Golding: Order. I can assure 'the hon. leader of the opposition that it is not the chairman who is making that decision; it is a matter of observing the rules of the house.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: An interruption is enough to enable the hon. gentleman to go on.


Mr. GREEN:: Start over again.


John Bracken: I am just showing the unfairness of some of these decisions, and I was using the Yukon as an example. I am not asking that we go back to reconsider it. As I said, Yukon contains 200,000 square miles and Mackenzie contains 500,000 square miles; together they make a total of 700,000 square miles. Glengarry contains 500 square miles. Yukon and Mackenzie combined are bigger than the province of British Columbia and Alberta combined; they are bigger than the provinces of Saskatchewan and Manitoba combined; they are about as big as Ontario; they are nearly as big as Quebec with the maritime provinces added on. Here we are today, practical men, deciding that we shall increase this constituency so and still expect that one man will represent that vast territory. It is all right to have high ideals. We all want everybody in Canada, for whom it is practicable, to have the right to vote. But I suggest that we should approach a question of this sort as practical men. Who is there who could represent those people? Suppose a man becomes the member for that vast territory. Is it suggested that the people, scattered all over that area, with their right to vote, will have any real representation in this house? I suggest that they would have substantially none.
Then we come to the constituency of Lake Centre in Saskatchewan. The hon. member for that constituency has outlined the situation there better than anyone else could do it. He understands it. He has presented the history of it. He has presented the immediate situation. In my judgment, Mr. Chairman, this is a most flagrant piece of political spite, because it is making it practically impossible for the hon. member -for Lake Centre to come back to this house. That is the practical effect of the boundaries proposed.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


John Bracken: I do not say hon. members intended to do that, but if they did not so intend they can look at it again and see if it cannot be corrected. That is the practical effect of what has been done in this constituency, the one constituency in that province held by a member of this party, an hon. member who has been a severe and effective critic of the government. By this measure it is being made practically impossible for him to come back to this house if he runs for that seat. With all respect, Mr. Chairman, I suggest that hon. members on the other side of the house and on this might look again at the
5t>62
Redistribution

boundaries of that constituency and see if some measure of justice cannot be done there.
With respect to the province of Manitoba there are two adjoining constituencies, that of Neepawa, which I have the honour to represent, and Portage la Prairie, which is represented by Mr. Miller, a member of this party. Those two seats were won by this party and were thus taken out of the Liberal column. In this readjustment it is proposed that these two constituencies be brought together, which means that one or other of these two members cannot be a candidate there.


Mr. MUTCH:: How about Lisgar and
Macdonald?


John Bracken: You talk about Lisgar and Macdonald, if you wish, and perhaps I will support you. I am talking about Neepawa and Portage la Prairie, two of the three seats we hold in Manitoba. I am not now complaining about what has been done there. I just want the committee to understand what is being done in this and the other four or five seats. The constituency of Neepawa is much larger than Glengarry, which I take as an illustration because it is among the smallest in Canada. It happens that Glengarry is represented by the Prime Minister, who this morning as I understood him said in effect that he would not be representing it any longer.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What I said this morning was that I told the electors of Glengarry at the time they were kind enough to nominate me as their member that I would be proud to accept representation of Glengarry for this parliament, but that it would be for this parliament only.


John Bracken: All right, Mr. Chairman, but that does not alter the fact that the constituency covers only 500 square miles and contains only 18,000 people. My criticism applies just as much as though the Prime Minister were going to be a candidate there. I was going on to say that the constituency of Neepawa is many times larger than Glengarry; the constituency of Portage la Prairie is also many times larger, while the combined constituencies as is proposed are a great many times larger. By combining them it is made clear that one of the two hon. members who represent these constituencies will not come back.
Then I come to the constituency of Muskoka-Ontario in this province, to which is being added the constituency of Parry Sound. The hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario dealt with this matter very effectively. I need not go

into the details of what has been done there. At this time it is perhaps sufficient to say that in the province of Ontario for the most part only minor changes have been made. But this is a major change. I do not suggest that the fact that the member representing that constituency is president of the Progressive Conservative Association of Canada would justify parliament in showing him any favours. I do suggest, however, that it does not justify parliament in putting more unfair handicaps in his way than are put in the way of most other members in this house.
In closing these remarks may I add that the Prime Minister once said he favoured a judicial body to deal with matters of this kind; yet that policy has not been brought forward. At other times the Prime Minister has favoured senate reform and nothing has been done about it; and, as someone said this morning, he favoured proportional representation and nothing has been done about that. I want to read one extract from his speech and ask hon. members if what is being done here now carries out the spirit of his words. In 1937 this house was asked to consider this problem, and a committee was appointed to deal with it. That committee brought in a report after holding eighteen meetings, and in that report stated:
Owing to the shortness of the session your committee has been unable to complete its study of the methods used to effect redistribution of electoral districts in Canada and other countries, and the evidence at present before us does not warrant a final report thereon. Your committee therefore suggests that this subject be further considered during the next session of parliament.
That was in 1937. But the subject was not considered during the next session of parliament, and no action was ever taken on the recommendation of the committee in that respect. During debate on a similar measure in 1933 the present Prime Minister suggested a method previously turned down by Sir Wilfrid Laurier. At that time, as reported at page 5425 of Hansard for 1932-33, the Prime Minister said:
My own view ... is that redistribution should be taken out of the hands of the House of Commons, where the parties are immediately interested, and should be put into the hands of a commission of judges . . . selected in equal numbers by both sides of the house.
I believe the Prime Minister also read that statement this morning. I should like to quote one other brief statement by the same right hon. gentleman later on in the same debate:
... I was careful to say that my suggestion did not apply to this redistribution . . .



IS, 1947

[Stage Direction]
Redistribution
He was speaking in 1933, and he said his words did not apply to that redistribution. . . . when the House of Commons was again confronted with the question of redistribution . . . it would in my opinion be wise for it to adopt the plan of referring the whole matter to a commission of judges who would have the opportunity of viewing the situation impartially, not from the point of view of the self-interest of any individual member but rather from the point of view of the wider interests of the people of Canada as a whole . . .
I cannot think any Canadian would oppose sentiments of that kind. A little later the Prime Minister made this further comment:
What I proposed was a commission that would have represented on it in equal numbers judges nominated by both sides of parliament . . . Redistribution is a matter of legislation-
I want the committee to get these next words.
-but it is also one essentially of justice in the redistributing of the constituencies of Canada in accordance with principles which will be observed above all else as fair and just.
I only ask that those principles 'be kept in mind when we request the house to look again at what has been done in these particular constituencies: Kamloops, which is represented by the president of the Young Progressive Conservatives of Canada; Yukon, which as the Minister of Veterans Affairs so well saidi has been represented so honourably in this house for many years by a former Speaker; Lake Centre, represented by the only member we have from Saskatchewan. I will ask for nothing in the way of reconsideration for Neepawa and Portage la Prairie, the former of which I represent. If I am' driven from that seat by this action I can get another somewhere else, and it will come from the ranks of the party opposite. But I do ask you to look at the situation in Muskoka-Ontario. I ask you also where is the justice in the way that Kamloops has been gerrymandlered? Where is the justice in the way that Yukon has been expanded into one constituency as large as the whole of Ontario? Where is the justice in the way the representative for Lake Centre has been treated? Where is the fairness in the way the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario has been treated?
You have indicated, Mr. Chairman, that after a general discussion on this measure we will deal with the details of the schedule. Those details take up sixty pages of this bill, andi I suppose there are more than 250 clauses. When we come to certain of those clauses we will move amendments. I do not know that we will fight on them all, but certainly we will fight on the one which has to do with Lake Centre. Of all the unfair gerrymandering we have ever seen in this country, that takes the
cake. Having said that, I want to appeal to the fairmindedness of this committee in * dealing with that situation. But as I said, we will deal with certain amendments when we come to the clauses in the schedule.
Mr. TUCKER:: Mr. Chairman, in view of the fact that the leader of the opposition has singled out Lake Centre as the main basis of his attack upon this bill, as a member of the Saskatchewan subcommittee I should like to say a few words about what was done in connection with that province. Before I come to that, however, may I refer to something that was said with regard to Glengarry?
I listened to the argument with regard to that and I was particularly impressed by the observations of the hon. member for Davenport who has been more or less put forward as the expert on redistribution for the Progressive Conservative party. I heard him say in the committee that he did not see how anything else could have been done than what was done in regard to Glengarry. He said that what was done was quite in order and was quite proper. When he said that, having been more or less put forward by the Progressive Conservative party as the expert on that, I must say that I think all this talk over something being wrong in leaving Glengarry as a seat is without basis. The leader of the opposition has brought it up today knowing as he must the attitude of his distinguished colleague, the hon. member for Davenport. To me that looks like an attempt to make political capital where there is really no basis for it at all. The hon. member for Davenport is sitting right here and if what I say is not correct he can rise and contradict me. I suggest to the leader of the opposition that if he is not going to abide by the judgment of the people he puts forward to represent him on these committees, if he is going to go behind their back and attack what they did in the measured terms he used, it looks very bad to me from the point of view of political good faith.
I must say that I am amazed at the observations of the leader of the opposition in regard to Lake Centre. He said that of all the unfair gerrymandering that had ever been done, what had been done in Lake Centre took the cake. He said that this was a most flagrant piece of political spite, that the practical effect of it was to make it politically impossible for the hon. member for Lake Centre to come back to this house. What is the leader of the opposition getting at? He is not saying that that is an unsound bit of redistribution based upon what a judicial committee or a judicial commission would do. He is not saying it is unfair; he is just saying that the effect of it is that the hon. member for Lake Centre can-
Redistribution

not get reelected. What does he suggest? What is he getting at? Is he suggesting that we should take that map of Saskatchewan and fix a seat in which the hon. member can get elected, no matter what unfairness is done to other constituencies? Is that what he is suggesting?


Mr. FRASER:: He will get elected anyway.


Walter Adam Tucker: That is not what your leader said. Your leader is saying in effect that we should have drawn a seat regardless of all other considerations of fairness and everything else so that the hon. member for Lake Centre can get elected. That is the effect of what he said; that is the clear inference. My hon. friends are asking for a judicial committee or a judicial commission to look after this thing. Will they consider whether an individual belonging to a certain party is going to be reelected? Of course not.
I am saying in all fairness and honesty that we drew this map on the basis of an endeavour to distribute the seats of Saskatchewan in a fair manner. We presented that map to the hon. member for Lake Centre who was a member of the subcommittee, to the representative of the C.C..F, the hon. member for Melfort. There were many observations in the press suggesting that attempts were being made to affect in some way the hon. member for Lake Centre. It was explained over and over again that these were only suggestions which had been laid before the subcommittee. We asked representatives of the Conservative party and representatives of the C.C.F. to come and inspect the proposals and make suggestions. I said to the hon. member for Lake Centre, "Bear in mind that we have to redistribute the whole of Saskatchewan; we have to consider that other seats besides Lake Centre are involved; you draw us a map of what you think would be right, make suggestions and they will be considered." The only suggestions of any consequence that I recall were made by the hon. member for Lake Centre had to do entirely with his own seat. With regard to the suggestions made by the hon. member for Melfort, I think practically every suggestion he made was concurred in by other members of the committee.
Now then, with regard to population. The population of Saskatchewan was 896.000 in round figures. There were eight cities, and we felt that they should have larger populations. We worked out a suggestion whereby the average city seat would have a population of 46,700, leaving the average population of the rural seats, 43,500. When we looked at the census we found that there had been a great shift in population in Saskatchewan from the

south to the north, particularly from the south to the northeast. If we were going to make a fair redistribution we had to take that into account.
We would have to change the boundaries. Furthermore, Saskatchewan was losing one seat under the constitution and we had to do something about that. That necessitated a rearrangement of boundaries no matter what the leader of the opposition may say. We looked at the census and we found, for example, that Lake Centre had a population of 34,400, which was actually 9,100 short of what it should have.


Mr. FULTON:: So you took a lot off.


Walter Adam Tucker: If the hon. member will allow me.


Edmund Davie Fulton: We have to have both sides of the story.


Walter Adam Tucker: The hon. member will have a chance to speak later. If I may proceed, it meant that Lake Centre was 9,100 short and we had to add to that area. We also found that Moose Jaw was 7,600 short. The only way we could increase the population of Moose Jaw, without taking from other seats which were already short, was to add something from Lake Centre. The seats were short on population. Rosetown-Biggar was 10,900 short; Kindersley was 10,900 short, so that we could not add to Rosetown-Biggar from it; Moose Jaw was 7,600 short; Wood Mountain was 7.000 short; Assiniboia was 10,100 short and Maple Creek was 9,200 short. This meant we had to add something on to the north rather than from the south or east. Anyone who looks at the map can see that. So we figured we had no alternative but to add to Moose Jaw something from Lake Centre. We could not add anything from Rosetown-Biggar. It was already short by nearly 11.000. So we proposed to add something from Lake Centre to Moose Jaw. We proposed to eliminate one of the seats in the south also to make up for the situation. In our original suggestion to the subcommittee we actually had a situation that we thought was reasonably fair. Amongst other things there had been a good part of Rosthern added to Saskatoon. I certainly hated to lose that part of Rosthern but it was felt that Saskatoon had to be brought up to a reasonable level. As a matter of fact the part of Rosthern taken off actually had a Liberal majority of 137 at the last election. The part added on to Rosthern from Humboldt had a C.C.F. majority of 306. But there had to be a real attempt to adjust boundaries on a fair basis. We confronted the hon. member for Lake Centre with these suggestions, and I a'sked for suggestions from him.

Redistribution
I should say, in regard to the increase of Rosetown-Biggar, we could not increase it in the west because Kindersley was already short by 10,900; we could not increase it to the north because the seat up there already had to have something added to it; we could not increase it to the south because that would have been at the expense of a seat already underpopulated-the only place we could increase Rosetown-Biggar was to run it to the east into Lake Centre, which was part of the picture of moving the boundaries of the seat north and east.
Actually we did not run the boundary of Lake Centre as far east as we should have done, because we did leave Rosetown-Biggar quite a bit short of the population it should have had. Had we run Rosetown-Biggar farther east than we did it would have meant running Lake Centre still farther east and north. So we thought, in order not to interfere with Lake Centre any more than absolutely necessary, we did not run the seat as far east as we should have. We left Kindersley low by 2,400 votes and Rosetown-Biggar low by 2,400 votes, in order not to interfere with Lake Centre any more than we had to. Our proposal left those two seats each 2,400 short and it still left Moose Jaw about 1,100 short. I tell this committee that that was done in order to interfere as little as possible with the seat of the hon. member for Lake Centre.
Having done that, having considered that situation-and the other members of the subcommittee know that is true as well as the hon. member for Lake Centre-the situation which we proposed left Lake Centre at 43,100.


John George Diefenbaker: On what census?


Walter Adam Tucker: At the 1941 census, the one we are going on. That was 400 under the average.
Something has been said about Melville. Our suggestion would have made Melville 43.300, which is about the average, and 200 over Lake Centre as originally proposed.
I have dealt with why we added parts of Lake Centre to Rosetown-Biggar, but still leaving it 2,400 short, and why we added some of it to Moose Jaw, but still leaving it 1,100 short. I put the question, where else could you have added from Rosetown-Biggar to give it the requisite population?
We found that Melville at the last census had a population of 47,100, which was 3,600 over what it should have. Yorkton had 50,300, which as anyone can see was 7,000 over what it should have. Humboldt had 43,300 at the last census. It meant that we had to add on to Lake Centre part of Yorkton and Melville
to bring it up to a reasonable level. Humboldt, after adding from Mackenzie to bring it down to the proper level, had 46,400, which was 3,100 over the average. So those seats to the north, Melville, Yorkton, Mackenzie and Humboldt all had several thousand over what they should have, and the seats to the south and the west, even with the additions, were still under what they should have. On the face of that does the leader of the opposition say that we should have left the seat of the hon. member for Lake Centre where it was before, and left those seats to the south and west away underpopulated, for example, left Yorkton at 50,000 in order that he might get elected? Then the opposition say they want a judicial commission to settle the redistribution! I venture to say that no judicial commission would ever have given the consideration that we gave to the hon. member for Lake Centre, and I am going to prove that.
At the 1941 census Lake Centre had 34,400. As I say, we took 1,700 off and added it to Rosetown-Biggar. If anybody thinks that that injured the hon. member for Lake Centre he should look at the last election results. The C.C.F. had a majority in that piece we took off Lake Centre and added to Rosetown-Biggar of 174. That is one way in which the hon. member for Lake Centre is terribly damaged, of course!
Next we proposed 'to take 5,500 off Lake Centre and add it to Moose Jaw. According to my figures the C.C.F. majority in that piece was 54 over the Conservatives. I do not suppose that the hon. member for Lake Centre was so terribly damaged by having that area taken off where the C.C.F. had a majority of 54 over the Conservatives.
Then we added one township and Watrous to Rosthern.


John George Diefenbaker: You removed
Watrous.


Walter Adam Tucker: We had to take territory
from Rosthern to add it to Saskatoon.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh!


Walter Adam Tucker: I do not know why that
is funny. We were drawing a map for the whole of Saskatchewan. Having added a part of Rosthern to Saskatoon we proposed to add a piece to Rosthern. That was two townships with 1,600 people. We added on from Melville 5,300, from Yorkton, 8,500, and from Humboldt, 3,700, leaving Lake Centre at 43,100, or 400 under the average. It was necessary to bring Lake Centre up to where it should be. The places that were added from Lake Centre to Moose Jaw and Rosetown-Biggar, were still under what they should
Redistribution

be. The first suggestion of my hon. friend was that Watrous township and one of the townships which had been added to Rosthern from Lake Centre should be given back to him. That first suggestion was agreed to by the hon. member for Melfort and myself. That cut down Rosthern more than it should have been. However, in order to accommodate the hon. member for Lake Centre we agreed to it. That cut Rosthern from 44,000 to 42,400, which was 1,100 under the average, but we did that to accommodate the hon. member for Lake Centre.
The next suggestion of the hon. member for Lake Centre; we had proposed- to take seven rows of townships from Yorkton and he suggested that we should take only six and put one township back into Yorkton. That raised Yorkton to 49,000, which was 1,500 over what it should have been. But again, in order to accommodate the hon. member for Lake Centre, the hon. member for Melfort and myself agreed to that suggestion.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Very generous.


Walter Adam Tucker: You may think it was not generous, but it is more than a judicial commission would have done.
We come now to the third suggestion of the hon. member for Lake Centre, which was that we should put back into Lake Centre practically half of what we were going to add to Moose Jaw. I remember the words of the hon. member for Lake Centre. He said, "I want to be fair about this thing." He said, "put half back again." He cannot deny he said that. Although that was going to leave Moose Jaw under what it should have been by 2,700, the hon. member for Melfort and myself said to the hon. member for Lake Centre, "All right, we will put half of this original area back into Lake Centre, although it cuts down Moose Jaw by 2,700 and leaves it 4,300 short." So far as 1 knew that is all he wanted in that regard. He felt it was fair to have that taken from Moose Jaw and added to his constituency. He said he wanted to be fair and that is what he asked for. That is the third suggestion.
His fourth suggestion was to put back into Humboldt nine rows of townships, taking from Lake Centre 3,400 voters and leaving Lake Centre at 41,000, which would have meant that Lake Centre was under what it should have by 2,400, and would leave Humboldt at 49,800 or 6,500 over what it should have had. The hon. member for Lake Centre wanted us to add to Humboldt an'area which would give that constituency 6,500 over what it should have and cut his constituency away below

what it should have had. At that point the hon. member for Melfort and myself began to think that perhaps-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.
Mr. TLCIvER: -we would likely be accused of doing a little too much gerrymandering for the hon. member for Lake Centre.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Mr. PARENT:: Did he ask for election by acclamation?


Walter Adam Tucker: The hon. member for Melfort took the attitude that he could not agree to a proposition which was so flagrantly gerrymandering the situation in order to help the hon. member for Lake Centre. Well, I was trying to keep peace in the family.


Major James William Coldwell: That is a new role.


Walter Adam Tucker: Therefore I made a
suggestion-


John Ritchie MacNicol: You are getting old.


Walter Adam Tucker: -which is number five. I made the suggestion that we put tihe western part of -these townships into Lake Centre and the eastern part -into Humboldt-four of the townships into Lake Centre; -in other words put six into Humboldt and four into Lake Centre, or a sort of fifty-fifty split. Remember, the hon. member for Lake Centre did not want the whole ten. We were giving him only four out of the -ten. A great deal of argument ensued on -that. That would -have left Lake Centre 600 under what it should have had and would have left Humboldt with 5,500 more than it should have had. I talked. As I said, I tried to keep peace in the family. I talked and talked. Finally I appealed to the hon. member for Melfort. I said, "You know, if you do not give the hon. member for Lake Centre what he wants there will be a big row in the house." Finally the hon. member for Melfort, with, I could see, a great deal of doubt, said, "Well, if the hon. member for Lake Centre will agree to this I will go the length you suggest in order to get agreement in Saskatchewan," which would be som-e-thing worthy of commemorating. We all agreed to that. I said, "If we are in agreement let us sign the agreement so that there will be no argument about it." I signed my name to it; the hon. member for Melfort signed his name t-o it and the hon. member for Lake Centre signed -his name to it.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.

Redistribution


Walter Adam Tucker: There is his signature on the agreement. Can anyone-


Mr. COLD  WELL@: Read what the agreement says.


Walter Adam Tucker: It is the schedule to this bill. After it passed the main committee I handed it over to the printer as signed. Here is the situation, Mr. Chairman. Pour suggestions were made which did, I am a little ashamed to say, more or less gerrymander things in favour of the hon. member for Lake Cerutre. But we did that knowing he was the only Conservative member in Saskatchewan, and he kept saying that he could not get elected unless we did something.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, I do not mind the bon. gentleman being generous in bis treatment of the truth, but that statement is unequivocally false.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: What statement? The document speaks for itself.


Walter Adam Tucker: I do not know to which statement the hon. member is referring. I suppose he does not deny his own signature.


John George Diefenbaker: I do not.


Walter Adam Tucker: I suppose he does not deny what his leader has just said. He said that unless a change iwas made the hon. member for Lake Centre could not get elected. That is, in effect, what I just said, and that is what his leader said a while ago. I suppose his own leader took it from the bon. member for Lake Centre that he could not get elected unless a change was made. That is what his leader said just now. That is the story we have heard continually from the hon. member for Lake Centre. He is an old friend; he is the only Tory left in Saskatchewan, the last of the Mohicans, as they say.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Walter Adam Tucker: We accepted three of his suggestions and we went more than half way to accept the fourth. He was so well satisfied that he signed it, and then we have the speech of his leader-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: This afternoon.


Walter Adam Tucker: -who said that it is a most flagrant piece of political spite. But the hon. member signed it himself. I must admit that I do not understand such political tactics.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Tory mentality.


Walter Adam Tucker: It goes beyond anything that I can understand. He says that of all the unfair gerrymandering that ever took
place this takes the cake. Does he mean that we gerrymandered it- too much to help out the Tory member for Lake Centre, which is the only way any gerrymandering whatever took place? There is the situation, Mr. Chairman. I place the facts before the committee and I say this: I can assure the committee that in the original map which we laid before the subcommittee our idea was to try to arrange these seats on a fair basis. The suggestions made by the member for Melfort were agreed to with the consent of the member for Lake Centre and the suggestions made in regard to Lake Centre seat were acceded to in the manner I have stated. I leave it to this committee as to whether we did not treat the member for Lake Centre fairly and more than fairly.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: He said so himself.


Walter Adam Tucker: Taking what the member for Lake Centre agreed to and signed as the fair thing to lay before the committee, and which I laid before the committee as the unanimous recommendation of the subcommittee from Saskatchewan, it is not fair to that committee, it is not fair to parliament, to have a subcommittee set up, agreeing to something like that, and then have that made the basis of such an attack as was made by the leader of the opposition this afternoon.


Percy Ellis Wright: As the third member of this very contentious committee from Saskatchewan, who thought they had made a unanimous report, I think it my duty to say a few words on this subject. In the first place, this discussion simply strengthens the argument that we have made all along in this group, that this matter should be taken out of the control of members of parliament. Anyone who has read the debates on this particular bill as it has come before the Canadian parliament over the last sixty or seventy years cannot help agreeing with that. Time after time, whoever was in power slit the other fellow's throat at every opportunity. The other fellow howled to high heaven about it and when the position was reversed the same thing took place again.
Coming to Saskatchewan, the government were in a rather precarious position trying to make a redistribution there. They did not have much support left there, with two Liberal members and one Conservative. One of the Liberal seats had to be strengthened, and as it lay alongside a Conservative seat there was only one thing that could be done. They had to make a choice and1 they made a choice. They strengthened the Liberal seat at the expense of the Conservative seat. What would the Conservatives have done had they
Redistribution

been in power? We would have found exactly the same thing in reverse. I listened in committee to arguments made by various members of the Conservative group. I listened in the subcommittee also. No one seemed to be particularly interested in the people. Everyone was interested in his own personal interest, in his own personal seat, and 'he wanted to be sure of that. That was the first consideration and after that they tried to divide up the population.
The hon. member for Rosthern has said we drew this map. We did not draw the first map. I do not know whom he was talking about when he said "we". It was certainly not the subcommittee. When we first met we were presented with a map, and the different meetings of the committee were very short and to the point. I agree with what the hon. member for Rosthern has said with regard to the negotiations that took place in that committee. What he has said is, I believe, a correct interpretation of the various negotiations that took place in that committee. They did not meet for a very long period but in substance those were the agreements which were reached.
As the member for Rosthern has said, the member for Lake Centre did not appear to be very much interested in any other part of Saskatchewan than his own constituency. In the proceedings in the committee he raised only one point that I can remember with regard to any other constituency and that was with reference to Melville, adding an area south of Qu'Appelle valley to that constituency.
If that is the basis on which we are to deal with redistribution, the personal interest and personal preserves of individual members, I do not think we can ever reach fair decisions, and that apparently was the basis on which this matter was considered.
As I have said, regarding the divisions in the province of Saskatchewan, the original map, as far as population was concerned, was the best division made in any province in the dominion. It was the best representation by population. There were no constituencies with under 40,000 and none with over 47,000 except the city of Regina, which was left the same as it was before.
With regard to Saskatoon, on the east side of that city it was necessary to add something to the constituency of Rosetown-Biggar and naturally Saskatoon had to get some population from some other area. That was .taken quite conveniently from the constituency of Rosthern on one side and taken in such a way as one would expect from a Liberal government when they were making the 
redistribution to strengthen their position. And it did strengthen their position as far as Saskatoon is concerned.


Walter Adam Tucker: The hon. member will admit it took an area in which there was a Liberal majority out of the seat.


Percy Ellis Wright: There was only one safe Liberal seat in Saskatchewan, apparently, on the basis of the 1945 election, although I would not admit today that it would be a safe Liberal seat.


Walter Adam Tucker: Doubly safe now.


Percy Ellis Wright: You could take a little out of it provided you got in some more afterwards that was also safe, which was done. That was the basis on which the redistribution was made in Saskatchewan.
I will say this. The Liberal party, in arranging the redistribution, took one thing into consideration first, and that was the fact that they had to strengthen one seat, and they worked everything else around that. The Conservatives, from what they have said in the committee, would have done the same thing. If a Conservative seat had been in danger they would have worked the province around it, irrespective of whatever else might take place.
As regards moving population from the south to the north, that is quite right and the only seat that could be taken out was a seat in the south. We in the C.C.F. knew that was a C.C.F. seat, but we agreed to it because it was the reasonable thing to do.
In the western portion of the province, the division between Swift Current and Maple Creek constituency ran in the original drawing north and south instead of east and west. We suggested that the natural way for the division to run was east and west, since both the railroads and the roads run in that direction and the constituency could be served better if divided in that way. The member for Rosthern agreed to that and so did the member for Lake Centre and that change was made.
The other changes suggested by myself were largely, in fact all, changes which would make for the convenience of the people who were voting. In the original map the lines were drawn on township and range lines. In sqme instances these township and range lines did not take cognizance of the geography in the area to serve the convenience of the people across rivers where they would not have an opportunity of getting to the polls without going miles out of their way. I made suggestions so as to meet the convenience of the

Redistribution
people in various areas and the chairman of the committee agreed to them and those changes were made.
To sum up, are we going to continue this way of making the redistribution in Canada? I do not think it is fair. I do not think we are strengthening our democracy. Whether we realize it or not, we cannot afford to weaken democracy in Canada. We have seen other countries which claimed to have democracy and claimed to have constitutions leave those constitutions in such a position that they could not be operated. We in Canada cannot afford to leave our democracy in such a position that it cannot be operated fairly for all the people of Canada. I think it is time that we made the necessary changes to give effect to that purpose.


John George Diefenbaker: I have listened with a great deal of interest to what the hon. member for Rosthern had to say, and the recital he made in connection with redistribution in the province of Saskatchewan. First, may I say this to him. At no time was there any consent. Finally on the last day in the subcommittee-andi the total period during which we ever met during that subcommittee, for all the meetings, did not exceed forty minutes-the hon. gentleman said, "Well, we will sign this as our report". When I demurred at signing it as our report he said, "Well, if you don't, you will get everything we had first for you; either accept this as the report or we shall give you what we originally had for you". That, sir, -was the statement made by the hon. member for Rosthern.
Now I intend to deal in general with certain of his remarks. Throughout his attitude was-and I take it that he was not speaking for himself alone-that first and foremost twenty-four miles on the westerly end of Melville constituency were to be added to Lake Centre.


Walter Adam Tucker: Because they had too big a population already.


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, Mr. Chairman,
there never was any question about population in that.


Walter Adam Tucker: Oh, yes.


John George Diefenbaker: The only question was this: In that portion the Minister of Agriculture had run considerably behind the C.C.F. candidate; and such being the case, it had to be added to some other constituency.


Walter Adam Tucker: I rise to a point of order.


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, no.


Walter Adam Tucker: A point of order, Mr. Chairman. I sat down when the hon. member made a statement.


William Ross Macdonald: Order. The hon. member for Rosthern is rising to a point of order.


John George Diefenbaker: He has no point of order. I sat through his remarks and did not rise to any points of order.


Walter Adam Tucker: Yes, the hon. member did rise once. The hon. member said that the only question was that a part had to be taken off Melville 'because it had gone against the Minister of Agriculture. I deny that absolutely.


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, well-


Walter Adam Tucker: Will the hon. member let me say what I said? I call the hon. member for Melfort to witness that there was no such statement as that made. The statement was that Melville had 3,600 over the number it should have, and we had to cut some off it. As to the part we cut off, there was a majority of only a little over 200 there in favour of the


John George Diefenbaker: That is no point of order, Mr. Chairman.


Walter Adam Tucker: The hon. member made a certain statement-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It is a question of fact.


John George Diefenbaker: Let me state what the populations are. The population in 1945-


Walter Adam Tucker: In 1945?


William Ross Macdonald: Order.


John George Diefenbaker: I sat here, Mr. Chairman, and listened without interruption to the Minister of Agriculture's waterboy in Saskatchewan. Now I want to continue.


Walter Adam Tucker: The hon. member is substituting abuse for argument, is he?


John George Diefenbaker: The population of Melville was 38,568.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: What year is that?


John George Diefenbaker: That is in 1945.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: We were making redistribution on the basis of 1941.


John George Diefenbaker: Surely I should be allowed to continue, Mr. Chairman. I sat here and listened-


Leslie Alexander Mutch: Not very often.


John George Diefenbaker: Longer than the hon. gentleman has ever been able to do.
Redistribution


Leslie Alexander Mutch: Oh, no. On a question of privilege, I have outlistened the hon. member by weeks.


William Ross Macdonald: Order. I think the committee will make more progress if there are not so many interruptions.


An hon. MEMBER:: Why waste time?


John George Diefenbaker: As I pointed out this morning, the population of Rosetown-Biggar was 28,495, and of Yorkton, 45,800. As far as the meeting of the committee was concerned, my hon. friend opposite endeavours to say that mention was made of Lake Centre. As a matter of fact, the boundary of ten constituencies in Saskatchewan depended on the boundaries placed on Lake Centre because it is surrounded by ten boundaries. My hon. friend can make all the explanations he wants to; he can raise all the alibis he possibly can, but the fact remains that to increase the population of Lake Centre twenty-five polls were taken off the southern part of the constituency, and they were polls which had belonged to Lake Centre or the constituency of Long Lake ever since the distribution in 1924.


Walter Adam Tucker: On a point of order, Lake Centre was only set up in 1933.


John Bracken: The hon. member said Long Lake.


John George Diefenbaker: Does the truth hurt my hon. friend?


Walter Adam Tucker: No, it does not.


John George Diefenbaker: My hon. friend has repeatedly found himself in a position in which he had to do what he did not desire to do, but was ordered to do it by his dictator in the province of Saskatchewan. To such an extent is that so that so far as Saskatchewan is concerned this is known as the "Jimmy-mander." Let me say this; twenty-five polls were taken off the southern part of the constituency in which there was a substantial majority.


Walter Adam Tucker: How many?


John George Diefenbaker: My hon. friend
from Rosthern said that no considerations regarding votes should be before this committee. I place before him what the Prime Minister said in 1933, when he went into detail.


Mr. ABBOTT:: Dispense.


John George Diefenbaker: Over and over again he pointed out that the effect would be that his

majority would in fact, as a result of the interr ference with his constituency of Prince Albert, be a minority.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It was a dirty piece of Tory work.


John George Diefenbaker: My hon. friend from Rosthern wras not here and was not aware of the fact that the Prime Minister used the same argument in 1933 as the one I advance in this house on this occasion. I leave the matter here. I repeat that twenty-five polls were taken off the southern end and seven off the west end, and my hon. friend pointed out that there was a C.C.F. majority there. I myself pointed that out yekterday, so that he was not placing any new information before the committee.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: This is not Sunday.


John George Diefenbaker: Two polls were taken off the northwest corner, one in the town of Watrous, the largest town in the constituency, and an adjoining poll. When my hon. friend found that there was a majority there which was adverse to the Liberal party, he was ready and willing to return it to the constituency.


Walter Adam Tucker: That is the thanks I get for acceding to the hon. member's suggestion.


John George Diefenbaker: Such susceptibility, Mr. Chairman, I have never before known in my hon. friend. Such willingness to be led by me, a humble member in the minority, is indeed a tribute to my powers of. advocacy against a heart as adamant as his. Sixteen townships are added from Melville. Is it only coincidence, Mr. Chairman, that the Minister of Agriculture, instead of having a majority of twenty-four-


An hon. MEMBER:: Fourteen.


John George Diefenbaker: I think twenty-four was the official count-instead of having that he would have been defeated if this area had not been stuck on somewhere, so they took that twenty-five from the southern end of the constituency of Lake Centre and added fifteen from Melville.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: What about Halifax?


John George Diefenbaker: I am glad my hon. friend brought that up. This morning the Prime Minister made it very clear that under no circumstance would he as Prime Minister ever interfere in any way with the decisions made by the committee. The committee decided unanimously in connection with Halifax constituency. Does unanimity in a committee mean one thing in Nova Scotia and another thing in Saskatchewan? Yet the

Redistribution
Prime Minister allowed a member during a byelection to announce, before parliament knew anything about, it, that the decision of the committee was not going to be carried out. Who made that decision?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: What about the byelection yesterday?


John George Diefenbaker: Who made that decision?


Mr. MITCHELL:: The people of Halifax.


John George Diefenbaker: The people made the decision announced on Friday by the hon. member for Halifax, that the committee report was not going to be accepted by the government? I would ask the Prime Minister to explain this. When was that portion of the report of the committee changed? Did he have no knowledge that it was going to be changed? Today I am not arguing that any addition be made. I am not arguing against the additions in Yorkton and Melville. I say add them on if you wish. All I object to, and what I will continue to object to, is the knob placed on the top of the constituency, abstracted from Humboldt. My hon. friend can explain it all he will, but the people of Saskatchewan will realize one thing, as the Prime Minister said in 1933; that you cannot add parts to a constituency to give it the appearance of a crossword puzzle without the suggestion that there has been a gerrymander. As far as Yorkton is concerned I have no objection to the addition, though the adverse majority may be tremendous. I have no objection to the addition from Melville, where the adverse majority also may be tremendous. All I ask is the return of the south- end of the constituency, which has always been in Lake Centre. I am not here for the purpose of bargaining, but if you say you will not restore that southern end, then the only thing I ask is that these three townships, which cannot affect the result in any way, be restored to Humboldt. In their present position, as I have pointed out on previous occasions, they are not on any line of railway which in any way goes through Lake Centre.


Mr. BURTON:: I have many good friends in the area my hon. friend is talking about, but I was just wondering why he thinks I should represent so many more people than the average.


John George Diefenbaker: I do not ask that. I say the area should be restored which was removed. The hon. gentleman wanted to be sure that wherever there was a majority it would be removed. Return to Lake Centre
what belongs to Lake Centre. These people have always been in that constituency or its predecessors.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is what happened in 1933.


John George Diefenbaker: I was not here then. It is a type of political butchery, and that is all it is.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is what we got in 1933.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes, and you successfully appealed to the Prime Minister of the day in 1932. If necessary I will read some of the appeals made at that time by the present Prime Minister. When the unfairness was made apparent a change was brought about. All I ask is that this northern area which is in no way connected with the constituency of Lake Centre, never having been in either^Long Lake or Last Mountain, be taken out; and there will be no argument at all about adverse majorities anywhere else. I make this appeal at this time; and I say to the Prime Minister the excuse he gave this morning, that he had nothing to do with it and that he could not possibly have this matter looked into in any way, is not good enough. I recall to his memory that he made a similar request to mine of the then prime minister in 1932, and as a result he got justice.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I wish my hon. friend would show wherein the change was made. The constituency was gerrymandered by the party then in power, and it was left that way.


John George Diefenbaker: All right; I will read what the Prime Minister said and give him the numbers of the pages so he can read it himself, because after all memory does play tricks in after years.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: We were here and you were not. In 1933 we saw the dirtiest Tory butchery that Canada ever saw.


John George Diefenbaker: I was not here, but Hansard was and is; and I read from Hansard at page 5561, after the present Prime Minister pointed out that an additional twelve miles would be added to the southern end of the constituency, altering the tentative southern boundary to that extent. This is what the right hon. gentleman said on that occasion:
Mr. Chairman, for the time and trouble which the right hon. the Prime Minister and those associated with him have given to the matter of the readjustment of the boundaries of Prince Albert constituency, I should like to thank them. I appreciate what has been done, although it is far from meeting the views which I expressed as to what I thought would be fair and just.
Redistribution

Nevertheless it is a change for the better as compared with the boundaries of the constituency as contained in the original report of the special committee to this house . . .
Later on the right hon. gentleman again extended his appreciation. In 1932 the boundaries of Prince Albert were agreed upon by the committee on which the representative of the Liberal party at the time was Mr. Totzke, the then member for the constituency of Humboldt. When in the House of Commons he was faced with the argument that he had consented to what had taken place his answer was: Consented?-
Always I was more or less threatened with the suggestion that if I did not agree to the proposals made by the hon. member for Regina they would be put through anyway, and possibly would be worse than before.
He accepted; but when the matter came before the House of Commons the present Prime Minister made a speech. As an example of political propriety as between persons opposed in political life it was a masterpiece, something that could be read by every hon. member of this house with advantage to himself and to the house. As he has said over and over again, we face one another across the floor of the house, but we do not lose admiration for men who disagree with us. We do not endeavour to destroy them; we argue our point of view. Perhaps one disagrees with much that the Prime Minister does, but in this country one forms an abiding appreciation of what democracy means; that men with opposite points of view can stand up and express those points of view strongly, yet still regard the other man as worthy of consideration. Sir, we do not have in this country a system of liquidation; but do we have a subtle form of liquidation whereby those who disagree, those who attack, those who discharge their responsibilities as members of an opposition shall in consequence be denied that fairness which the Prime Minister himself said in 1932 was of the essence of public life?
I have no apology to make for what took place in that committee. I care not about the overwhelming majority that is added to Lake Centre constituency which may be against me, but I do submit that there is nothing in fairness or justice which justifies the adherence of those three northern portions to Lake Centre. I have said the last I am going to say. My right hon. friend said today that he was not Caesar. There was no suggestion in my words that he was. He was quoting from someone else in 1932 and I quoted him. We all realize that the decision as to what will be done, as to what 'political opponents will be rejected, eliminated or liqui-

dated, rests finally, not with the membership of this house but with the majority represented by the Prime Minister of this country. It is not going to matter what happens to the hon. member for Kamloops, it does not matter what happens to the leader of this party or to the hon.. member for Musboka-Omtario, but in the years to come it is going to matter when it is realized that on this occasion there was an opportunity given to the Prime Minister to stand for the principles which he has epitomized and represented through years of public life.
He says that- he is not responsible. True, he did not make recommendations to the committee. But, sir, my final words are these. He did not make recommendations. However, one of the committee recommendations has been changed and I ask if it is not fair that another one be changed. I do not ask that it be changed as far as the fourteen townships are concerned; I ask only that it be changed in connection with three townships which cannot be represented without great difficulty when attached to Lake Centre.


Liguori Lacombe: Mr. Chairman, the letter that came from the hon. member for Champlain speaks for itself. Answering the -remarks of the 'hon. member this morning I must tell the committee that I was asked twice at the end of March by the hon. member for Champlain to go to his room. On my oath as a member of parliament I say that that is the truth and all the truth. During those interviews he asked me -to cross the fl-oor. As a member of the committee on redistribution he asked me to cross the floor. Always as a member of the -said committee he wanted to protect me against the dismemberment of my county -of Laval-Two Mountains. He asked me to be a good Liberal.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


William Ross Macdonald: Some hon. members are calling "order," but as the hon-. member for Laval-Two Mountains wishes to make a -personal explanation I think he should be allowed to do so briefly.


Liguori Lacombe: Mr. Chairman, as you say I am speaking on a question of privilege. He asked me to be a good Liberal and I told him, "Listen, my friend, I am a man who respects his own commitments. I will not be a traitor because I always respect my commitments." No one in this bouse can say anything -to the contrary. Only the hon. member for Champlain will deny what he said privately in his interviews and publicly in his famous letter. At the conclusion of his speech he attributed

Redistribution
to 'the member for Laval-Two Mountains some words which I never said about a colleague. This 9hows what an insulting speech it was concerning me.
I have only one thing in this world, and that is my honour. It is the most precious of all. I know that all hon. members of this house, Liberals, Conservatives, Social Credit and C.C.F. are ready to defend their honour because honour is the most precious thing any man may have. I will defend myself against every insult thrown at me and at my constituents. I repeat that the shameful bargain which he offered privately during the interviews he organized and publicly by his famous letter as a member of the committee can be termed the greatest scandal of the present government.


William Ross Macdonald: May I remind hon. members that [DOT] the committee has carried section 1 and section 2. It was agreed that a general discussion would be allowed on section 1, but we are now discussing section 3. Hon. members are familiar with the rules which set out that all discussion in committee must be directly relevant to the section under consideration. I hope hon. members will observe that rule from now on.


Mr. VIAU:: Mr. Chairman, after listening to the very sanctimonious speech of the future former member for Lake Centre, after listening to the charge made by the hon. members for Vancouver South and Muskoka-Ontario of gerrymandering, after listening to the speech made by the former premier of Manitoba, the eleventh leader of the Progressive Conservative party in Canada, that gerrymandering was done principally in the province of Manitoba by the subcommittee, I feel it my duty to give the facts to this committee.
Since the debate commenced yesterday morning particular reference has been made to four seats. One would be led to believe that the boundaries of four seats of Kamloops, Muskoka-Ontario, Lake Centre and Neepawa were guaranteed by the British North America Act, that that act guaranteed that the boundaries of those seats would never be changed at any time and that the four present members representing those four seats would be reelected at all times above the will of the electors of Canada or even above the welfare of the state.
When the charge was made by the former premier of Manitoba that in connection with his seat-he never referred to Neepawa; he referred to Portage-Neepawa, but he was referring to his own seat of Neepawa-there had been gerrymandering, that was absolutely
untrue. As chairman of the subcommittee for the province of Manitoba I take full responsibility for having outlined the new boundaries for Manitoba constituencies in the next general election. We had to lose one seat in Manitoba. Surely the former premier of Manitoba knows his province well, and when he states that the seat, of Neepawa should have remained as it was after the last redistribution he must know that that would have affected all the seats between his present riding and the Saskatchewan boundary: first of all Souris, which is the Glengarry of western Canada, one of the smallest electoral ridings in the west, and represented by a Progressive Conservative; also the constituencies of Brandon, Marquette and Dauphin, All these seats would have had to have a much smaller population and it would have been impossible therefore for the Manitoba subcommittee to bring in a report based on representation by population.
It will be noted that in Manitoba the smallest seat, Souris, represented in this house by a Progressive Conservative, has the smallest population, roughly 22.000. Every small seat in Manitoba is represented in this house by a Conservative member. The constituency in Manitoba which has the highest population at the present time is Selkirk, with 56.000.
I was given carte blanche by my colleagues from this side of the house to draft a plan which would be. acceptable to the subcommittee on Manitoba and finally acceptable to this House of Commons. Knowing well the province of Manitoba, I immediately took the * view that there were two phases of the redistribution of seats in any province, one political, and the other the principle of representation by population, The latter was chosen by the subcommittee for Manitoba. That meant that every seat, rural as well as urban, should so far as possible have equal representation by population in the next general election. That applies to the sixteen seats for Manitoba which are guaranteed by the amendment to the British North America Act.
As a result of the committee's work, all the rural ridings in Manitoba have a population of 40,000. Yet the Glengarry of western Canada, Souris, which is still the smallest seat in western Canada, was increased up to 27,240, but no mention was made of that by the leader of the Progressive Conservative party. His main complaint, which was taken up by the official organ of the Progressive Conservative party in the city of Winnipeg, the Winnipeg Tribune, was that the subcommittee on redistribution for the province of Manitoba had been guilty of political monstrosity.
Redis tribution

We amalgamated two Progressive Conservative seats, Neepawa and Portage la Prairie. But over and above that, two other seats were combined, Lisgar and Macdonald. So that if there was any gerrymandering done in Manitoba it was done at the expense of the Liberals, because the seat of Macdonald was wiped off the electoral map of Canada, and that seat is now represented in this house by a man who has served his country well during the seventeen years he has been here and who today holds the position of chief whip of the government party, a record which the hon. leader of the opposition still has to achieve in this house.
The present riding of Portage-Neepawa, as it will be known when this measure goes through, makes it a safer seat for the leader of the Progressive Conservative party-I mention this because he has spoken politically about the situation-than his present seat, because I took a block of Tory votes from Portage la Prairie and added them to Neepawa. So, df tihe Progressive Conservatives can once get the confidence of the electors they should be able to assure themselves of a representative in the next parliament. But judging by the results of the by-election in Halifax yesterday and by the attitude of the Progressive Conservatives in this house, which I may say I have observed carefully ever since I entered parliament, and having observed what I would call the lackadaisical attitude of the present loyal opposition which has abandoned the ideals of the great party they represent, and knowing that they have not lived up to their responsibilities-


Mr. LENNARD:: Order.


Fernand Viau: If the hon. member will listen it will not hurt his education. I was saying that the Progressive Conservative party have failed to present in this house the real, true sort of opposition which one would expect under our democratic system, and that i3 not a good sign, if I may say so, Mr. Chairman, for our country. If we are to judge from the results of the Halifax by-election yesterday, where the Progressive Conservatives had 6,000 casualties as compared with the 1945 election, which party is likely to be the loyal opposition after the next general election? If democracy is to be preserved in this country I still stand by the statement I have made in the past that a return to the two old parties is essential and is desired by the people of Canada, but a wholly different attitude will have to be taken by the present members of the Progressive Conservative party if they wish to gain the [Mr. Viau.l
confidence of the people of Canada. If not, their attitude will tend to an increase of socialism in this country.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On a point of order,
Mr. Chairman, if the hon. member is permitted to engage in this kind of partisan discussion the same privilege should be accorded to others. I do not want it, but if it is to be permitted, the same opportunity must be open to the rest of us.


William Ross Macdonald: I quite agree with the hon. member. The discussion at this time is not strictly in order.


Fernand Viau: Very well, Mr. Chairman.
The work done by the subcommittee on redistribution for the province of Manitoba ensures that the rural ridings of Manitoba will have a fair representation by population, all of them being in the 40,000 bracket, and the four urban seats will also be well balanced, with a population of between 55,000 and
60,000.


Gordon Graydon: Mr. Chairman, I shall detain the committee for a very short time, but I want to lay before the government and the Prime Minister in particular one or two matters that I think are germane to the present discussion. I am one of the few, I think, who have spoken in this debate who are not personally affected by this redistribution, and perhaps, because of that, I am capable of speaking with some degree of detachment on this matter and may be able to impress upon the government and the Prime Minister the thought I have in mind. This must be quite an education to others besides myself who are going through a debate with respect to redistribution for the first time in our parliamentary careers. From time to time I have read the other debates, but I have never had any experience with a redistribution bill until this particular occasion. I say to you, Mr. Chairman, that this afternoon I have no desire to discuss the whole question in general. It seems to me that there has been an extended discussion on the general phases of the redistribution. I want to confine my brief observation to the constituency of which we have heard1 a good deal up to the present time, namely the constituency of Lake Centre in Saskatchewan.
I suppose it could be argued, perhaps it has been argued and it will be argued', that things have happened in previous redistributions which could always be brought up to the advantage or the disadvantage of people on both sides of the house. I fancy, however, that most hon. members, particularly new members who have come in in more recent days, will

Redistribution
want to see that whatever is done in this parliament is somewhat of a departure from the old days which at times were characterized by circumstances that we would! not want to repeat in this day and generation. That i's no reflection upon hon. members of the past, but conditions have changed and the public conscience today is much more tender, much more easily offended when it comes to representation than it has ever been before in the history of Canadian public life.
When I have been talking to men and women, people who are not interested in any way in who is elected, or the personalities or the boundaries of constituencies, they have said to me, "Is everything quite right with respect to redistribution down in Ottawa? Is any move being made to change certain seats which are represented by prominent, aggressive, active and valuable men in the opposition?" In looking at the matter from a detached point of view, I must confess I think the public conscience will be offended-and I say this with every bit of sincerity that I can summon to my command-unless the Prime Minister and the government undertake to review at least two or three of the major points which seem to stand out like a sore thumb on an otherwise healthy hand', and to try if possible to find some middle way by which the people across Canada will say that at last this parliament did not follow the precedent set by its predecessors during the years and that this government and the Prime Minister himself have met that movement and corrected some of the major defects.
I want to say to the Prime Minister at this time that there is a special reason for it as I see it. I do not think we can allow the feeling to go across this country, and perhaps beyond the boundaries of this country, because the nations of the world are watching how democracies conduct themselves today, that we are not dealing fairly with redistribution. When you touch the basis of representation the ordinary elector feels somewhat shaky and jittery, particularly when he finds that there is a majority in the House of Commons who can perhaps change the constituency in which he is in such a way that he will not be able to have the same type of representation that he has previously enjoyed. This means that there is a heavy discretion, if I may say so, and with it a heavy responsibility resting upon the Prime Minister and the government in connection with the matter.
I do not ask the Prime Minister to do unreasonable things. If I am asking anything unreasonable please refuse it, because I do not want anything unreasonable with respect to this or any other matter. I do not think
the Prime Minister will believe that it is unreasonable. In the case of the constituency of the hon. member for Lake Centre, what a very simple matter it would be, without affecting anybody seriously, to remove the three townships at the top of his constituency of which he has spoken, which I fancy might be described by a former minister of agriculture, as he described a similar jutting out in his constituency in 1933, when he called it a wart, and which was referred to by the hon. member for Lake Centre as a knob. It would be so simple an operation that you would not have to give the patient a general anaesthetic. All he would need would be a local one. It would not require any major operation, and it would meet what the public conscience of Canada would require in a case such as this. The Prime Minister would have such a response across Canada that he would feel satisfied with it. It would remove a great deal of the difficulty which will normally attend discussions from now on after this bill has been passed, if the government and the Prime Minister particularly would bow to that very small request, but one, Mr. Chairman, which I think can be made with every good reason and which has a good foundation for it. I appeal to the Prime Minister as I have never appealed to him before to see if he will, before the schedules to the bill are reached, give consideration to that change and to see if we cannot get through this session with the public saying, well, at last in Ottawa they are trying to do a reasonable job; they are trying to be fair to political friends and opponents as well. When the schedule is reached I do not want to have to move an amendment incorporating what I have said. I shall be very much disappointed if I have to do that. I make this appeal to the Prime Minister in a way, as I said before, that I have never done before in the House of Commons because I feel keenly and deeply that this is something that should be remedied, not just in the interests of the hon. member for Lake Centre, but in the interests of a better public conscience and a better system of democracy in Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 4 to 8 inclusive agreed to.
William Ross Macdonald: We are now on the schedules. Shall we carry all the schedules? Are the schedules carried?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Take them one at a time.
Redistribution.


William Ross Macdonald: Shall I call the schedules by provinces? We are now considering the schedule with respect to Ontario. Carried.


Mr. MACDONNELL (Muskoka-Ontario):: I understood that the chairman of the subcommittee was going to make a statement. He had risen to make the statement when you called "carried" Mr. Chairman.


William Ross Macdonald: I regret that I did not see him.


Walter Edward Harris: I am most happy to see it carried without my making the statement.
On the schedules-Ontario.


William Ross Macdonald: We are now considering the schedule with respect to Ontario. Does the schedule carry?


Walter Edward Harris: I had a statement prepared which I would have delivered yesterday if the debate had gone as we expected. I thought that all the discussion with respect to particular constituencies might have been left until we came to the schedules involving them. Had I read this statement at that time I do not think my hon. friend the member for Muskoka-Ontario would have been speculating as he did with regard to his constituency. I should like to read this statement now, because it gives, I believe, a logical explanation of the action taken with respect to the constituency:
The Ontario schedule contains 83 constituencies-one more than heretofore. Of the 82 constituencies established by the 1933 Representation Act, 56 are unchanged in this bill,-
Of these fifty-six, forty-one belong to the Progressive Conservative party, of whom there are only forty-eight in the house.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Belong to them?


Walter Edward Harris: In the sense that they now occupy them but will not after the next election.


John Ritchie MacNicol: We shall have more after the next election.


Walter Edward Harris: I do not agree with the hon. member in that regard. To continue:
-sixteen are either increased or decreased slightly, 6 are the subject of 3 changes involving from 10,000-12,000 people in each case and four are the subject of major changes. It has been suggested in the press and in the house that the Ontario subcommittee did not make nearly as many changes as the circumstances warrant and there may be some justification for this view. However, it should be remembered that all the evidence before the subcommittee showed that there had been a substantial increase in the 
population of Ontario since 1941 and it was strongly urged in the committee that no changes of any kind should be made in view of this and having in mind that the next census is only 4 years hence. Nevertheless, this was not considered to be sufficient reason for postponing those changes which were equitable and unlikely to be affected materially by the census of 1951. In the end, the committee report was unanimous except for one constituency.
As to the changes, it will be sufficient to point out that the most obvious problem which had to be solved was that created by the large populations in the northern constituencies. The people of northern Ontario have been underrepresented for some years-at least as far 'back as the 1933 act when the constituency of Nipissing had over 88.00(1 people and was the largest in numbers in Canada returning one member. The committee of that year reduced the western Ontario membership by three and probably felt that they could not take another seat to provide two for Nipissing. But wffien the 1941 census showed that this 88,000 had grown to
113,000	and that Nipissing. Cochrane and Timis-kaming together had over 246,000 people, it became necessary to provide for five instead of three members. As the province was allotted only one additional member by the bill, the subcommittee was obliged to take into consideration the representation of the rest of the province to see if there were any other inequalities which might be adjusted and at the same time provide the extra seat for the north. There are six main divisions of the province recognized by everyone-eastern, central, western, southern, northern, Toronto and York and I believe that all political parties use almost the same boundaries^ for these divisions-in any event the variations are insignificant. The population, number of members and unit of representation of these divisions is as follow's:
Centra] Eastern Western Southern Northern Toronto and York ...
375.000-	11 members-
463.000- 12 "
1,030,000-26	"
483.000- 9	"
484.000- 9	"
-Unit 34,100 "	38,600
"	40,000
"	53,600
"	53,700
63,400
951,000-15	"
It will be seen that Central Ontario has the lowest unit of representation and the subcommittee considered it in order to reduce the membership by one. This was done by combining the districts of Parry Sound and Muskoka and by transferring the towmships of Rama. Mara, Thora and Brock to the constituency of Victoria and by transferring the townships of Scott and Uxbridge to the constituency of Ontario. 'This decision v'as made after careful study of other possible combinations in Central Ontario-there are at least 3 obvious alternatives.
The people in Parry Sound and Muskoka districts are the best of neighbours and have a great deal in common. They engage almost exclusively in lumbering, hunting and fishing and catering to the tourist trade. There are two common railway and highway systems which touch practically all the larger centres in both districts; there is no town over 6,000 so it could not be said that undue influence was given to any municipality, in fact the districts are fairly evenly balanced-the ratio being 27-22.
The townships in Ontario county are purely agricultural and have nothing in common with the districts to the north. Their communications and markets are to the east and south and the

Redistribution
transfer of these townships to Victoria and Ontario has restored them to more convenient and logical electoral districts. Further-
And this is a point my hon. friend did not explain to the house the other day, because I do not think he understood the memorandum I sent him at his request.
Further, the new constituency of Parry Sound-Muskoka is nearer than any other in Central Ontario to that part of Northern Ontario requiring extra representation-in fact, adjoins the constituency of Nipissing.
That was one of the factors in the decision.
I should add that even after this change is made Central Ontario still has the lowest unit of representation and this is true whether Parry Sound-Muskoka is included in Northern Ontario or in Central Ontario. If included in Northern Ontario the figures are:
Central	 35,300
Eastern	 38,600
Western	 40,000
Northern	 46,000
Southern	 53,600
Toronto and York	 63,400
If included in Central Ontario, the figures are:
Central	 36,800
Eastern	 38,600
Western	 40,000
Northern	 45,400
Southern	 53,600
Toronto and York	 63,400
That concludes the remarks about Muskoka-Ontario, and unless my hon. friend wishes me to explain the other alternatives, I need not. I do not think I need say anything about the other changes, except perhaps with respect to Brant and Wentworth. In Brant-Wentworth we have created a rural constituency where it should have been. We have reduced, the county of Wentworth, represented by my good friend the hon. member for that constituency (Mr. Lennard), which before we had this redistribution had a higher population, as a semi-rural county surrounding a city than either of the city constituencies. We brought it down somewhere to the point where it should be, and we have left the hon. member for Brant with the largest part of his riding.
I do not wish to delay the committee longer. I assure the committee that no effort was made to lose the services of the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario. So far as this party is concerned, we are most happy to have him continue as president of the dominion Progressive Conservative association. I feel that perhaps, after yesterday, we might hope that he would retain that office for a long time. But that is only by the way.
All these figures I have given indicate to the committee, I hope, that northern Ontario had to have not only the one seat allowed by the bill but another. They indicate that there was only one section of Ontario from which
it could come, namely, central Ontario. Other alternatives were considered, but none of them were as acceptable as this and none of them were as acceptable to the committee as a whole which represented Ontario, for this reason-and I will reduce the discussion, if I may, to a political level. Any other decision that we might have made would have eliminated one Conservative seat, by throwing two of them together. As it is now, we leave my hon. friend thrown in with a Liberal and with almost even chances of reelection. I think he will find that is so and I know he has sludied the figures.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I really feel flattered considering how little objection has been taken to the redistribution of the Ontario seats. That is the same thing as occurred last time. The schedules went through rapidly. The discussion which has gone on here pertaining to the other provinces just gives us an idea of what we are up against and is a basis for the argument that I have used for many years in this house, namely, that the time has come when redistribution should be performed by a commission consisting perhaps of the surveyor general, the chief statistician, the chief geographer, and other officials of the country. One can picture what will happen next time. In Ontario the advice I gave when the bill was introduced, namely, to let the ridings remain very largely as they are because within five years we shall have another census and another redistribution, was largely followed. I want to say that the Ontario committee, following that advice, made very few changes. I believe the hon. member for Grey-Bruce gave the number.


Walter Edward Harris: Fifty-six
seats.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Yes. I make it fifty-nine, but perhaps the hon. member has later figures than I have. Anyway, that is a big record. And most of the other seats were little changed. I shall refer just for a moment to Glengarry, because it has been mentioned particularly and because in the beginning I suggested that Glengarry should not be touched. I got rapped over the knuckles in the newspapers for saying that.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Not very much.


John Ritchie MacNicol: We could easily have changed Glengarry by adding to it from the adjacent county of Stormon't. One township in Stormont, namely, the township of Cornwall, has a population of 16,034, and the city of Cornwall within the township has a population of 14,117. So that the township and
Redistribution

city of Cornwall then would have made a seat, and we could have taken the other three townships out of Stormont and added them to Glengarry, which would have made Glengarry
29,000.	We did not do that, (Mr. Chairman, because it did not gain a seat, and what the committee wanted to do was to gain an extra seat for Ottawa. As far as I can see, there was no object in making any change. It would have been a simple matter to have taken three townships out of Stormont. That could have been done, and it likely will be done in the next redistribution. Those townships could have been put into Glengarry, and then you would have a homogeneous seat with ample population, equal to the majority of other seats. But as the committee could not get a seat by doing that, we left it as it was. That was all that happened. I cannot understand this attack on Glengarry. I cannot see it at all, because nothing could have been gained by changing it.
At the next redistribution, what are we going to be up against? Ottawa should have another seat. Everybody knows that. Toronto will have to have at least two more seats. We all know that.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Vancouver, too.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I took the stand at that time that Toronto should not ask any more seats on this occasion because it meant taking seats away from rural communities but on the next occasion Toronto and York county will likely require two extra seats. Windsor will have to have another seat. The Essex members are not complaining here because they are not getting another seat, but they would have many reasons to ask. The same goes for Hamilton. Hamilton should have another seat.


Humphrey Mitchell: How about Welland?


John Ritchie MacNicol: Welland has to have another seat. At the next election Welland will have about 100,000 population more or less. The province of Ontario must make up its mind to provide six seats from somewhere, and they may have to come off rural ridings. For that reason I do not want to be on the next redistribution committee, if redistribution is done by a parliamentary committee. It should be done by a commission, because this is what we are up against. We have made an exhibition of ourselves in the way we have been going on about these various seats.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Oh, no; the hon. member did very well.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I do not know what I oould have done in Ontario different from what I did.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The question will come all right, but this is important. When the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre made his motion to have this whole business done by a commission I supported it, and voted for it. A good many did not dio that. Hon. members can look up the list and see who voted for it and who did not. But that is what should come; it should be done in that way here just as it is done in other British countries. We should not any longer bring this battle into the House of Commons and make an exhibition of ourselves to the people of the country. That is just about what this is; it is just an exhibition. I am not supporting everything that was done everywhere else, but I could defend anything that was done in the province of Ontario, even as to the seat which is represented by my good friend here, the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario. I did my best, as the committee will admit, to prevent that seat from being changed; but another seat in northern Ontario was required, and I know that northern Ontario should have had two more seats because of the large increase in population. It finally came down to the point where my hon. friend's seat and another one were put together. I did not support it then and I am not supporting it now; but outside of that one seat I believe our whole schedule in Ontario was a good record, eighty-two out of eighty-three. If anyone wants to find fault with that, he can do so.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I had my say yesterday, and I do not intend to repeat it today, but I want to add two things. I do not think the statement just made by 'the hon. member for Grey-Bruce alters the situation in any way. I do not think there is anything further that I need to answer. I do not think it in the slightest alters what I said yesterday. I tried to make it clear yesterday that I was speaking primarily for my constituents; and, as far as they are concerned, I think the case remains as I stated it yesterday and therefore I will vote against it. I just want to add this. In fairness I want to say that I do not feel and never have felt that this was done in such a way as to give me no chance at the next election, because these constituencies have a record which gives one a chance. I just felt, as I said yesterday, that it was dealing my constituency around like a pack of cards, and there is no need of my repeating that.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Carried.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: On division.

Redistribution


Mr. HARRIS (Danforth):: I want to ask the minister who is responsible for this bill if he would have one of his colleagues move an amendment to line eleven, page fifteen, in Danforth riding, where it reads "and on the west by Woodburn avenue". There is no such avenue. The avenue referred to is Woodbine avenue.


William Ross Macdonald: Will the hon. member himself move that?


Joseph Henry Harris: Yes, I will. I move that the word "Woodburn" in the riding of Danforth, on page fifteen, be changed to "Woodbine".
Some hon. MEMBERS': Carried.


Joseph Henry Harris: Before that is carried, but not speaking to it, may I be permitted one or two observations? If the record is looked up of some twenty-two years ago in this chamber, when it was my privilege then to. represent well over 100,000 people, it will be foundl that I intimated to the Prime Minister of that day that I thought it might be good economy and good business if Canada had only 100 members, gave each one of the 100 a job of work to do, and let the unit of representation be 100,000. My opinion has changed only to the extent of the increase in population. I regret to see this bill going through, adding ten more members tO' this parliament. We have far too many members now for the population of this country.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I would say that, since these were laid out by the chief electoral officer, if any other changes such as those mentioned by the hon. member for Danforth are discovered later it is understood they will be rectified.
Amendment (Mr. Harris, Danforth) agreed to.
Ontario schedule as amended agreed to on division.
On the schedules-Quebec.


William Ross Macdonald: An amendment has been moved by the hon. member for Stanstead, that the word "Gatineau" be deleted and the word "Wright" be substituted therefore opposite the figure IS on page 21.
Amendment (Mr. Hackett) negatived on division.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: It is very comforting to find so few complaints in connection with the province of Quebec, and I think we owe thanks to the members of the subcommittee for the wonderful work they have done. I wish
also to thank the various members from that province for the help they have given in surmounting the various difficulties we encountered in adding eight new constituencies to that province, especially having in mind that this is the first time a number of new constituencies have been added there. This afternoon I was very much interested to hear the leader of the opposition commend this bill for having increased the number of members from the province of Quebec. Apparently he has changed his mind, because last year, when the redistribution bill was voted upon, he and all the members of his party voted against giving this increase to Quebec.


John Thomas Hackett: On a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman, I did not vote against Quebec having fair representation but against an amendment to the constitution which according to my lights was passed in an illegal way. I voted against that amendment, not against giving Quebec a fair quota, which I have always upheld. I made this clear in my remarks at that time.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: The amendment would have had exactly the same result; that is, Quebec would not have had the eight additional members.


John Bracken: I rise to a question of privilege also. The hon. member has stated that we on this side voted against the measure on the ground that it aimed to correct an inequity in Quebec. That was not the basis of the objection at all, and the impression left by the remark of the hon. member is entirely false. I ask him to accept this statement, as I think everyone in the house will accept it. Certainly I never had any other view than that an inequity had been continued through the years. The government itself had made that decision at an earlier time, and I said this morning I neither criticized it nor condemned it. But I accepted the present decision and commended the government for making the correction, and I ask the hon. member to accept my statement.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: I accept the statement of the hon. gentleman. The hon. member for Stanstead took the position in the subcommittee that he was representing all the opposition members, and made himself their advocate before the committee.
Yesterday the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario quoted Laurier in 1914, setting down some principles that should be followed in redistribution. He said the first principle was a substantial equalization of population; the second was the preservation of county units, and the third was justice to the electors. That is exactly the way we proceeded in the
Redistribution

Quebec subcommittee. First, we took the population of the province, according to the 1941 census, as 3,331,882, which is distributed in the various portions of the province mainly as follows: on the island of Montreal, 1,116,800; the city of Quebec, 156,640; the territory lying north of the St. Lawrence river, 934,547, and the territory lying south of the St. Lawrence, 1,123,888. These various districts, on the basis of the present representation, have the following average number of inhabitants per constituency: the island of Montreal, with its sixteen members, represented 69,800. The city of Quebec, with its three members, represented 52,215. The northern part of the province, with eighteen members, represented 49,186, and the southern portion with its twenty-eight members represented 41,625.
The members of the subcommittee felt that an average population of some 55,000 or
60.000	was more than adequate for urban constituencies, -whereas 40,000 should be the quotient for rural areas. Having agreed upon this principle, the committee decided that the representation of the island of Montreal should be increased, to such an extent as to reduce the 'population per constituency to the average already mentioned, that is, 55,000 to 60,000, and that the other districts should approximate as closely as possible the agreed quotients. The committee found that by adding to the population of the Island of Montreal that of Jesus island and increasing the representation by four the twenty new constituencies on the island of Montreal would average 56,921, the range being from
66.000	in thickly populated areas to 46,400 in semi-rural and sparsely populated districts. The addition to the city of Quebec of a suburb thereof increased the average for the said city to 53,620; and the addition of four constituencies to the northern part and one to the southern part practically equalized the two quotients at 41,304 for the northern part and 40,942 for the southern part.
Speaking of the northern part, the most populous constituencies were Pontiac, with 86,420; Chicoutimi, with 78,881; Charlevoix-Saguenay with 68,087 and Lac St. John-Roberval, with 64,306. The new constituency of Villeneuve was therefore created out of the northern portion of Pontiac, Lapointe out of the western half of Chicoutimi, and the other two were divided to become Charlevoix, Saguenay, Lac St. John and Roberval. In the southern district, after many small changes had been made the effect of which was to apportion more evenly the population of various constituencies, it appeared that the constituency of Gaspe was much too large, with its 57,588 inhabitants and 300 miles

of waterfront, exclusive of the Magdalen islands. The logical solution of the situation seemed to be a separate constituency for the islands. This decision is furthermore warranted by the fact that the islands lie 150 miles from Gaspe, to which they were heretofore attached, and 200 miles from Saguenay, and also by the lack of a proper transportation system from and to the mainland.
Yesterday the hon. member for Peace River attacked redistribution in the province of Quebec, though apparently from what he said he did not know what he was talking about, and said that all the constituencies represented by independent members had been touched, but no others. Those various constituencies in the province of Quebec which I have mentioned were not touched because they were represented by independents; it was because they were the largest in the province. I should like to place on Hansard the reactions of the various members, independent and others, when the committee report was tabled. I quote from Le Droit of April 23, 1947, as follows:
(Translation):
Mr. John Hackett, Conservative member for Stanstead, who acted as the representative of the Quebec independents on the redistribution committee, gave to understand, at the last meeting of the committee, on Tuesday, that most of his "proteges" seemed satisfied with their new legacy.
The independent member for Charlevoix-Saguenay, Mr. Frederic Dorion, whose constituency has been divided into two parts, has stated that the changes had been properly made in the Quebec district. On his part, Mr. Maxime Raymond, bloc populaire member for Beauhar-nois-Laprairie, does not appear greatly dissatisfied. As regards Mr. Georges Heon, independent Conservative member for Argenteuil, to whose constituency a large slice of Mr. Laeombe's has been added, we have been unable to ascertain his reaction.
The young and fiery Social Credit member for Pontiac, Mr. Real Caouette, told us calmly, during a brief interview in the lobby of the House of Commons, while puffing at a fragrant cigar, that he had every reason to be satisfied with the changes made in his constituency.
He said:	"The committee left me the part
of my constituency which is the best both from the Social Credit and the industrial standpoints. I took my largest majority in that area. On the other hand, they have taken away the older Pontiac, where the people are equally divided between Liberals and Conservatives. I can assure you that Villeneuve-the name of Mr. Caouette's new constituency-will vote Social Credit at the next election. The division of my constituency was a necessity in the interests of the province. Besides, by 1951, that district will probably have a third constituency, because the population has increased twofold since the last census was taken, seven years ago, and it is steadily growing. To my mind, redistribution was quite fairly carried out in the whole province of Quebec."

Redistribution
(Text):


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: There you have the way in which the report impressed various independents in the house.
Before dealing particularly with the three constituencies which have been mentioned, I should like to place a tabulation on Hansard as a reply to what the hon. member for Lake Centre said this morning with regard to minority representation. It is interesting to note that in the present parliament minority representation is on the opposite side of the house rather than on this side. There were 63-1 per cent of the members of the cabinet elected by a clear majority. In the case of Little Chicago 57-5 per cent of the members were elected by a clear majority. On this side of the house 48 per cent of the members, or 61 out of 127, had clear majorities. If we look on the other side we find that. 27 out of 68, or 39-7 per cent of the Conservatives, wore elected with a clear majority. In the C.C.F. there were only three out of 28, or 10-7 per cent, and in the Social Credit group there was only one out of 14, or seven per cent. The members who were elected' by a clear majority number 61 on this side and 31 on the other side. I thought those figures would be interesting to the committee.
I do not think I need to deal particularly with Wright-Gatineau because the committee has already dealt with that. The constituency of Pontiac before redistribution had 86,000 population. It was first suggested that that constituency should be split in two. I thought myself that it would be preferable to divide it into three, taking the mining section on the north, the rural section in the centre, and the rural-English speaking section in the south. However, it was found that the southern portion had a population of only 49,000. After due consideration, it was decided that that was not a sufficient population to create a new constituency, particularly in view of the fact that the other two constituencies which would be created in the same area would have populations below 30,000. After consultation with the hon. member for Pontiac and others, it was agreed that the best solution would be to cut the constituency in two.
I have in my hand a resolution from the citizens of the town of Temiskaming asking that they be included in the southern part of the country, I have also other resolutions telegrams and letters asking that the provincial constituency of Temiscaming be not split in two. I have also telegrams from the chamber of commerce and from the prefect of the county of Temiskaming asking that they be joined with the southern portion of the con-83166-362
stituency rather than with the northern portion. The committee adopted that view and has reported that there should be two constituencies in Pontiac.
If the suggestion of the hon. member for Pontiac had been followed the northern portion of the constituency would have had a population of 66,468 while the southern portion would have had a population of only 19,000. The committee did not consider it fair to give one constituency only 19,000 and another one
66,000.	The present division is something like
46,000	for the north and 38,000 for the south, and that was considered to be more equitable.
I considered with great interest the letter deposited by the hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains, and I fail to see any implication therein of pressure, either on the part of the hon. member writing the letter or by any other hon. member to bring the member for Laval-Two Mountains across the floor. It had been known for some time that he had some such intention, and if the committee had been-


Liguori Lacombe: I deny any such intention; I never had any such intention.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Who cares?


Liguori Lacombe: My hon. friend knows my intentions.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: If there had been any eagerness on the part of the government or of the committee to have the hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains cross the floor it would have been most enticing to offer him what he wanted. We did not choose to act like that because there is no such consideration. As chairman of the Quebec subcommittee I can tell the committee that never at any time was there any suggestion of pressure exerted by the hon. member for Champlain or any other member of the committee along the lines suggested yesterday and this morning by the hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains.


Liguori Lacombe: Mr. Chairman, on a
question of privilege, I never referred to the hon. member for Outremont. The letter of the hon. member for Champlain speaks for itself.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: The reason why the constituency of Laval-Two Mountains was split is quite simple. The population of Argen-teuil was 22,670 and the population of Laval-Two Mountains was 33,000. The two together gave a total papulation of 56,168, which is a smaller population than that of any two constituencies adjoining one another. It was found, however, upon examination, that the part of Two Mountains mostly does

Redistribution

business with Lachute or the other side of the river, whereas that part comprising Laval sur le Lac, Ste. Rose, et cetera, mainly does business with the city of Montreal. It was therefore found to be most convenient that the constituency be split in two.
We have heard comparisons between the population of Laval-Two Mountains and other constituencies. I must say, Mr.-Chairman, that the figures that were quoted! this morning or yesterday were taken from the old1 census and the old redistribution. All these populations have since increased, and very few of those cited by the hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains come today within the brackets that 'he mentioned. For instance, Chateauguay-Huntingdon, which used to have a population of 25,000, has now 37,000; Stanstead, which he gave as 27,000, now has 35,000; Dorchester, which he gave as 28,000, now has 32,000; Wright, which he gave as 29,000 has now 32,000; and Levis, which he gave as 30,000, now has 35,951. Therefore the argument made by the hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains does not hold. I do not think I have anything more to say, Mr. Chairman, except to thank again tihe members of the committee and the members of the house.
Quebec schedule agreed to.
On the schedules-Nova Scotia.


Colin William George Gibson: I have an amendment to this schedule, Mr. Chairman, and in the moving of the amendment it will be necessary to make an amendment to the preamble of the schedule, so I ask leave to withdraw the original amendment in your hands so that the hon. member for Grey-Bruce may move a new amendment.
Amendment withdrawn.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Chairman, I move:
That the word "thirteen" in the first line of the Nova Scotia schedule be deleted and the word "twelve" substituted; and that there be inserted after the word "which" in the second line the words "unless otherwise expressly stated." That items 8 and 9 of the Nova -Scotia schedule be deleted and that the following be substituted therefor:	.
8. Halifax consisting of the city of Halifax and the county of Halifax, which shall return two members.
And that the subsequent items of the schedule be renumbered accordingly.


John Bracken: I take it that the purport of; this amendment is to make Halifax a two-member constituency instead of having two separate constituencies there, as is proposed in the bill.
[Mr. Rinfrel'.i


Walter Edward Harris: The description is the same as appears in the 1933 representation act.


John Bracken: ' This then would revert to the position as it existed before the committee sat.


Walter Edward Harris: That is right.


Mr. GILLIS:: I am amazed at this amendment at this stage of the session. We appointed a committee which went thoroughly into this matter. I know that the member for Inverness-B-ichmond- who represented Nova Scotia on the committee, consulted with me and' I was quite satisfied with 'the arrangements the government were making. I was particularly pleased that -they had decided to divide the Halifax dual constituency -into two, and now at this stage of the session the Secretary of State introduces an amendment which nullifies all -the work of the committee so far as Nova Scotia is concerned. I cannot understand it, and I think a thorough explanation should be given by the Secretary of State of why this change is being made at this time. One reason why I was particularly pleased with the proposal to divide the constituency was that it would give tlhe people of the constituency of Halifax, where there are over 85,000 voters, an opportunity to secure adequate representation for the whole riding, which, in my opinion they have not got now.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: They have that now.


Clarence Gillis: No, with all due respect for' the Minister of Veterans Affairs. The county of Halifax geographically covers a much larger area than the city of Halifax and includes farmers, fishermen and lumbermen, and when an -election takes place in that city on the dual member basis the people in the county have not the opportunity of nominating anyone -to contest the seat who would adequately represent the outlying sections of the riding and know something of the problems of the people -there. In addition to that, when an election is -held, the city of Halifax makes the nomination, and with all due respect to the men they send here they are not, in my opinion, sufficiently familiar with the problems of the farmers, fishermen and lumbermen in -that large area of the constituency lying outside the city to ,be able -to present their problems. Halifax has two representatives representing the city, professional men who when the session is over go back to their own business and seldom see the people in -the outlying sections. As a result, the people in the outlying sections have not the representation in this house which they should have. I

Redistribution
am absolutely opposed to this amendment, because what it is doing is this. It is harnessing that whole community to machine politics in the city of Halifax.
I am not concerned with who is elected, so long as the people of Halifax are given a fair opportunity to select their candidate from their own community, not a candidate in a law office 150 miles away, when the majority along that coast are fishermen, farmers and lumbermen. Under this dual member system they are not given a chance to exercise that democracy for which we are supposed to stand. The chief electoral officer, Mr. Castonguay, in the evidence I read before the committee, was strongly in favour of splitting .this riding in two and giving both the city and the rural community an opportunity of making their own selections. The reasons for 'this move certainly appear to me to be political ones. Before I am prepared to accept this change, I want an explanation from the Secretary of State.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: After yesterday?


Mr. COLD  WELL@: That is the whole point.


Clarence Gillis: That is the whole point, after yesterday. I am looking for response from the people, and I would not want to boast too much about that election, because the opposition there was a terrific defeat for the government.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Clarence Gillis: The opposition vote was a terrific defeat of the government.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What nonsense.


Clarence Gillis: A great many more voted against you than voted for you.


William Henry Golding: Order. I would ask the hon. member to confine his remarks to the schedule under discussion.


Clarence Gillis: Mr. Chairman, you ask the hon. members to stop interrupting and I shall talk straight to the Secretary of State's amendment. Before the matter is finally disposed of, I want the Secretary of State to tell the committee why this change is made at the present time against the recommendation of the committee which was set up by this house. My second point is that I want the minister to show the committee how Nova Scotia will get an extra seat. I understood him to say that he was changing thirteen to twelve. Does that mean that he is wiping out the additional seat which was to be allocated to Nova Scotia?


Colin William George Gibson: No.


Clarence Gillis: I want the minister to explain to the committee why at this stage of the 83166-362J
session he brings in a recommendation contrary to the recommendation of the committee which the house set up to study this question, which recommendation was agreed to by practically all the Nova Scotia members.


Colin William George Gibson: That matter was discussed when the committee considered the Nova Scotia redistribution. At that time it was understood that the people of the Halifax riding wanted it divided into two- separate constituencies. Since the report of the committee was brought in and it came to the attention of the people of Halifax that there was this intention of dividing up that constituency strong representations were made from the Halifax area that they wish to continue to be represented as in the past. As a result, this amendment has been moved today for the consideration of the committee.


Mr. COLD  WELL@: Who made the representation?


Clarence Gillis: I should like to follow that up. I have just spent a couple of weeks in Halifax. Who made these representations? I talked to a lot of people in the last two weeks but I did not find anyone who was not completely agreeable to the recommendation that the riding be divided in two, and, mind you, there were a lot on your own side who were in favour of this change.


William Henry Golding: Shall the amendment carry?


Clarence Gillis: No. I should like to know from the minister who made these representations. The hon. member for Inverness-Richmond who was chairman of the Nova Scotia subcommittee is not in his place. This is one thing that he discussed with me and he was completely in favour of it. He informed me that the Nova Scotia members were all quite satisfied and pleased with this change, and the committee passed it. I should like to know who in Halifax are opposed to making this change. Who made these recommendations?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The people who
voted yesterday . . .


Clarence Gillis: They did not vote on this. The Secretary of State definitely said a moment ago that strong representations were made from Halifax. We have a right to know who made them, because the committee recommended that the riding be divided.


Mr. ILSLEY:: I want to explain this
matter to the committee as I understand it. From confederation down to the present time the city of Halifax has been a dual con-
Redistribution

stituency. Every party makes a practice of nominating one Catholic and one Protestant candidate. It is one of the traditions that may be good or bad in the province of Nova Scotia, we live in a considerable degree of amity as between the members of the various religious denominations, but we do that only by being careful to respect these long standing traditions.
It was felt early this session that the time had come when perhaps a clean sweep could be made of this practice of having dual constituencies in .the Dominion of Canada There were only two left at that time; the city and county of Halifax was one, and Queens county, Prince Edward Island, was the other. My own feeling was that it would be desirable, if possible, to get rid of dual member constituencies everywhere. The committee started out with that in mind. There were no representations to the contrary from anyone in Halifax so far as I could ascertain. As the committee continued on with its business, difficulties developed in Prince Edward Island, and the committee decided that they would, for reasons which I know nothing about, but which apparently commended themselves to the committee, leave the county of Queens, Prince Edward Island, a dual constituency. The committee was then in this position, that they would be wiping out the dual constituency probably everywhere except in Queens county, Prince Edward Island. At about that stage, certainly after the committee brought in its report, these representations came. I cannot tell the names of the persons, but it was reported to me that strong representations were made to the effect that the eighty-year long standing arrangements, one Catholic and one Protestant candidate for the parties, should continue.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: It would not be Mr. Isnor.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Representations were made
to Mr. Isnor and, through Mr. Isnor, to myself. I am most anxious that we do not do 'anything to stir up difficulties by upsetting long-standing arrangements, such as proportions of appointments to various bodies and so on in the province of Nova Scotia, where the religious denominations live with one another in great harmony-
An. hon. MEMBER:	They do in our
province.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I know, but if there is any danger of that happening in this constituency we had just better leave it where it is, and that is the reason it is being put back the way it was.


Clarence Gillis: Mr. Chairman, with all due
deference to the minister's opinion-


James Lorimer Ilsley: It is true; it is a statement of fact and that is all it is.


Clarence Gillis: I know, but the minister is overemphasizing it now. I do not suppose there is a place in Canada where there is as little attention paid to the question of religious denomination as in Nova Scotia. That has been all ironed out for at least fifteen years.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Excuse me; only because public men have been so careful not to disturb long standing arrangements of this kind.


Clarence Gillis: I can see how it is. I think if you will check back on the St. Xavier's extension movement you will see that that is how it happened. These people have broken down the difficulties between Catholics and Protestants, and you find these people now working together in every organization for the purpose of trying to advance these organizations.
Even if the situation were as the minister suggests, I do not see how you would be disturbing the allocation. If there were a religious basis to what the minister says I would be one of the first members of the house to say, leave it alone, particularly if there were a danger of disrupting the community from a religious point of view. I do not think there is. For example, in Halifax, if the population of that city warrants the nomination of someone of the Presbyterian faith or of some other faith that is not Catholic, it is their privilege to nominate someone of that faith in the city. On the other hand, if in the other section of the community the Catholic faith is dominant and they desire to maintain that position by nominating someone of that faith, it is the business of the people of the community to make their nomination accordingly. If you go through most of the ridings in Canada, and particularly through the maritime provinces, where there are single member ridings, you will find that care is taken to see that traditions of the past are maintained on that basis. There is no reason in the world why this division cannot be made here and the nomination be made according to the dominant religions in the two ends of the constituency.
Travelling through that riding during the election, I came to the conclusion that two members from the city of Halifax cannot adequately represent that riding. It is scattered; it is hard to get around; it requires a lot of

Redistribution
travelling. There are diversified interests with which a member should be familiar. I believe that the coastline, which is predominantly fishing, some farming and a little lumbering, should have a member selected from these communities, so that he may be available to advise and counsel them on their problems which dovetail into the realm of government.
I am completely opposed to this business. I respect the minister's opinion and I have some idea of what it means, but I do not think the dividing of that area so as to permit those whose interests are not similar to select representatives suitable to themselves can be objected to. The religious angle can be handled in the community, but I do not see how the division of the riding in such a way as to make is more accessible to the member when he returns from the house would transgress the traditions of which the minister has spoken. It would be doing a great service to the people of that community and, moreover, it would be relieving the member of a lot of responsibility. It would be in the best interests both of the member and of the community, and I do not believe that the minister's fears have any grounds so far as religion is concerned. I would ask the Secretary of State, before forcing this through, to give the matter further consideration. I do not think it is good policy on the part of the government to override the decision of a committee of this house who gave the matter serious consideration, and who had the unanimous support of the members from Nova Scotia, and especially when the chairman of the committee is not present. I am opposed to the amendment.


Major James William Coldwell: I have not spoken at all on this matter, but I wish to support the hon. member for Cape Breton South, and in prefacing what I wish to say, I regard this whole debate as a reflection on parliament. This has been a debate which may cause a good many people in the country to despise this parliament and thus undermine this institution, and that is a bad thing at this time. It does seem to me that members of parliament have been forced into the position of looking after their own interests, and that does not go well with the people of the country.
With regard to the Halifax seat, I should like to know. what the technique was in securing changes in a committee report brought to the house. Who are the people who made representations-persons unnamed-sufficiently strong to override the will of a parliamentary
committee? I should like to know who they are. I will tell you what I believe, Mr. Chairman, if I may do so. I happened to be in Halifax for two or three days at the end of last week and I know something of what the pre-election canvass was both in Halifax and in the surrounding territory. My belief is that the Liberal canvassers in their reports indicated that, if this city were split, the government on another occasion could not carry the rural side of the riding, and that is where the representations came from.
That is another example of the kind of political gerrymandering we should have avoided. Our party moved a motion in February that this question should be decided by an independent commission. The Prime Minister was in accord with that motion, and I counted nineteen members of the Progressive Conservative party who voted for it. But it looked to me as though, in spite of what the Prime Minister's private opinion might be, the Liberal majority had come to the conclusion that they would' not permit that to be done because they were in power, and consequently there was a solid vote on that side of the house against the proposal.
The Prime Minister is a gentleman who is respected generally in the house. We look upon him as having had some influence in the growth and development of the Liberal party; and I regret exceedingly that, holding the view he did and expressing it, he was not able to set an example to the Liberal majority by trying to dio something to remove from this house the kind of controversy we have had during the last few days.
I think today's debate has -been a scandalous one. I want to support the member for Cape Breton South, because I believe that what he says is absolutely correct, that the city man with the professional or business point of view, representing the city constituency, cannot adequately represent the rural part of the riding. Rural problems of lumbering, fishing and farming are entirely different from the problems in a city. I have always felt that a member of parliament who sits for a riding where the economic interests of the people are identical is in a much better position than one who sits for a mixed riding. I have felt that in dealing with the problems of my own constituency. Because I represent a rural and farming community, I was, particularly before I became leader of this party, able to give more attention to these problems than to any other problems in the house. The committee recommended the division of the Halifax seat and I think it should be carried through.
With regard to the religious angle, I agree with the hon. member for Cape Breton South.
R e dis tribution

I know how important it is to many people that certain persons of certain religious persuasions should represent certain constituencies, and I sympathize with that point of view. But I Believe that the problems we face today in this parliament, seeing that we do not deal with education, and the cultural aspect of education, are largely economic and political. It seems to me that the argument which has been advanced on the other side in that regard is not sufficiently impressive to justify the change that is now proposed. I simply rose to support my hon. friend1 the member for Cape Breton South.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Before this occasion passes, I wish to say that the suggestion that the amendment is prompted by any consideration of the vote or whether the C.C.F. is strong in the rural part of the constituency-


Major James William Coldwell: I did not say the C.C.F.


James Lorimer Ilsley: -as compared with city districts or vice versa comes to me as a great surprise. That is not in accordance with the facts. I think I would know if any such consideration was involved in this matter, and I can assure the committee that it is not.


Major James William Coldwell: It looked that way to me.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I have not seen the results, but I read in the papers that the C.C.F. made gains in the country districts. That, however, has nothing to do with this. As soon as I found out that the committee was leaving Queens county, Prince Edward Island], a dual constituency, and taking out Halifax, I realized that we were doing something rather dangerous from the point of view of a mutual arrangement between Catholics and Protestants, and as soon as representations began to come in I felt there was only one thing to do and that tvas to leave the situation as it had been since tonfiederation.
Amendment agreed to on division: yeas, 62; nays, 48.


William Ross Macdonald: Does the schedule as amended relating to Nova Scotia carry?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: On division.
Nova Scotia schedule as amended agreed to.
New Brunswick schedule agreed to.
Prince Edward Island schedule agreed to.
On the schedules-Manitdba.


Mr. ZAPLITNY:: I wish to say just a few words on this schedule as it affects my iid-ing. This afternoon I listened to the debate 
dealing with certain constituencies in Manitoba.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Louder.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I sympathized1 with the leader of the opposition when he complained about the amalgamation of Portage la Prairie and Neepawa.


An hon. MEMBER:: Did he?


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I think I have worked out a solution for the problem. In Manitoba I intend to move an amendment which, I believe,, will be of much benefit to the leader of the opposition as well as perhaps to some others.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Is that the reason for it?


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: The situation I refer to is this. In Manitoba the committee had decidted to take a certain portion of the old constituency of Neepawa and add it to the constituency of Dauphin. I want to say that I approach this matter on a non-political basis. We have perhaps heard enough of that for one day.


John George Diefenbaker: Is sanctity all in the hon. member's party?


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Not at all.


William Ross Macdonald: Order.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I am simply pointing out that I am not approaching this from a political angle at all; it is not necessary in this case.
Mr. VIALr: Mr. Chairman, I wish the hon. member for Dauphin would speak to the committee as a whole and not just to his hon. friends on the right.


Mr. STEWART (Winnipeg North):: If hon. members would be quiet and listen, they would be able to hear.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I will do my best. As soon as the noise quiets down a bit, I am sure everybody will be able to hear me. I was going to say that it is not necessary to approach this matter from a political point of view. It is my view, though hon. members may differ, that no member of this house has a monopoly on the seat which he for the moment holds. I think the people back home are the ones who will make the final redistribution when election time comes around. We in this house should strive to make the constituencies conform as closely as possible to the wishes of the people. I realize that there are difficulties and that representation on the basis of population alone cannot be achieved in our country. However we should

Redistribution
try to come as close as we can to attaining that objective, taking into consideration the size of the constituency, the density of the population-and I am speaking of quantity -and the number of cities or towns which happen to be in a certain area.
The situation to which I refer is this. The new constituency of Portage la Prairie-Neepawa, or Portage-Neepawa as it is referred to here-is smaller in population than Dauphin, according to the schedule. In my opinion, that should be the other way round, for this reason. For one thing, the constituency of Portage-Neepawa is far more accessible, so far as roads and railways are concerned, than is the constituency of Dauphin. Second, there are three fairly large towns in that area, namely, Neepawa, Portage la Prairie and. 'Carberry, while in Dauphin there is only one town of any size, namely the town of Dauphin. Taking it on that basis, I would have expected that the committee would arrive at the conclusion that if there ought to be a larger population in one constituency than in the other, it should be in Neepawa-Portage rather than in Dauphin. I am saying this from a practical point of view. I am quite certain, incidentally, that all members, prospective members or candidates in the Dauphin area will agree with me on that basis, that adding any more to Dauphin, taking into consideration its size, the condition of the roads and so on, is not doing justice to the Dauphin constituency.
A little while ago I mentioned that the leader of the opposition had complained that his constituency was being amalgamated with another one, in which process a seat would be lost. My amendment which would restore Dauphin to its original boundaries and give back to Neepawa the two rows of townships which have been offered to Dauphin, would be one step toward restoring the constituency of Neepawa. If the other members would be willing to give up what they have taken away, then Neepawa would1 be restored to its original boundaries. However, on any basis you want to look at it, that of population or any other, I believe there is no argument that Dauphin should be given this piece of territory which might be referred1 to as a knob, as the hon. member for Lake Centre described it in his own case. It does not fit into the Dauphin constituency on the basis of community interest, as was argued by the chairman of the Manitoba committee. I have done some investigating on that score, and I find that the people in that part of the Neepawa constituency which has been added to Dauphin, which includes the towns of McCreary and LaurieT, do not do their business in the town of Dauphin. I have lived in that area all my
life, and I think I know what I am talking about. They do a certain amount of business in Neepawa and they take trips to Winnipeg, which lead them right through the cities of Neepawa and Portage la Prairie.
Another good reason why that area should not be added to Dauphin is that the eastern portion of it, that which lies along the shore of lake Manitoba, is connected by railroad to the city of Portage la Prairie. It is a branch line which runs from the city of Portage la Prairie. It is not connected by railroad in any direct way with the town of Dauphin. It is true that there is a road through to the town of McCreary, which road is only accessible during certain parts of the year. If someone were to take a trip by train from the town of Alonsa, which is near lake Manitoba, and was going to see his member of parliament in Dauphin, he would have to go to Portage la Prairie on a branch line where the train runs only three times a week, I understand, wait at Portage la Prairie for the next train, and go all the way back to Dauphin. Then he would have to come back by the same route. It would take two or three days to make the trip. My point is that it is not a sensible arrangement, and I am sure that hon. members, who have studied the map will realize that. It is for these reasons that I wish to suggest an amendment. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North:
That the schedule for Manitoba as contained in Bill No. 18, an act to readjust the representation in the House of Commons, be amended 'by deleting from section 3 (Dauphin) the following words as they appear in lines 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6.
"township twenty-one (21) in ranges ten (10) to sixteen (16) inclusive, and all the settlement lots in: township twenty-one (21) in range ten (10) township twenty-two (22) in ranges eleven (11) to sixteen inclusive; lots one (1) to twenty-four (24) inclusive of the Manitoba House settlement; and the north half of township twenty-two (22) in range seventeen (17)"; and inserting same in section 7 (Portage-Neepawa).


John Bracken: Might I ask the hon. member to give us the substance of this amendment in non-technical terms? The words he wants deleted contain the legal description of several townships, but perhaps he could say in a very few words what is the substance of the amendment. I rather gather that his proposal would restore to the constituency of Neepawa certain townships in the northern section of the constituency which under the present arrangement have been allocated to the constituency of Dauphin. Would the hon. member make that clear in a brief statement?
Redistribution


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Briefly it means that the two rows of townships in the northern portion of what was Neepawa, lying between Riding Mountain and lake Manitoba, have been added to Dauphin. This amendment would put them back in Neepawa, leaving Dauphin with its original boundaries.


Fernand Viau: The main complaint of the hon. member seems to be that two ranges of townships at the top of what is now the constituency of Neepawa have been included in the constituency of Dauphin, and he suggests that if these two ranges were left with Neepawa that constituency would have a large enough population to form an electoral district by itself, if I understood him correctly.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: No, that is not exactly what I said. I pointed out that the population of Portage-Neepawa could be more safely increased, owing to the nature of that constituency, than the population of Dauphin. The other matter is a separate question.


Fernand Viau: According to the 1941 census, the population of Dauphin was 40,446. With this change the population will go up to 43,676. We all know that during the war period the population of Manitoba decreased. According to the provincial census of 1945, the population of Dauphin, after redistribution, will be 40,801, which will be balanced by the new constituency of Neepawa with a population of 40,408. As to transportation, the statement that the town of Laurier or the town of Ste. Rose have nothing in common with Dauphin is absolutely untrue. From Silver Creek and those towns on the west coast of lake Manitoba there are roads to the towns of McCreary and Laurier and even Ste. Rose d-u Lac. Their community interest is in the constituency of Dauphin, not in Neepawa, which is away down south. That was one of the reasons for the change, because there is that community interest.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: The hon. member made one statement which I would ask him to withdraw; I did not want to interrupt him at the time. He said a statement I had made was absolutely untrue. That is hardly the parliamentary way of saying it.


William Ross Macdonald: I am sure the hon. member meant it was incorrect.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Well, he should have said "incorrect" if that was what he meant, but he said it was untrue. However I am willing to let that go; it is perhaps a matter of opinion as between the hon. member and myself. I would merely point out that I have spent my tvhole life in the constituency of Dauphin, and

I know the situation there far better than he can know it, living in St. Boniface.
As to his second argument, all that is required is a glance at the map to show that what I have said about rail connections is perfectly true and logical. If the hon. member should ever have the misfortune to travel on a branch line and have to stay overnight to catch another train he would realize the inconvenience that will be caused by this action.
Amendment (Mr. Zaplitny) negatived on division.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I wish to be perfectly fair, and I have another amendment here which I think can be adopted by the committee. If the government wants to take the position that nothing we move here'will be adopted, that is their privilege; but we have the privilege of moving amendments.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Move it.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North:
That the schedule for Manitoba as contained in Bill No. 18, an act to readjust the representation in the House of Commons, be amended by deleting from section 3 (Dauphin) the following words as they appear in lines 1, 2 and 3.
"township twenty-one (21) in ranges ten (10) to sixteen (16) inclusive, and all the settlement lots in township twenty-one (21) in range ten (10)" B and inserting same in section 7 (Portage-Neepawa) .
The import of that amendment is this. If the chairman of the Manitoba subcommittee objects to having the whole rectangular block originally taken from Neepawa and added to Dauphin restored to Neepawa, I am giving him the opportunity to put half of it back; that is, one line of townships at the southern end of the block. Surely then he cannot argue that, because of community interest, the southern half does not belong to Neepawa.


William Ross Macdonald: Shall the amendment carry?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Six o'clock.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.


William Ross Macdonald: Is the committee ready for the question?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Six o'clock.


Fernand Viau: Does the amendment mean the east half of those sections or the west half?


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: The south half would remain in Neepawa and the north half would remain in Dauphin.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Six o'clock.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.

Redistribution
After Recess
The committee resumed at seven o'clock.


@Acting Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: When the committee rose for the dinner hour it was considering an amendment moved by the hon. member for Dauphin.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: If this amendment carries, its effect will be practically to equalize the population as between the constituencies of Portage-Neepawa and Dauphin. Taking everything into consideration, I believe that this is a reasonable request to make. I believe that the amendment should be adopted by the committee, because it would obviate the necessity of my moving other amendments which I have ready.
Amendment (Mr. Zaplitny) negatived.


Fernand Viau: I have an amendment to move which is not contentious. It was discussed with the members of the subcommittee and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. It reads:
After the semicolon in line 6 of the section entitled, "16. Winnipeg South Centre" the section should read:
"Thence southerly on Colony street to the westerly projection of College place; thence easterly along the projection of College place and upon College place until said College place joins on to Ellice avenue; thence easterly along Ellice avenue to Notre Dame avenue west; thence southeasterly on Notre Dame avenue west, Portage avenue and Main street to Notre Dame avenue east, and southeasterly along Notre Dame avenue east and its projection to the city houndary."
After the semicolon in line 6 of the section entitled, "14. Winnipeg North Centre" the section should read:
"Thence southerly on Colony street to the westerly projection of College place; thence easterly along the projection of College place and upon College place until said College place joins on to Ellice avenue; thence easterly along Ellice avenue to Notre Dame avenue west; thence southeasterly on Notre Dame avenue west, Portage avenue and Main street to Notre Dame avenue east, and southeasterly along Notre Dame avenue east and its projection to the city boundary."
Amendment (Mr. Viau) agreed to.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I have another amendment to suggest. If this amendment is adopted I can assure the committee that there will be no more amendments as far as I am concerned. The effect of this amendment will be to leave that portion of new territory which is to be added to Dauphin, and which is on the western side, in the constituency of Dauphin, and to restore the eastern sector to Neepawa. There is a strong and sound argument for this, as I pointed out a while ago. The eastern 83166-363
section of the new territory has no rail connection with Dauphin, while it has a rail connection with Portage la Prairie. I have no hesitation in accepting the new territory on the basis of elections because I know the people there and have full confidence in them. It so happens that I have had something to do with elections in that part of the country. But for the convenience of the people themselves who want to be in close contact with the constituency to which they belong, I think it is only fair that this change should be made. It involves possibly fewer than 1,000 people, and it would enable these people who are situated along a small sector on the shore of lake Manitoba to have contact with their constituency. Therefore, I move:
That the schedule for Manitoba as contained in Bill No. 18, an act to readjust the representation in the House of Commons, be amended by deleting from section 3, Dauphin, all the words following the word "of" in line 1, to and including, the word "17" in line 6 and substituting the following therefor.
"Township twenty-two in ranges, fourteen, fifteen, sixteen and the north half of township twenty-two in range seventeen; township twenty-one in range fourteen, fifteen and sixteen "


Stanley Howard Knowles: I should like to say a word on this third amendment which the hon. member for Dauphin has moved. I realize that the proper thing to do is to address my remarks to the committee as a whole, but in this instance I shall direct my appeal to the hon. member for St. Boniface who was the chairman of the Manitoba subcommittee and who seems to be the key person in connection with the Manitoba schedule. He knows, and the members of the redistribution committee, know that, although we argued at length, we reached a substantial measure of agreement, but we agreed also to disagree on certain points. So far as my attitude as a member of that subcommittee was concerned, there were three points concerning which I was in strong disagreement.
A week or so after the report was made, the hon. member for St. Boniface proposed a change which took care of one of the points about which there was disagreement. Another point had to do with the boundary fine between Winnipeg North and Winnipeg North Centre. I still feel that that is unfair, but I know the attitude of hon. members across the way and for the moment I am not saying anything about that. But I feel that the situation with respect to the line between Dauphin and Portage-Neepawa is one concerning which the hon. member for St. Boniface might see his way clear to agree.
The whole question revolves around a small rectangle at the northern end of the former

Redistribution

constituency of Neepawa which has been taken off that constituency and added to Dauphin. The hon. member has asked in his three amendments that either the whole of that be put back into Dauphin, or that it be cut one way or the other. He has given reasons for the desirability of the change. I think it would make for good relationships so far as the Manitoba situation is concerned if the hon. member for St. Boniface would agree to this change. I want to say that I felt that he made a fair statement this afternoon as to the work of the Manitoba committee, particularly to the extent to which he took full responsibility for the original map that was drawn andi the way in which the work of that committee was conducted. I urge him to agree to this change. I point out that the figures we were working on showed Dauphin as it was set out in the schedule to be one of the largest ridings in rural Manitoba, despite the fact that it is in the northern part of the province where accessibility is not as great as in other parts of the province. This afternoon my hon. friend gave figures which were a surprise to me because they did not coincide with figures given in the committee. I discussed1 that with him at suppertime, and he told me that the figures he gave this afternoon were figures for the 1946 census. On other occasions we have been told we had to stick to the 1941 census figures. On the basis of those 1941 figures, the constituency of Dauphin as it stands in the schedule is really larger than it should be. I hope the hon. member for St. Boniface will agree to this compromise.


Fernand Viau: I am not the authority to do that. The committee of the whole has the authority with respect to any changes that it wishes to be made concerning not only the constituency of Dauphin but any other constituency. In reply to the argument brought forward by the hon. member for Dauphin and his colleague the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, all I can say with respect to the work done by the subcommittee is that certain concessions were made in the subcommittee, and those concessions were made only to the C.C.F. party. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre knows very well why the line of Dauphin was brought down two ranges of townships. That was my first line from the very start, and it was finally agreed that it should remain as such.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre himself claimed a certain section of the suburbs of Winnipeg. My intention was to confine the seats of Winnipeg within the city boundaries. I made a concession to

Portage-Neepawa in respect of an area west of the town of Portage la Prairie, which is an old historic part and known as a Conservative area. Naturally, as Neepawa was extended west of the town of Portage la Prairie, it was only fair that the northern part of Neepawa should be reduced to balance things up.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I submit that the hon. member for,St. Boniface is hardly on the beam when he puts this on the basis of concessions one way or the other. The whole argument should be on the merits of the case. The hon. member is talking nonsense when he argues that there is any relationship between the boundary of Neepawa in northwest Manitoba and the boundary of Winnipeg North Centre down in the metropolitan area. The fact of the matter is that the requests that Brooklands remain in Winnipeg North Centre is based on the same argument that applies to the northern part of Neepawa, namely a community of interest.
As for the hon. member's statement that he tried1 in the redistribution committee to confine all the Winnipeg seats within the city of Winnipeg, that argument is, of course, vitiated by the case of Winnipeg South, which includes parts of three or four municipalities outside the city of Winnipeg. I submit that the amendment before us stands entirely on its own feet and that it should be agreed to.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: The hon. member for St. Boniface has made a statement which I do not think should be allowed to pass. He has used the word "concession" and makes it appear that by this amendment I am asking for a concession from the subcommittee or the committee of the whole. I wish to state clearly that I am asking for no concessions. I am simply asking for what is reasonable and just for that constituency, and if the government feel that this is a concession I do not want it, and they can vote down the amendment.


Fernand Viau: The concession was not made to Dauphin but to Winnipeg North Centre because the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre wanted to assure himself of a good seat in the city of Winnipeg.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Let us not have sheer nonsense like that in this debate. The constituency of Winnipeg North Centre has never in all its history returned anyone but a Labour or C.C.F. member. In the last election the majority was something over 10,000, and all opponents of the C.C.F. lost their deposits. The hon. member for St. Boniface has added to Winnipeg North Centre out of Winnipeg North the seven best C.C.F.

Redistribution
polls in Winnipeg North, so that if anybody is trying to make Winnipeg North Centre a safe seat it is the chairman of the subcommittee. That reminds me of an expression of Sir John A. Macdonald's about hiving votes. This is a case of trying to hive C.C.F. votes in Winnipeg North Centre, which is completely unnecessary.
Amendment (Mr. Zaplitny) negatived: yeas, 32; nays, 65.
Manitoba schedule as amended agreed to.
On the schedules-British Columbia.


Mr. CRUICKSHANK:: Mr. Chairman, I did not intend to get into this, but my name has been brought into it by the hon. member for Vancouver South. I have a suggestion to make in regard to redistribution in British Columbia. I should like to see all the Liberals put into one riding, the one Cruickshank represents. My colleague the hon. member for Vancouver North who represented British Columbia on the committee is unfortunately not able to be present tonight.


An hon. MEMBER:: Where is he?


George Alexander Cruickshank: For certain reasons he has been called home, for very good reasons of which any family man should be proud, although some people may not appreciate that.
I understand that the only amendment to British Columbia constituencies concerns Kamloops. I have a great deal of admiration for the hon. member for Vancouver South. He spoke very kindly about me yesterday and I quite agree with his words of appreciation. I point out to the hon. member for Vancouver South that the Liberal member representing British Columbia on that committee received only one set of instructions, if you call them that, and that was toi bring about a redistribution which would be in the best interests of that province for all the people in all the ridings, and I defy contradiction of that statement from anyone.
I do not know whether the hon. member for Vancouver South drives a car. I do not think he does. But I point out to him that in my riding I have to cover an area three hundred miles long and thirty miles wide by car all the time. The hon. member for Vancouver South can cross his riding in a streetcar for six cents, and do it in ten minutes. Make no mistake about that. In ten minutes a person can ride all over the ridings in Vancouver. Take the riding of Cariboo. Did you ever go to Cariboo; did you ever see it?


Humphrey Mitchell: Who wants to.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I did.
83166-363J


George Alexander Cruickshank: The only possible way that the hon. member for Cariboo can get over his riding is by aeroplane, and that would take the full indemnity of $6,000. Our instructions or advice to our members was purely and simply that we wanted to be fair to the province of British Columbia, and the hon. member for Kamloops will admit that. I am losing a certain portion of my riding, and I said to the hon. member for Kamloops I would just as soon keep that portion of my riding because it is a splendid portion; is that not correct?


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is correct.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I would be glad to keep it. I am losing it because it is not in the best interest of the province or of my riding to have it retained in my riding. It is a little section away up in the end of the riding that divides one portion from the other portion. It should be in Kamloops. The hon. member for Kamloops has borne me out in my statement that I would be glad to keep that district. They were loyal to me. I am 6orry to see them go because I think they would have given me a good majority in the next election.
The hon. member for Cariboo has to cover a territory that no hon. member could possibly cover and do justice to it, even if he spent all his indemnity. That is owing to the way it is scattered. The hon. members for the city of Vancouver and for the city of Montreal can cover their ridings in a short time. In Montreal I understand they can jump over their ridings; they can jump from one end to the other. In the city of Vancouver they can get on a street-car and cover the city in five minutes, and it will cost them only six cents. We cannot do that in any other part of British Columbia. We thought of the best interests of British Columbia. Hon. members talk of their difficulties and so on, but Kamloops was one of the smallest ridings we had in British Columbia. I think it is the smallest in population. It was all covered by a main line railroad and by a main highway. We on the Liberal side have nothing to gain in this particular instance. As a matter of fact, I am afraid that I am losing because in the portion that I am losing, which is to be given to my good friend, the hon. member for Kamloops, I had a lot of supporters. If he is on his toes he may possibly have a chance to win them.
The hon. member for Vancouver South said that since he came to the house the hon. member for Kamloops is the brightest man who has come here. I thought I was, but
Redistribution

apparently the hon. member for Vancouver South does not think so. I am making these few remarks on behalf of the hon. member for Vancouver North, who unfortunately is not able to be here tonight. At no time did we try to do any political gerrymandering in this matter.
I want to point out that the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard, for whom I have the greatest admiration-I think he is one of the finest young men in the province of British Columbia, but unfortunately he is not here tonight-was the Progressive Conservative representative on that committee. In every instance the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard agreed with us andl signed his name on the dotted1 line.


Howard Charles Green: No, he did) not.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Just a minute; sometimes even a junior lawyer will speak out of turn. In the first instance, the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard1 signed his name on the dotted line in agreement with the recommendation of the committee. Then he put-


Howard Charles Green: No.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Just a minute. He put a proviso in-


Howard Charles Green: He did not agree.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Wait a minute. I have a copy of that paper. Then he put a proviso in, "with the exception of Kamloops". Is that not correct? I have a copy of that report. Do not make any mistake about that.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: You are quite right.


Mr. ARCHIBALD:: When the hon. member for Vancouver South raised his objection.


George Alexander Cruickshank: When the hon. member for Vancouver South raised his objection because he was afraid that his riding was being interfered with. He says that there is a little jog in the city of Vancouver and that that little jog may occasion him a transfer on the six-cent fare on the street-car. The hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard agreed unanimously with that report and then put the proviso in, "with the exception of Kamloops". The representative of the C.C.F. party will bear me out that I am correct in that statement.
We have heard the discussion about Van-couver-Quadra. They are adding names with which I am not familiar. I happened to be drawn into this because originally I was on the committee. At the suggestion of some hon. members I withdrew my name because my riding was not interfered with. Because I was not familiar with the ridings in Vancouver which were to be altered, I was glad to get out

of the extra work. When I hear the hon. member for Vancouver South taking up a lot of time in discussing my colleague, the hon. member for Vancouver North, and talk about Quadra and about the hon. member for Vancouver East-who is going to be hard to beat, I admit, but we have hopes even of beating him-and talk about other ridings I want to say this about Cariboo. There was absolutely no intention to interfere with that riding in a political way. We have interfered to this extent. We have interfered with it in the way which was mentioned by the minister who represents British Columbia in the house when he spoke about the Yukon. Everybody in British Columbia is entitled to representation. We did not think it would be possible for the hon. member for Cariboo to give full representation to that riding, no matter how capable he might be. The immensity of the area is such that it is impossible for one man to represent it properly. Therefore we thought a portion of it should be added to Kamloops. For that reason we suggested that a certain portion of Cariboo be taken into the Kamloops riding. I have yet to hear any complaint from any organization or any individual, either in Kamloops or in Cariboo, that this was done for political reasons.


William Henry Golding: Order. We have an amendment to this schedule. Moved by Mr. Green:
That the 'bill be amended by deleting from the schedule thereto under the heading of British Columbia all reference to the ridings of Cariboo, Fraser Valley and Kamloops, and substituting therefor the description of the said ridings as contained in the schedule to the Representation Act of 1933.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, perhaps when I spoke yesterday I was in error in saying that I thought my friend, the hon. member for Fraser Valley, would have been more fair if he had been representing the government on this redistribution committee.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Nobody could have been more fair than I would have been.


Howard Charles Green: After listening to his speech this evening, I feel that perhaps he is not quite so pure and innocent as I thought he was yesterday. However, the fact remains that I have nothing to retract of my statement yesterday in regard to the proposed change in the Kamloops riding, and the amendment which has been moved is for the purpose of leaving the boundaries of the riding as they are at the present time. That also, of course involves leaving Fraser Valley and Cariboo as they are at the present time. The Kamloops riding is already a huge riding. It took the sitting member over five

Redistribution
weeks last summer to get around to the main points in the riding and he was not going by street-ear either.


Harry Grenfell Archibald: He must have been crawling on his hands and knees.


Howard Charles Green: He was going by motor car. The hon. member for Fraser Valley has said that it is the smallest riding in. population in British Columbia. He is not correct in that statement. There are four small ridings in British Columbia all with a population in 1941 of under 33,000. Kootenay East, 25,559; Kamloops, 27,387, Skeena, 29,612, and Cariboo, 33,002. The proposal is to take about 8,000 people from the Cariboo riding, which would reduce it to 25,000 and add them to Kamloops, which would make it 35,000. That shows pretty well what is being done. On the other hand, the riding which adjoins to the south, that of Yale, has a population of 51,874. That is where the extra population should have come from to bring up the Kamloops riding, not only because Yale is so much larger than Cariboo, but also because the interests of the people of Kamloops are more closely akin to those of the people of Yale than of Cariboo. The part that has been added) now lies over a ridge of mountains. It is served by an entirely different railway, the Pacific Great Eastern, which is a British Columbia government railway; the city from which that new area gets its supplies, and with which it is most frequently in contact, is the city of Vancouver and: not the Kamloops district at all. The change is not a fair one.
Furthermore, there will be a redistribution again in 1951. British Columbia, at the present rate of growth of population, will then be entitled to several additional members, one or more of whom will have to be fitted into the interior of the province. It is likely that all the interior ridings will have to be changed and I suggest that it is unwise to make this change at the present time for a period of three or four years.
The real problem in the Cariboo is the fact that a portion of it, the Peace River district, is detached from the rest and one has to get to that district by plane from Prince George. This change now proposed does not help that situation. The change is, I believe, made for political purposes.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Oh, no.


Howard Charles Green: I say that, believing it to
be true. I do not make such statements if I do not believe them. The Liberals had a majority of 500 in this district that has been added to Kamloops, and the C.C.F. also had a majority over the Conservative. The Kamloops fight was a very close one.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: May I say publicly
to my hon. friend what I said privately to him, that as one in charge of federal Liberal activities in British Columbia I never took the slightest part in any interference with the boundaries of any constituency.


Howard Charles Green: I am not blaming the
Minister of Veterans Affairs, but I say again that this change is made for political purposes, and I know that is done. We need not try to shut our eyes to what goes on. It was made for that purpose, because the member for Kamloops got in by a small majority and this difference of 500 is more than enough to defeat him.
That sort of thing should not, I submit, be countenanced. It is most unfortunate to make an attack of this kind on a young member such as the hon. member for Kamloops, who has made such a splendid start in a public career. The hon. member for Fraser Valley has done a good job in trying to defend a bad job done by his good friends, but, no matter what he may say, I do not believe the people of my province appreciate an action of this kind, and I believe they will swing in and support the hon. member for Kamloops just because there has been this attempt to put him out of public life.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I do not know
whether the member for Kamloops has spoken on this question. I enjoy hearing him at any time, and we hear him frequently in this house. But does the hon, member for Vancouver South say that at any time I suggested that this portion of my riding be taken out of my riding and put in the Kamloops riding?


Howard Charles Green: One town is taken out of the riding of the hon. member for Fraser Valley in order to -make a straight line across the southern part.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Would that not be good business?


Howard Charles Green: A small Tory majority was got rid of when it was taken out. There is the picture. I would appeal to the Prime Minister and submit to him that this is an unfair move and one that should not be allowed to go through. I suggest that the riding be left as it has been since 1933. Actually, with the growth in population since that time, according -to the ration book figures, there are practically as many people in Kamloops as in the Cariboo riding and it has been growing quickly. I move -the amendment.


Mr. IRVINE:: I think I ought to say a few words on the amendment. I am going to oppose it. I hope the committee will believe me when I say that personally I am
Redistribution

not very much interested where ,the line runs, but I think, in fairness to the committee for British Columbia and to the main committee, I ought to make this point clear. In my opinion the change that has been proposed for the Cariboo riding is very fair indeed. I need hardly tell the committee that the two ridings of Skeena and Cariboo comprise nearly two-thirds of British Columbia. I need not tell hon. members that it is not possible for any man, in the period between sessions, to cover those ridings. It has been said that someone spent five weeks in the attempt. I spent every day from the closing of the house until Christmas eve and did not cover one-third of it, and it cost me $1,700 to do that.
The committee's job was to put two new ridings into British Columbia and to arrange the boundaries of the ridings in such a way as to be fair, having regard to population and having regard also, I presume, to territory. The fact of the matter is that the Cariboo and Skeena ridings are at the north part of British Columbia and join each other, and Skeena joins up on the other side with Comox-Albami, which is another very large riding. There was no way of taking any part from either Cariboo or Skeena except the way in which it was done. They could not take anything off Skeena and give it to Comox-Alberni because that ds big enough now. They could not take anything off Skeena and give it to Cariboo because Cariboo is big enough now. They could not take any portion off north Cariboo because that goes up to the Northwest Territories. They could not 'take any off the east side because that touches Alberta. Therefore the only place they could take any part off to equalize the situation was to take some part of the southern end of Cariboo riding.
I ask the committee whether what was done was fair and impartial, and I say that it is both fair and impartial. It has already been stated that the population of Kamloops was 27,387. Cariboo was 33,000, and I point out that in the north country, and especially along Prince George, the population has increased very rapidly in the last two or three years. I would not be surprised if it were a third more than it was at the last election.
I wish to compare the population of the rural ridings of British Columbia as they now stand under the measure as it is proposed. Kootenay East for instance, is 25,559; the new Cariboo will have 26,396; Skeena will have 29,612; new Kamloops will have 33,993, and so on. So that if you take all the rural ridings and all the semi-rural ridings in British Columbia, you will find that Kamloops has not been unduly harshly dealt with in so far as numbers are concerned; and in so far as 
territory is concerned, Kamloops is still a small riding compared with either Skeena or Cariboo. Further, I think anyone who knows the territory well will admit that the southern part of the riding which it has been proposed to put into the Kamloops riding is easily worked from the Kamloops end, and it seems to me to impose no difficulty on anybody.
I want to add just one thing more. I have great admiration for the hon. member who sits for Kamloops constituency, as I have for a great number of other young men whom I see in parliament today, in all parties in this house. I hope they will keep on coming back to parliament as long as they have something in their upper stories; and I think the hon. gentleman to whom I have referred has something there. I hope he will come back. To think that anybody would go out of his way to impose such a situation in order to keep a young man out of the house, to me seems absolutely ridiculous. I cannot imagine that either the Liberal party or any other party would stoop to such a thing as that. When I examine the facts, I really find no grounds whatever for any such accusation.
Mr. MacNICO'L: I want to say a word about this amendment, knowing the area fairly well. The riding of Kamloops and the riding of Cariboo on the last occasion-and that was in 1933-were laid out so that one riding would embrace the watershed of the Thompson river; that is, the riding of Kamloops embraces the watershed of the North Thompson and the South Thompson river and the riding of Cariboo embraces the watershed of the Fraser river. To my mind, that was the sensible way in which to lay out those two ridings with a range of mountains between them. But the way in which those ridings are now laid out according to the changes now being made, appears to me to be a violation of the principles which should guide any committee in laying out ridings. At present, in the case of Cariboo, it is in one watershed west of a range of mountains, and in the case of Kamloops it is in another watershed east of a range of mountains.
I have a good deal of sympathy with the hon. member who represents Cariboo because at the moment, as he says, he has to take a circuitous route to go from one part of his riding in order to get to the part in northeastern British Columbia which is east of the mountains up in the Fort St. John area. There are, I believe, four centres there, namely, Rolla, Pouce Coupe, Fort St. John and Dawson Creek, and one might include Hudson Hope. It does not take very long to go there, and at the moment the British Columbia gov-

Redistribution
ernment is driving a road through Pine pass which will connect all the roadways in British Columbia west of the mountains with the roadways in the northeast part of the riding of Cariboo. I would think it would only have been common sense to allow those ridings to remain as they were until the next redistribution five years hence; because, as the hon. member for Vancouver South said, British Columbia has already increased its population since 1941 sufficiently to warrant its having another two members. It is growing so rapidly that by 1951 it will likely have the right to another four members. I am glad to see British Columbia growing like that. They now have eighteen members. I presume that, after the next redistribution, they will have twenty-two members of parliament, and then all these little things can be ironed out. Why make all this change now? When the house commenced considering this question, I tried to induce it to let things stay largely as they were until the next redistribution, when the whole thing could perhaps be ironed out by a commission which will do the thing properly.


Harry Grenfell Archibald: I want to say just one word on this, inasmuch as I was the representative of this party on the redistribution committee. I should like to say that the territory which has been taken from Cariboo and attached to Kamloops geographically and economically has all in common with Kamloops. It is a cattle and sheep country.


Edmund Davie Fulton: What about the mining area at Bridge river?


Harry Grenfell Archibald: The mining area at Bridge river is just a little spot on the map which breaks the general rule. You will find that situation anywhere. I have a mining camp sitting up on the Portland canal all by its lonesome. You cannot eliminate that. But that area, taken in general, has all in common with Kamloops riding. And when redistribution takes place again, it is doubtful whether that territory will be upset inasmuch as it has that economic affinity.


An hon. MEMBER:: It has a lot of sheep, anyway.


Harry Grenfell Archibald: The hon. member for Vancouver South has attacked the hon. member for Vancouver North, saying that he had done this with political ends in view.


Howard Charles Green: I must ask for that statement to be withdrawn.


Harry Grenfell Archibald: What is the hon. member saying?


Mr. MacKINNON:: That is what the hon. member said.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes. My hon. friend used the words "political motives". I am sorry to have to remind him of that.


Howard Charles Green: No. The hon. member for Skeena said that I had political motives in view when I made that statement.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: He said that you accused others. If my hon. friend will pardon me for reminding him of it, he did say that these changes were made with political motives.


Howard Charles Green: I thought be was saying that I had political motives in raising this question.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No.


Harry Grenfell Archibald: I do not imagine that the hon. member for Vancouver North is an absolute innocent as far as dealing with his own political party is concerned. But I will say that on this committee he was frank and in the open, and we knew what the score was, right along the line. In the sittings of the committee we got along well until the hon. member for Vancouver South came back and we made adjustments because of his demands. If I had known this was coming up later, I would never have agreed to them; but just to keep peace in the family I did.


An hon. MEMBER:: The hon. member will know better next time.


An hon. MEMBER:: Blessed1 are the peacemakers.


Harry Grenfell Archibald: What I cannot understand about these representatives is this. They get up and make appeals for this individual and that individual. I am not now speaking in a detrimental fashion having regard to the hon. member for Kamloops. But one would think some of these people were ordained by the Lord to represent the people.


James Angus MacKinnon: In their own estimation.


Harry Grenfell Archibald: I think it was Bernard Shaw who said that Great Britain had plenty of brains, but they were all in the gutter. It is the people of this country who must make up their minds who shall come to this house and who shall not, and it does not matter what province they come from. A great many pages of Hansard are being taken up by hon. members speaking and praying on behalf of an individual member; and that does not go down. As far as I am concerned, it is representation by the people for the people.
Amendment (Mr. Green) negatived: Yeas, 22; nays, 76.
British Columbia schedule agreed to.
Redistribution

On the schedules-Saskatchewan.


Gordon Graydon: I do not desire to make a speech; I expect to have considerable support for that statement, in any event. This afternoon I asked the Prime Minister if, before the schedules came up, he would consider some change, which I then delineated, with respect to the constituency of Lake Centre. I take it that the Prime Minister has decided against taking any steps in that regard', but I should like to leave the door open for him to do so, if I may; and in moving this amendment I would ask him, if possible, to give support to this change. I move:
That clause No. 4 on page 51 of the Saskatchewan section of the schedule to Bill No. 18 be amended by deleting from the electoral district of Lake Centre the following township, namely No. 82 in ranges 16, 17 and 18 inclusive both west of the second meridian, and adding the said township to the electoral district of Humboldt.


Joseph William Burton: I wish to say a word on this amendment. As the bill stands at present, it gives Humboldt the largest population of any rural constituency in Saskatchewan, and by adding these townships from Lake Centre the difference between the population of those two constituencies will be made still greater. As I indicated this afternoon when I asked the hon. member for Lake Centre a question, I have many friends in the townships referred to, and they are not all of my political opinion. I believe there should foe a little balance in representation. I just want to say to those responsible for this bill that the amendment moved by the hon. member for Peel will not meet with any objection on my part. Whether these people be Liberals, Tories or members of the C.C.F., I shall be happy to have the opportunity of representing them. But on the argument presented to the effect that these townships belong geographically to Humboldt, and that they will foe better served if they are attached to that constituency, I would suggest that the hon. member for Lake Centre must be consistent and agree that township 32, ranges 21, 22, 23 and 24, which are closer to the town of Watrous, to which all communications lead and which town has 'been put into his constituency, should be added to Lake Centre. I think that would be only logical. I am not here to carry on any horse trading, but I submit that if it is logical to say that the townships enumerated by the hon. member for Peel should be in Humboldt, in spite of the fact that Humboldt already has a much larger population than Lake Centre, then it is also logical to say that those townships adjacent to the town of Watrous and Lake Centre should be taken into that constitu-
ency. Let me repeat, however, that I shall be happy to represent them, and if you want to add even a few more townships and) ranges I shall do my best.


Walter Adam Tucker: I shall not detain the committee for more than a moment. I wish to say that if the hon. member for Lake Centre had not agreed to this proposition; if he had made it clear in the subcommittee as he and his leader have made it in the house that in order for him to get back to parliament it was important that he do not have these three extra townships, I certainly would have made an additional appeal and argued further with the hon. member for Melfort. But when the hon. member for Lake Centre agreed to this compromise proposal of mine when the hon. member for Melfort, by agreeing to it too, went halfway to meet him; when this proposal meant-and as matters now stand- Humboldt was increased to 4,500 above the average for rural seats, I thought I should not line up with the hon. member for Lake Centre in favour of the present proposition, as against the hon. member for Melfort who had already gone half way to meet him in agreeing to my compromise proposal. As far as I am concerned, I have no objection whatever to the hon. member getting rid of these townships. It was a matter of what seemed fair and just. It means nothing whatever to our party; it was only an endeavour to be fair, and I thought when the hon. member signed he was satisfied. If this amendment is carried it will mean that the population of Lake Centre will be reduced to 41,100, which will be 2,400 under the average. If the schedule goes through as it is, the population of Humboldt will be 48,000, 4,500 over the average; and if the amendment is carried, the population of Humboldt will be increased by another 1,800, which will make it 6,300 over the average for rural seats. That is the situation.
Amendment (Mr. Graydon) negatived: yeas, 24; nays, 75.


Mr. McKAY:: I should like to say a few
words, of protest in so far as the Weybum seat is concerned. I would not have said anything were it not for the fact that I have received a large number of telegrams and letters from residents and organizations of the city of Weyburn protesting vigorously over the elimination of the name "Weyburn" in the new seat which is to be set up in that area. The Weybum seat was set up in 1914 and has been known as Weyburn for thirty-three years. It is now being amalgamated with Wood Mountain, and the new seat is to be known as Assiniboia.

Criminal Code
This is rather confusing because the present seat of Assdniboia is and has been for forty years east of the city of Weyburn. Outside of the fact that it is confusing, it seems to me that this is great discrimination against the city of Weyburn. That city has been quite favourably known in Canada. It was the seat of the South Saskatchewan regiment and it is the most active and influential city in southern Saskatchewan. Several seats in the province carry the names of towns, such as Melfort, Kindersley and Rosthern, towns smaller than Weyburn. The name "Weyburn" means a lot to these people, both city and district, and they consider that it should receive better consideration.
I have a feeling of affection for the name "Assiniboia", because as a boy I was brought up in that area. I believe the name ought to be perpetuated, but I would draw the attention of the committee to the fact that it is being preserved in the town of Assiniboia, over 100 miles west of Weyburn. That is a thriving and progressive town bearing the name of the original territory and it does honour to that name. I do not think it is necessary to eliminate the Weyburn seat in so far as the name is concerned. I should have liked to see a hyphenated name with "Wey-bum" part of it. Since Wood Mountain is to be a part of the new seat, I would suggest Weyburn-Wood Mountain as an acceptable name.
I urge the committee to give this matter some consideration. We have a number of hyphenated names in Canada which are well known, and I would refer to Hastings-Peter-borough and other such constituencies. In fairness to the city of Weyburn, I should like to see the name of that city forming at least part of the name of the constituency being set up under the present redistribution.
Saskatchewan schedule agreed to.
Alberta schedule agreed to.
Yukon Territory and district of Mackenzie of the Northwest Territories schedule agreed to.
On the preamble.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: In connection with the
schedule for Quebec, my attention has just been drawn to the fact that a word has been left out on page 34, paragraph 73. This should read "Verdun-La Salle".


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Bill reported.

[Stage Direction]
Twelfth report of the standing committee on banking and commerce.-Mr. Cleaver.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Mr. Speaker, there was a matter upon which we had a free conference with the Senate and on which I should like to make a report to the house. On behalf of the managers of the House of Commons to the free conference with the managers of the Senate with respect to Bill No. 364, to amend the criminal code, I should1 like to present the following report:
Your managers beg to report that they duly held a conference with the managers appointed by the Senate with respect to the amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 364 of the House of Commons, intituled: "An Act to amend the criminal code," and that the managers of the Senate have agreed to recommend that the Senate amendments two and fifteen be amended to read as follows:
1.	Delete amendment number two of the Senate and substitute the following therefor:
"2. Delete all the words in section 222B after the word 'one,' in line twenty-four, to and inclusive of the word 'otherwise' in line twenty-eight and substitute the following:
'not being in a dwelling house, who causes a disturbance in or near any street, road, highway, restaurant, railway station, public library, tavern, billiard hall, theatre, shop or other place to which members of the public are admitted, whether as a matter of right or otherwise'."
2.	Delete amendment number fifteen of the Senate and substitute the following therefor:
"15. Delete paragraph (d) of clause 7, on page 3, lines twenty-four to twenty-eight inclusive, and substitute the following:
'(d) if he uses or has upon his person any weapon during or at the time of the commission or attempted commission by him of any of the offences in this section mentioned or the flight of the offender upon the commission or attempted commission thereof, and death ensues as a consequence of its use'."
I realize that it would be unreasonable to expect the house to understand the purport of these amendments, so that perhaps I had better just present the report and then, later on in the evening, move that the amendments agreed to in the free conference with the Senate be concurred in.


Major James William Coldwell: I submit that it is highly improper for these amendments to be offered without our knowing their significance. I think hon. members should be given an opportunity of seeing what are the results of the conference. I do not want to delay the pro-
J. G. Allardyce

gress of the house, but I think we should wait until tomorrow until we have had an. opportunity of reading these amendments.


James Lorimer Ilsley: My motion can stand, and I will move it tomorrow at eleven o'clock. In the meantime hon. members will have an opportunity of studying the amendments.



TRANSPORT COMMISSIONERS


[Stage Direction]
Hon. LIONEL CHEVRIER (Minister of Transport) moved the second reading of Bill No. 455, to extend the term of office of a transport commissioner.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time ind the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.
On section 1-Commissioner to continue to hold office for not more than one year.
Gordon Knapman Fraser: Does this affect only one commissioner?


Mr. CHEVRIER:: That is right.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Just Mr. Justice Stone, and only for one year?


Lionel Chevrier: Not exceeding one year. Section agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed. SUPPLY



CASE OF J. G. ALLARDYCE-STATEMENT OF MR. HARKNESS

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Veterans Affairs) moved that the house go into committee of supply.
Mr. D. S. HARKNESS (Calgary East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the indulgence of the house to discuss briefly a matter which I have been requested to raise and which I shall have no other opportunity to bring before the house. I would not raise it at this late hour of the session if I did not think an important principle were at stake, the principle of under what circumstances and to what extent the Canadian government should protect Canadian citizens and their interests in foreign countries.
The case is that of John George Allardyce, a Canadian soldier who. served five years overseas. At the time he left for overseas he had a wife and son two years old. During the time he was overseas his wife became involved with a United States soldier stationed in Calgary, which is Allardyce's home town. 
When he returned from overseas he telephoned or wired from Halifax that he would arrive home at a certain time. The day before he arrived in Calgary his wife took the child and left for the United States. His information was that she was subsequently joined by the United States soldier. All his efforts to trace his wife and son proved abortive. He was particularly interested in getting back his son, who was then some seven years of age. The United States army would give no information as to the whereabouts of the soldier.
A short time ago Allardyce was served with a notice that divorce proceedings had been entered against him in the city of Seattle. Upon receiving this notice he took legal advice. He was in no position financially to go to Seattle to fight the divorce case, and if he had fought it, it would have done him no good so far as getting back his son was concerned. Therefore he or his solicitor wrote to the Department of External Affairs in Ottawa asking if they would request the United States government to take steps to have this man's son, who was a Canadian, of course, returned to Canada. The Department of External Affairs refused to take any action in the matter. This is a copy of the letter which they sent in reply:
I have received your letter of June 11, 1947, regarding this case. I regret to inform you that there is no ground on which the Canadian government could properly intervene with the United States government.
This is essentially a private civil dispute and, although we sympathize with Mr. Allardyce, I am afraid that his only recourse is to proceed in the appropriate court in the United States.
If Mrs. Allardyce had removed the child to another province of Canada or to another part of the British commonwealth, the position would be exactly the same. Mr. Allardyce would have to proceed in the courts in that place.
Even if the entry of the child into the United States were contrary to the immigration laws of the United States, that is not a matter about which , this government can complain. If the United States authorities do not choose to deport the child to Canada, we could not properly ask them to do so.
I am sorry that we cannot give you any helpful advice or encouragement, but the fact is that the government cannot properly intervene in private civil disputes.
Yours sincerely,
L. B. Pearson,
Under-Secretary of State for External Affairs
I have discussed this matter with the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. St. Laurent) ; and I must say that he appeared to me, to begin with, to be disturbed over this situation whereby a man who had served his country overseas and lost his son as a result of that service could be given no help to

J. G. Allardyce
regain custody of his son. It seems to me that the government has a responsibility in cases of this kind. If this man had been home in Canada he would have been able to protect his own interests; the case would have been an ordinary civil dispute, and there would possibly have been no question of the government's intervening on his behalf.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Where did this happen?


Douglas Scott Harkness: At Calgary, Aliberta, while he was overseas serving in the army in defence of this country. In view of that fact, it seems to me that the dominion government has a responsibility to do its utmost to have the child returned to the father. All that was requested was that the government, through the Department of External Affairs, request the United States government to have his child returned. That letter indicates that the request was refused. It seems to me that for a man in this situation, away on service and not able to protect his own interests, that is not good enough.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: If I may interrupt, has this matter been taken up with the Department of Veterans Affairs?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Not to my knowledge, unless it was taken up 'by Allardyce himself at the veterans affairs branch in Calgary. The course which he followed was to 'take it up with the Department of External Affairs, which deals with foreign countries.
There comes to my mind immediately the case which the Secretary of State for External Affairs brought up in the house two or three weeks ago, the case of the wife of Mr. Power, a Russian lady whom the Russian government refused1 to allow to come to Canada. I think the Department of External Affairs acted very properly in its efforts to get the Russian government to have that man's wife returned. But I think the case of this soldier who has lost his son really as a result of being overseas and not being home to protect his interests is an even stronger case, and one which there should be more reason for the Department of External Affairs to take up and attempt to have straightened out.
I do not want to take an undue amount of time on this case, but I should like to read one or two extracts from a letter which I received in connection with the matter, to show that there 'is strong feeling over it. This letter states:
There was a time when a Canadian who thought himself wronged in another country could invoke the aid of the British embassy and proper representations were made-no man was refused because of lack of wealth or prominence in life. The American embassies do not hesitate to assert the just claims of citizens of the United States. In Canada we have established our own diplomatic service which appears to have thrown over the British tradition in this respect without adopting the American. Surely our relations with the United States are not so unfriendly that representations on behalf of this man, who has served his country so faithfully in war, would be resented!
I think that is the case. I do not .think the United States government would resent for a moment representations made on behalf of a man who finds himself in this unfortunate situation.
The letter continues:
This young man is quite unable, financially, to go to Seattle to fight for the custody of his child in the courts there. Canada quite rightly refuses to adopt any system of easy divorce but is it not rather hypocritical for us to take this stand and at the same time facilitate an American soldier, who was stationed in Canada during the war, taking the child of a Canadian soldier who, because of service overseas, was unable to protect the child.
I should like to make a plea to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, to the government and to .the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Mackenzie) to interest themselves in this case, to make representations to the United States government to have this child returned .to its proper custodian who in this case, I am sure every hon. member will agree, is his father.
Right Hon. HAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Veterans Affaire): I wish to say just one word. I shall be glad .to cooperate in the fullest degree, but this is the first time I have heard a word about .this particular case. As soon as I got the particulars from my hon. friend, I shall be glad to discuss it with my colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, to see what can be done.
Motion (Mr. Mackenzie) agreed to, and the house went into committee of supply, Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: May I call one item in legislation just .to get it in. It is the Speaker's vote. It is the custom in the last few days of the session to have it permitted with the consent of the committee. I should like to oall item 120 and have it stand, and then we shall proceed with the Department of Labour. I am requesting this purely for the purpose of getting the item in. I give assurance now that the admission of this item will not deter or retard or impair in the slightest degree the opportunities of any hon. member who may wish to bring up any grievances before the session concludes.


Mr. ADAMSON:: Will the minister say what estimates are to come up after labour?
Supply-Labour


Mr. HOWE:: Reconstruction.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I shall be glad to give the list as far as I can. First of all, labour; then, not necessarily in this order, reconstruction and supply, finance, trade and commerce, national revenue with related departments. While I am putting legislation in now, it is purely for the purpose of the record; then veterans affairs and the Prime Minister's office. I think that pretty well covers the list of departments which are outstanding at the present time. I want to make that assurance most definite; putting legislation into supply tonight does not in the slightest degree impair the right of any criticism on any day of the week.


John Bracken: These departments are all you want us to finish tonight.



LEGISLATION

[Stage Direction]
120. General administration, $269,088.
Item stands.

[Stage Direction]
115. Administration, including expenditures incurred in connection with the activities of the national employment service as delegated by the Minister of Labour in accordance with section 88 of the act, $19,160,280.
Humphrey Mitchell: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, asked a question about the directives to unemployment insurance offices, and the hon. member for Vancouver East asked a question last night about the number of insured persons. I said that in 1947 the number was 2,600,000. I spoke from memory. The number was 2,580,754, which is approximately 2,600,000. He also asked what the number of insured was in 1946. It is 2,355,166. I now table the answers to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre's question.


William Ross Macdonald: It has been drawn to my attention that there is no provision for tabling documents in committee. The minister should wait until the Speaker is in the chair.


Humphrey Mitchell: Then I shall do it tomorrow morning.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Table it in the morning
as a sessional paper.


Humphrey Mitchell: The hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Jackman) asked me a question about the vacancies in agriculture. As reported as of July 3, 1947, they are as follows: maritimes, 108; Ontario, 1,926; Quebec, 529; prairies, 596; Pacific, 71; total for Canada, 3,230.


Mr. BENTLEY:: I have a number of union men and labour men in my constituency, in spite of the fact that it is largely a farming area. Many of them are concerned with some of the operations of the Unemployment Insurance Act. I do not know that the minister can do anything about the main complaint which is that when a person becomes unemployed because of physical inability to carry out such duties as railroading he does not come under unemployment insurance. That is part of the act, is it not? Unless there was an amendment to the act I do not suppose that that could be changed.


Humphrey Mitchell: That is correct.


Thomas John Bentley: But there is another feature to it, and I think there should be some way of getting around it. When a man becomes unemployed because there is no employment in his line of work and he cannot get a similar job he draws unemployment insurance. We will say that he draws it for two or three weeks at the appointed rate, and then he gets a cold or pneumonia and is confined to his bed. His wife goes down to draw the unemployment insurance; immediately he is considered unemployed because he is sick, and he cannot draw the unemployment insurance. Even though there is still no job, he actually loses his employment in the regular way under the act, but before he gets a new job he becomes ill, and then he is ill under the act and is unable to collect. Could not something be done about that situation?


Humphrey Mitchell: Not without an amendment to the act. He has to be available for employment. That is the act.


Eric Bowness McKay: I have a question which is along the same line. I understand that the Canadian Pacific railway and Canadian National railway shop men are pensionable at the age of sixty-five. I understand, too, that at that age, if they have not contributed to a pension fund they will get $30 a month. I wish the minister would say whether or not, if at that age they are receiving $30 a month pension and they are quite prepared to take on other employment and cannot obtain a job, will they still be able to take unemployment benefits?


Humphrey Mitchell: That is the act and the regulations. Notwithstanding the fact they get superannuation at sixty-five, if they are fit and available for work they are entitled to unemployment insurance.


Eric Bowness McKay: They would be entitled to it?


Humphrey Mitchell: Yes.

Supply-Labour


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask the minister whether, on the basis of reports from the advisory committees and the people who are involved in the administration of this act, any study is being given to broadening its base? I am not going into all the arguments that we have had in the past about the desirability of a more over-all scheme. I should simply like to ask whether consideration or study is being given to broadening its base?


Humphrey Mitchell: If my hon. friend remembers, some time ago we took the lumbering and logging people of British Columbia within the provisions of the act. Study is being made, I think, at the moment in that particular industry to apply it right across the dominion. I think my hon. friend knows my view with reference to coverage. Anything that I can do to help along complete coverage I shall certainly do.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I appreciate what the
minister has said about broadening the base in the direction of including more groups of people in it. I also had in mind broadening the base until it becomes a scheme of insurance to cover some of the other things besides unemployment such as ill health and other matters over which a person has no control. I mean moving in the direction of the overall kind of scheme they have in the United Kingdom.


Humphrey Mitchell: My hon. friend knows
there has been a discussion about health insurance in this house during the last two or three years. In the Dominion of Canada as in all countries where you have this system of social questions, in Great Britain, for instance, health insurance is in a class by itself, unemployment is in a class by itself and I hope that at some time we shall establish in the Dominion of Canada a system of health insurance.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister knows
that very recently these various schemes in the United Kingdom have been brought within the purview of one social insurance act. What we have in the unemployment insurance scheme in Canada is the best basis of anything actually in existence on which to build. I hope the minister is not satisfied with the studies of this matter being made in other departments, but will see to it that in his department there will be a study for the purpose of broadening the base of this legislation.	*


Humphrey Mitchell: You do not want
duplication.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is right; I want
one over-all security act.


Humphrey Mitchell: If my hon. friend ever gets to this side, heaven forbid-


Stanley Howard Knowles: We have heard that
before.


Humphrey Mitchell: -he will find that it is enough to run one big department. I can assure him that the Minister of National Health and Welfare is capable of making that study, instead of having two departments trying to do it at the same time.


Thomas John Bentley: In the event of a man
who has been working on a job for a number of years and paying into the unemployment insurance fund until he reaches seventy, deciding at that age that he wants the old age pension, will he be eligible then for both old age pension and sufficient unemployment insurance to bring him up to the $50 prescribed for the single man under the Old Age Pensions Act, assuming that he has contributed all this life to the unemployment insurance fund?


Humphrey Mitchell: If he is available for work the first consideration will be unemployment insurance. If he is not available for work, then of course the old age pension comes into operation.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Demobilization and reconversion-
516. Payments to the provinces under agreements respecting assistance to vocational schools, including undischarged commitments of previous years, $2,000,000.
Mr. CASTLEDEN:: Will the minister
explain this item? The amount last year was $2,500,000, and this year it is $2 million.


Humphrey Mitchell: i Does the hon. member wish to have the figures by provinces?


George Hugh Castleden: Yes, and the balance due. There seems to be a duplication of figures. Item 113 relates to payments to the provinces under agreements including undischarged commitments of previous years.


Humphrey Mitchell: Item 113 is for youth training.


George Hugh Castleden: And in item 114 there are expenses of vocational training.


Humphrey Mitchell: We took that up last night.


George Hugh Castleden: I understood the minister to say it was under the same act.


Humphrey Mitchell: Under the same conditions. The hon. member will see a number of votes that are almost identical. That is something which has grown up out of a pre-war and war condition. I am having a study made to consolidate the whole of the votes and

Supply-Labour
operations in connection with training in a general way. That is being undertaken at the present time.


Thomas John Bentley: Next year in the estimates they will be consolidated?


Humphrey Mitchell: Yes, but not without consultation with the provinces.


George Hugh Castleden: Will the minister be good enough to put those figures on Hansard.


Humphrey Mitchell: Yes.


Mr. HAZEN:: There is also provision under item 519 for a dominion contribution toward replacement by a province or municipality of machinery used in war emergency training, and so on. Will the minister tell us how that money was distributed by provinces?


Humphrey Mitchell: The statement is as follows:



VOCATIONAL. SCHOOLS ASSISTANCE AGREEMENT

[Stage Direction]
Year ended March 31, 1947
-	Dominion allotments 1946-7	Claims paid to April 30, 1947		Total approximate Dominion contributions approved to April 30, 1947 including annual grants
		For previous year	For 1946-47	
Prince Edward Island		$ 50,300 257,690 222,600 1,551,220 1,498,450 332,100 431,360 353,860 302,420	$ cts. 40,300 00 22,324 71	$ cts. 45,000 06 28,024 37 71,035 99 461,498 47 589,000 00	$ 93,500 617.000 133.000 3.220.000 1.178.000 10,000 118.000 471.000 240.000
Nova Scotia					
New Brunswick					
Quebec			133,963 78 579,000 00		
Ontario					
Manitoba					
Saskatchewan			15,530 32 90,003 21 70,356 88	31,513 71 154,349 75 107,853 16	
Alberta					
British Columbia					
Dominion					
	5,000,000	951,478 87	1,488,275 51	6,080,500
				
Item agreed to.
Demobilization and reconversion-
BBS. Wartime labour relations board, $19,500.
Stanley Howard Knowles: What are the reasons for the decrease in this item? This is the wartime labour relations board and the decrease is considerable. I wonder if something more of the wartime labour relations board should' not be kept in existence in anticipation of the Canada labour relations board some time next year.


Humphrey Mitchell: My hon. friend will understand that during the war I more or less had jurisdiction over the provincial iepartments of labour with respect to labour relations. In each province there was set tp a labour relations board. With the end of the war, and the province assuming their own jurisdiction, these provincial boards will be carried under their own jurisdiction and at their own expense. This vote is merely for the Canada labour relations board. That is a national labour board.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Demobilization and reconversion-
528. To provide for transfer of labour to and from places where employment is available in agriculture and industry and expenses incidental thereto,_ $550,090, National Employment Service
now included in normal estimates under employment insurance act-administration, $11,538,150.
Mr. POULIOT:: Will the minister give definite instructions so that forms will be sent out in both languages to the offices of Montreal, Quebec and other cities where there are people speaking both languages?


Humphrey Mitchell: My hon. friend mentioned that to me the other day. My organization is very cautious about that. It has run out of forms owing to the swamp of work at the printing bureau. There has been some delay in the delivery of forms but, as far as my department is concerned, the request-will receive prompt attention when we get the forms.


Jean-François Pouliot: I understand that the minister's instructions to that effect are definite?


Humphrey Mitchell: Absolutely.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Supply-Labour
Annuities Act
[Stage Direction]
75$. To authorize payment after as well as before the end of the current fiscal year out of the government annuities fund in discharge of obligations under annuity contracts issued prior to the first day of January, 1947 and purporting to have been so issued or amended under the government annuities act and ratified by the governor in council, $1.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the minister explain this?


Humphrey Mitchell: Contracts were made by certain individuals with the annuities branch over a number of years, and the Department of Justice is not satisfied that they can comply with the law. There is no charge to the treasury. The money has been paid in; the obligation is there and will be met with the passage of this vote. It is a nominal vote of $1.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Were these cases of lost survivor contracts with a guaranteed period?


Humphrey Mitchell: Yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is consideration being given to amending the annuities act to reinstate that kind of contract?


Humphrey Mitchell: Consideration is being given.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Demobilization and reconversion-
916. To provide for expenses that may (be incurred in the arranging for and the movement of workers from outside Canada to work on farms and other essential industry in Canada where Canadian labour is not available to meet the need-further amount required, $500,000.
George Hugh Castleden: On what basis is the decision made by the government as to whether or not they will advance these expenses? The second question is, are these expenses a loan to the imported labour directly, or is that to the firm? Is payment made to the firm and is it being recovered in every case?


Humphrey Mitchell: J might say to my hon. friend that it deals with the entry of these Polish soldiers into Canada and also people from the camps in Germany and Austria. With regard to the Polish veterans, of whom 4,527 have come to Canada, the British government paid the fares to the Canadian port of entry and the Canadian government paid the fares to the place of employment. In connection with the placement of the Polish veterans, particularly the farmers, my hon. friend must understand that we feel it is our obligation to pay the fare of these Polish veterans to the place of employment, because the placement is done on an individual basis under the jurisdiction of my department. With regard
to displaced persons the International Refugee Organization pays the transportation costs to the Canadian port of entry. The employer pays transportation costs from the port of entry to destination of employment on the understanding that he may charge it back to the displaced person if this person does not remain in his employment for a specific period of time, which is about ten to twelve months.


George Hugh Castleden: I take it that it is not the policy of the department to collect this money from the mining companies or the lumbering companies?


Humphrey Mitchell: Yes, it is.


George Hugh Castleden: Does the department pay this to the company?


Humphrey Mitchell: A revolving fund is required to meet the situation until we are able to collect from the companies concerned.


George Hugh Castleden: It is being collected?


Humphrey Mitchell: Absolutely.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Demobilization and reconversion-
568. Departmental administration, $1,989,208.
Mr. WEBB:: We have heard a good deal about War Assets Corporation. That being the case, I think it would be interesting for the committee and the country to know a little bit about the accounting of this corporation. I think it would also be interesting to know if there is any possibility of this corporation, as it were, going out of existence within the near future. I should also like to get some idea of the number of people in the employ of the corporation at the present time, and also whether the corporation as it now exists really justifies its existence.


Clarence Decatur Howe: War Assets Corporation is still quite active. Up to the first of June its sales were running at a rate in excess of $10,000,000 a month, which is not small change in the view of this government. Sales in the month of June were, I believe, $7,300,000. It is likely that sales will continue at that level perhaps for the balance of the year.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: What were the sales a year ago?


Clarence Decatur Howe: They were running about $20,000,000 to $25,000,000 a month. Total recovery to date is something in excess of $400,000,000, I beilieve; and a considerable volume of material remains to be disposed of.


George Robert Webb: What about the number of employees at 'the present time?

Supply-Reconstruction and Supply


Clarence Decatur Howe: Roughly, there are eight thousand employees. The number is dropping as we are able 'to close warehouses. As we can liquidate the contents of a warehouse now, the warehouse is closed and disposed of; and, of course, the men employed in the warehouse are dispensed with.


George Robert Webb: The numbers are dropping?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The numbers are dropping quite rapidly. The peak employment was something over 10,000. The staff .is dropping. The cost of sales is quite reasonable, running about thirteen per cent of the gross.


John Bracken: Has 'the minister ever put on record the amount of money which went into war equipment of all kinds during the war period? Has he ever given an estimate of how much was left when the war was over? Has he ever told the 'house how much of it has been declared surplus and thereby been made available for sale? Has he ever given a statement as to how much has been sold in each of the years since .the war has been over? Has he in mind the amount that is still available for possible future sale or other use? Those are a good many questions to ask at one time, but they ask for information which I think the country would like .to have. I suggest that, to the extent .the minister oan do so, he might try to get .that information before his estimates are finished.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is difficult .to say what is the value of the material supplied to the Canadian army. I presume that is what my hon. friend is interested in. It will be recalled that in this country we made material which went to the British allies; it went to Australia; it went to the United States. Perhaps the Department of National Defence could give the value of the material which went to them, but the Department of Munitions and Supply would be unable to do so. They had material manufactured and delivered it as instructed. In some cases .the supply line to the Canadian troops would be a British supply line, as it was in Italy. In other cases it might be a Canadian supply line. The Department of Munitions and Supply would not have that information. The material was allocated by ihe munitions allocations committee. That committee was made up of the United Kingdom, the United States and Canada. Our production was placed before the committee, and it was allocated on the basis of need. If it was allocated to the United States, the United States paid for the material. If it was allocated to the United Kingdom, it was either paid for or charged to mutual aid. If it was 
allocated to Canada, .it was paid for by .the Canadian government. It is difficult to put a value on used material. If it was built for war, it was used for war and was returned here in such condition as it may have been in; or perhaps it never left Canada but was used for training purposes.
Aeroplanes are a case in point. An aeroplane may have cost $200,000 to build. It may be worth nothing for civilian purposes. For example, there is the Mosquito aircraft which cost, I think, something in excess of $200,000. There is no sale for it as a post-war aeroplane. There are a great number of them in store. Some fine day we shall take out the engines and all the parts which are worth salvaging, and destroy the rest. Aeroplane recovery is, I should think, in the vicinity of one or two per cent. In some materials it runs to perhaps sixty or seventy per cent, and in other materials it runs to 100 per cent. But there is no pattern of recovery in materials now. Whether it will be possible to obtain the figures which my hon. friend wants, I cannot say; but we shall certainly read this question in Hansard and submit the figures as best we can.
Another case in point is called to my attention by my officials, namely, that of the tank which cost $90,000 to build, when scrapped, it produces thirty tons of scrap which sells at $15 a ton. That is an indication of the salvage which can be expected from a war machine which has no peace-time value.


John Bracken: I believe the information I requested would be of great public interest, but I quite appreciate that the minister could not be expected to give the answers now. Can he say, through the use of figures or in any other way, what amount of this equipment already has been declared surplus; what are the revenues for each of the fiscal periods since the war, and any approximation of what amount the country will recover through what may yet be declared surplus and sold?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Recoveries so far have been as follows:
April 1-July 11, 1944	 $	390,996
July 12, 1944-March 31, 1945 _________ 9,116,131
April 1, 1945-March 31,1946	 124,878,369
April, May, June, 1946	 70,626,707
July, August, September, 1946 ...	61,057,707
October, November, December,
1946	 52,358,313
January, February, March, 1947..	39,238,681
I have not the figure for April, May and June of this year, but it will be approximately $25,000,000.


John Bracken: Has the minister made any computation showing what revenues are likely yet to be received?

Supply-Reconstruction and Supply


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is difficult to forecast the further amount that may be declared surplus. The practice of War Assets Corporation is not to take account of any material that it has not in store. In other words, after the declaration is made we can assess the possibilities in regard to the material we have; but each month we obtain more material. We consider it fairly safe to say we expect to realize another 850,000,000, which would bring the grand total to well over $450,000,000.


John Bracken: That would be recoverable over the next year or two?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes; certainly over the next year.


John Bracken: Has the department ever made an estimate as to the percentage oi recovery, taking the original cost of this equipment and what the state derives from its sale?


Clarence Decatur Howe: We do not keep a record of original costs. It is too difficult to trace back and1 ascertain the original costs. I think we would have to give the estimate by categories. As I say in aeroplanes, which represent a very large part of the war expenditures, the recovery is almost nothing. Tanks are in the same category. However, from the war equipment which was surplus to the Canadian army when it stopped fighting we expect to recover some-think in excess of $450,000,000.


John Bracken: I have just one other observation, and perhaps the Minister of Finance would listen to this. It is possible that an accurate statement could not be obtained, but I suggest that it would be in the public interest to have an approximate statement of the amount of money the government of Canada put into what might be generally called war equipment; how much of that was wasted in war; how much was left when the fighting was over; how much has been declared surplus, and what the recovery has been. I gather from what the minister has said that there will be a recovery of around $450,000,000, but we have not even an approximate idea of the cost of the goods which will bring in that figure. I gather the minister has not even the approximate cost?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No.


Mr. HERRIDGE:: I wish to make a few remarks on this item, if I am in order, with regard1 to housing; and to ask one or two questions concerning war assets. In my constituency we have a large number of veterans and others who are seeking homes, who at the present time are living in all sorts of accommodation, and in some cases, suffering a great deal of inconvenience. This situation existed
throughout the war, and it has not been improved since the end of the war. I believe the minister understands the particular difficulties that exist in my constituency, particularly in and around the city of Trail. Those difficulties are both legal and physical, because of the nature of the country and the limits of the city of Trail, and I do not believe they will be solved until we have a subsidized housing programme in which the dominion, the provinces and municipalities will cooperate.
That is all I am going to say in that connection, but I want to ask a question and offer a suggestion. Personally I believe it is all wrong that many of these veterans and other young people establishing homes in this country should be expected to assume mortgages covering a period of twenty years and amounting to $5,000, $6,000 and $7,000, in order to get homes. I believe we are doing a great deal too much of discounting the future which in the years that lie ahead may bring much grief to many families. I should like to ask the minister if any consideration has been given to partly building homes. What I have in mind is this. Instead of building a complete house and having it all ready to occupy, at a cost of from $5,000 to $7,000, perhaps the foundation could be put in and enough of the house built to serve temporarily as a habitation, with the idea that the purchaser would not assume an obligation of more than $2,000, and that he would complete the house at his leisure over a period of years. In many ways that would be a much sounder arrangement for many people who are trying to obtain 'houses and who must live on very modest salaries. That is the way in which a good many people established homes in this country in the early days, and I believe the government might well consider a scheme of that kind. Many young men desiring homes would be willing to undertake the building of houses on that basis, and would prefer to assume a total indebtedness of not more than $2,000 and then complete the house over a period of years in their spare time. At the same time they would 'be free of a great burden of debt. If something along this line could be done at this time we would save material; we would save labour, and we would certainly save the payment of a great deal of interest by many people desiring to establish homes. I believe that under this scheme it would also be possible to build more housing units in a given time. A scheme of this kind would apply perhaps more particularly outside the cities and towns. I should like the minister to say whether he has considered anything in that direction.

Supply-Reconstruction and Supply
My second question, is this. In my constituency are hundreds of houses formerly occupied by the Japanese, particularly at Slocan City, Lemon Creek and Roseberry. These houses are, on the average, fourteen feet wide and twenty-four feet long, and1 are quite well constructed. They would make excellent homes for many people, and in some cases if two of these houses were joined together they would make satisfactory quarters. A good many people in my riding would like to purchase these houses, and have been waiting two years for War Assets to dispose of them. I urge the minister to see that something is done to dispose of at least sufficient of these houses to meet the needs of those people living within perhaps twenty or thirty miles of where those houses are now located. They could arrange for their transportation by road or have them taken down and hauled1 to their small holdings or home-sites in the villages in my district. Can the minister give any information in this connection?


Clarence Decatur Howe: As far as partly completed houses are concerned, my hon. friend will appreciate that that will be an arrangement between the builder and the lending institutions. Loans under the National Housing Act are available for partly completed houses just as they are for fully completed houses. I am quite aware of the arrangement suggested by my hon. friend, and I realize that it is a thrifty method of building a house and one that should be taken advantage of more frequently. However, when the government builds, it builds to rent, and for that type of housing the units must be completed. As far as the houses at Slocan are concerned1, I am told that they are in the process of being declared surplus to War Assets Corporation. If that is the case, War Assets Corporation will immediately arrange for their disposal, and I have no doubt that local purchasers will be given consideration.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: A few moments ago the minister mentioned the small amount received for tanks as scrap. I noticed a newspaper clipping some two or three weeks ago which stated that the defence department had purchased tanks from the United States government. Were those tanks different from the ones that are being sold at the present time?


Clarence Decatur Howe: For the sake of uniformity, some of the latest design tanks were bought by the armed services from the United States government, I think on the basis of a cent a pound or something like that. The purchase was on a scrap basis. These tanks are more

modern than the ones which were built in Canada in the early days of the war.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: The minister mentioned Mosquitoes. I understand that in the United States they are spraying or cob-webbing their aeroplanes in order to preserve them. Is anything being done along that line here?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The air force are cob-webbing planes which they are keeping in store as active war planes, but planes declared surplus to War Assets are for disposal. There is no purpose in storing them. If the air force expected to need them, they would not declare them surplus.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: What is the procedure when a sale is made by W'ar Assets? A sale is advertised in the paper to be held on such and such a date, and then they say, "subject to prior sale". A person arrives on the job thinking he is going to be able to buy something, but when he gets there he finds it is not for sale.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That seldom happens now. In the early days we had priority arrangements. The first priority went to government departments; the second priority went to provinces, and the third priority went to municipalities. If a sale was in process of being arranged and a priority claimant applied for the goods, the corporation had no option but to sell1 to the priority claimant, which meant that the goods would not be offered to the public. I am happy to say that we have now modified priorities. A sale may be subject to prior sale, but no prior sale takes place and the material1 is offered to the public.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I spoke to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, I think on May 2 or 3, with regard to some shrubs around the DVA hospital at Peterborough, and he advised me to get in touch with War Assets Corporation. I dropped them a line, but it was never answered. There was an advertisement in the Peterborough Examiner saying that the shrubs would be offered for sale, but when people went to pick them up they discovered there were two trucks from Toronto taking them all away.


Clarence Decatur Howe: We are not florists; we sell
war material. If my hon. friend wants to buy shrubs I strongly advise him to get them through a florist.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: The Peterborough horticultural society wanted the shrubs to beautify the city, and it was a sore touch to them to have them carted off to Toronto.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I think I must assume some responsibility in support of my hon.

Supply-Reconstruction and Supply___
friend. He did come to see me about these. The hospital in Peterborough burned down.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: The minister is not the
guilty party.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: When the hospital
burned down and it was not to be reassumed by us I think some adjustment might be made between the various agencies of goverm-ment and the city of Peterborough.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Some time ago I referred
to the crates that are in the Belleville yards. Some of those crates have 'been there for years, and new ones have been placed there within the last four or five months or even less than that. What is in them and why are they there?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is a dump from which
we sell crated vehicles. The vehicles my hon. friend is talking about may have been sold and the buyer has not as yet taken them away. Every vehicle owned by War Assets has been sold.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: They would not leave
them a year or two years.


Clarence Decatur Howe: They might.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: They are pretty funny purchasers if they do that.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I understood the minister to say a few * I
moments ago that they had not been able to get costs.


Clarence Decatur Howe: We have not tried to get
costs.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Does that mean that you sell people things without knowing what they cost? There may be precious little realized on the original cost.
I should think it is blind business to sell things without having any idea of the cost. You have already indicated that in the case of aeroplanes and tanks you do know the cost, but do I understand correctly that you disregard costs entirely? Surely that is not so?


Clarence Decatur Howe: If it is an article which has
a ceiling price, we sell at the ceiling price. If the article has no common value, we have it valued. We follow a careful procedure on that. When material comes from the armed services we put a value on it and sell it, but that has nothing to do with the cost of manufacture.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Does that mean that there will be available anywhere even a rough computation of the original cost of these things that are being sold by the hundreds and millions?


Clarence Decatur Howe: We could trace down an
individual item if there was any interest. For example, we may sell a corvette which cost about $900,000 for about $90,000. I do not think the fact that it cost $900,000 would be of any particular interest to the buyer, to the seller or to anybody else.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: It might be of considerable interest to the people of Canada to know the cost of these things which are being sold for hundreds of millions and which probably cost many times that. I am not criticizing that.


Clarence Decatur Howe: What kind of Canadian would find value in that information? What would he do with the information if he had it?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I think he would try to guess at whether there had been an efficient job done. We have no means whatever of guessing in the slightest degree at the efficiency of the performance.


Clarence Decatur Howe: A Mosquito aircraft which cost $200,000 may have been used in the war for a period and then be declared surplus to War Assets. The salvage value may be $5,000. Does that signify lack of efficiency on the part of War Assets?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I would not say so at all.


Clarence Decatur Howe: We may build a tank for $90,000 and sell it for $15 a ton. That does not show a lack of efficiency.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: You do not have to convince me; I agree with that.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am trying to get the hon. member to tell me what this bulk figure would do.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I appreciate that what you realize from the things you describe is the merest fraction of their cost. But what I am talking about is the large amount of more standard articles, which must have run into hundreds of millions of dollars, where you would know the cost and where people might form an estimate whether you were being efficient or not.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The difficulty is that the material we were selling was not confined to the last great war. We were selling 18-pounder guns from the first great war, and harness and saddles made for the South African war. The production of standard material was at a reasonable price. As more units got into operation and production speeded up, prices dropped, but we do not know when we are

Supply-Reconstruction and Supply
selling an article whether it was made in the early or late stages of the war, and I cannot imagine how, without an elaborate system, you could get that information.
Mr. MACDONN-ELL (Muskoka-Ontario): It need not be elaborate. From what the minister has said it seems to have been a free and easy performance. It would not have been much trouble to have got a pretty close approximation to the price; but, as it is now, there is a wide open escape for everybody.


Mr. McCULLOUGH (Assiniboia):: A matter that has received wide attention is the disposal of the three plants at Trail, Welland and Calgary. I took this matter up in the house on the estimates of the Department of Agriculture, and I want to read briefly now from the Rural Co-operator of January 14, 1947, in connection with the disposal of these three plants which had been built during the war for production for war purposes and then, later, were converted to produce ammonium nitrate, a valuable ingredient in fertilizers. The article in the Rural Co-operator reads in part:
We reported last year respecting the disposal of the government-owned nitrate plants at Calgary and at Welland, Ontario. The situation at that time and throughout the year, so far as our understanding with the government was concerned, was that the government, through Hon. C. D. Howe, had assured us that, even though the Calgary plant, where cheap nitrate was being produced, might be sold, there would be protection for prices for nitrate for fertilizer through the fact that the government intended continuing operation of the plant at Welland.
Those of us who are connected with agriculture were most disappointed when we found that the government-and I say this frankly- had sold the Canadian farmer down the river in disposing of the plant to a United States concern whose only interest was to make profits in this country. We feel bitter about this. I should like to read from a letter that I received from the minister's own office dated March 24, 1947. I had written to the department in connection with the disposal of the Welland plant, and in reply I was informed that this plant was built at a cost of $19,129,246.02 to the Canadian taxpayer. The letter goes on:
On December 1, 1946, this plant exclusive of inventories was sold to North American Cyana-mid Limited for $4,750,000.
I do not think, by any stretch of the imagination, anyone could say that this was a fair price for the plant. I draw the attention of the minister to the fact that he did commit himself and the government to retaining one of these plants to produce a cheap fertilizer for the Canadian farmer. Second, I would

ask him to state why the Calgary plant was not kept in operation where, as has been stated, we could produce ammonium nitrate for about $19 a ton even before we got into post-war production, where with larger volume we could have reduced the price. I want to emphasize as strongly as I can that the government were urging an all-out production of food in this country, and we know that there is a world shortage of fertilizer. Then why put into the hands of one or two companies in this country a complete monopoly in the manufacture of fertilizer? With the price of fertilizer going up during the early part of the war, we have no guarantee that these people will not shove the price up still further as they did prior to the war.


Clarence Decatur Howe: My hon. friend says that they have put the price up. When was that? I understood it was Selling lower today than when the government was operating the plant. The fact of the matter is that the Calgary plant and the Trail plant were suitable for manufacturing ammonium nitrate, and the government by a happy invention devised a process for making a fertilizer from ammonium nitarte. Ninety-five per cent of this ammonium nitrate was sold outside Canada. Less than five per cent of the Calgary production was taken in Canada. It was not a fertilizer that western Canada ever uses. It is used a little in eastern Canada, mostly in the mari-times. Why we should hang on to the production of a chemical fertilizer that requires a world market, I cannot see. We did sell out the Calgary plant which developed this fertilizer, and we recovered from the plant more than w'e spent on building it; that is, the combined Trail and Calgary plants.
The Welland plant was built for the manufacture of picrite, one of the components of which is ammonia. Therefore we had a small ammonia unit in this plant. We converted that to making ammonium nitrate-, but the production was not sufficient to do any more than carry the plant. There were chemical features in there which should properly be used for industrial production in this country. It meant that we were laying off staff and getting down to an operating staff on the ammonium nitrate plant. Today it is a full-fledged chemical plant as it was designed to be, and will be maintained as such and keep up with the requirements of the times.
I have heard a good deal of talk about the sale of these plants, but I never heard one logical reason why they should not be sold. Remember this is not a socialist government that I am a member of. Why the government

Supply-Reconstruction and Supply
of Canada should operate government-owned plants to sell fertilizer around the world, I cannot see.


Edward George McCullough: Then why did the minister commit himself?


Clarence Decatur Howe: If the hon. member will read the letter carefully he will see that I said there was no present intention of selling the plant. A year later I had an opportunity to sell it and I sold it.


George Hugh Castleden: What percentage of the cost did you get for it?


Clarence Decatur Howe: 
George Hugh Castleden: About twenty-five per cent of the cost of construction.


George Alexander Cruickshank: 
George Hugh Castleden: Have a by-election.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I do not want to have a by-election yet. In Chilliwack we have women in from the military camp of western Canada. Maternity cases are being looked after in our hospital at Chilliwack. In spite of that, we are asked1 to pay this high price. I want an explanation from the minister. He has not given me one yet.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The hon. member has not given me a chance.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I have been giving the minister a chance for three years, and. he has been writing letters or some of his officials have been writing letters that do not mean anything except to say that Prince George and Prince Rupert can have it because in one case the property is government owned and in the other case it is on leased1 property. I am asking for a better explanation than that. We have no by-election in Chilliwack; we do not intend to have one for some time; but I want to know why my riding is being discriminated against particularly when we have the one permanent army camp in western Canada.


Clarence Decatur Howe: All I can say about Chilliwack is this. The collection of huts my hon. friend is talking about happened to cost in excess of $300,000. They are offered to him at ten per cent of the cost, together with land and all appurtenances, which is $30,000. I have a note here which says that Mr. Sparling from our Vancouver office is on his way to Chilliwack now to go into the matter further to see if arrangements can be made.
My hon. friend talks glibly about the situation in Prince Rupert and in Halifax. I may say this about Halifax. Our only instructions to War Assets Corporation is to get the best recovery possible from any article of government property that is assigned to it for sale. If the town happens to own the property and it is on lease and the lease provides that the building is to be removed from the property and the property restored to its original value, I suppose the basis of the sale is exactly that, sold for removal, and naturally it is worth far less for removal than it is if you can use it on the ground on which it is built. We have been told by the experts during the past three years how we should sell this, that and the other thing. We do the best we can. I can assure my hon. friend that politics or

Supply-Reconstruction and Supply
sentiment or doing good to people have no part in the work of War Assets Corporation. It operates to get a fair return.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I am willing to concede that politics have no part in it. The minister told me that doing good has no part in it. A hospital is necessary for the district and that is not taken into consideration. I am told by the minister's own letters that this Jap camp at Tashme settlement was made for $27,000.


Clarence Decatur Howe: No.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Just a minute; it is under your own signature. You may have forgotten it, but I have not. They asked about $52,000 and a settlement was made for $27,000. The sum of S500 a month was paid in rent. The farm never paid that amount in a year in profit. The minister says that there is no sentiment attached to this hospital. I appreciate the fact that the minister has told me that Mr. Sparling is on his way to the district. I would suggest that Mr. Sparling look at things from a humanitarian point of view and not from War Assets point of view.


Howard Charles Green: I should1 like to follow up the question asked a few moments ago by the hon. member for Leeds with which the minister did not deal. He asked for some indication as to when the work of War Assets Corporation could be wound1 up. I understand, from the annual report of the company which covers the twelve months ended March 31 of this year, that they are meeting with a great deal of difficulty now in carrying on their business. For example, on page 8 we find that a lessening of demand for surplus goods is now very apparent. Then on page 10 of the report says that the corporation is now entering into the period of comparatively small single sales. On page 11 it is stated that industry is reaching the end of the period of reconversion, and that this means also that surplus property will have to compete more actively with the products of private industry, and that disposal of surplus from now on will present more difficulty and yield a lower return. I take it that from now on we may expect less profit, less money realized from the transactions of War Assets Corporation, and at the same time expect high overhead. This evening the minister said the number of employees is still 8,000. That is about 2,000 more than the highest number during 1945-46, although it is some 2,000 lower than the highest figure during 1946-47. What about the future of this corporation? The total payroll given in the report is $15,624,905.31. I presume that was for the fiscal year, but it seems obvious that we shall have heavy

payroll and heavy expenditures with constantly diminishing returns. Can the minister give us some further answer to the question placed before him by the hon. member for Leeds?


Clarence Decatur Howe: This material has no value unless it is sold. If it has no value it is turned over to War Assets Corporation. I can assure my hon. friend that the cost-


Howard Charles Green: That is hardly right. If it has no value it is not turned over to War Assets.


Clarence Decatur Howe: If it has no value to War Assets Corporation it is not turned over. What does my hon. friend suggest, that we start giving it away?


Howard Charles Green: The minister need' not fly off the handle.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am not flying off the handle; I am wondering-


Howard Charles Green: I am asking him a question in a reasonable way and not with any attempt to get him into any kind of trouble. I think we are entitled to know something about the policy for the future.


Clarence Decatur Howe: At the moment the cost of doing business is about thirteen per cent of recoveries. The cost may rise. Naturally, if the sales get smaller and selling is more difficult the cost of sales will go up. We anticipate that another $50 million can be recovered from the sale of war assets. We will carry on as reasonably as we can and when the work is finished1, when the cost of sales is more than the value of sales, at an appropriate time we shall wind up the activities of the corporation.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Is the $50 million mostly in ships?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Oh, no.


Howard Charles Green: Has there been a change recently in the policy of the corporation? Are they not changing the policy to meet changing conditions?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


Howard Charles Green: Having regard to smaller sales and greater sales resistance?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes. We are having more branch sales. Branches are a higher proportion of the total than in the early stages. Industrial real estate is practically all sold. The ships are all sold. The items that offer large recovery for individual sale are gone. Sales today represent a great variety of material that is put on display in warehouses throughout 'the country. The public are asked to go and bid for them, but individual sales are today very much down. In April,

Supply-Reconstruction and Supply
1946, the average sale per invoice was $4,987.45, or practically $5,000 for each invoice. That diminished in December of the same year to $1,225.87. In January, 1947, it was down to $776, and in March it was $706.


Howard Charles Green: Dropping all the time.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


Howard Charles Green: Is the corporation going to continue with a large number of warehouses, or will the good be concentrated?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The warehouses are shut down progressively. The purpose is to concentrate on not more than one warehouse in each area. That practically means each province, treating .the maritimes as one province. We are working in that direction and when we get that down theoretically we shall try to retreat into one .warehouse at some central point. It is a contracting operation.


George Robert Webb: The minister mentioned individual sales. I am particularly interested in that, for the reason that I know several service men who wish .to obtain lathes and other machinery. What is the .policy? To what extent are individuals able -to buy in any of this material at the present time?


Clarence Decatur Howe: If a man wants to buy a lathe he buys it from the dealer. War Assets is not a retail business. It is not a .place for a man to go and spend $50. It is a wholesale business.


George Robert Webb: Am I to understand that there is no use in a service man making application for a certain amount of machinery in a certain place, for .the reason that it has been turned over .to War Assets and he has to go through the operation of buying it from a dealer? He cannot buy direct.


Edward George McCullough: The
minister uses terminology to which apparently some of us attach different meanings. For example, he used the word "reasonable" in describing the policy of War Assets Corporation, but it seems to me that the whole policy is based on the theory that what is good for some people is not so good for others. I say frankly that I do not think it has been a very good policy for the Canadian people, and in this connection I should like to revert to the disposal of plants. I do not think there is really any point in referring to the fact that we do use a good deal of nitrate in Canada in fertilizers. I do not believe the minister would go to an eastern farmer or those in the west who use 11-48 fertilizer mix on their fallow wheat or on their potato crops and
tell them that it was not important or that the price should not be kept in line with cost of production and sale prices. I might say that up to date there has been no safeguard that I can see. My information is that already ingredients going into fertilizer mix are increasing. Pressure is being brought to bear for increased prices. The price of fertilizer today is such that, selling for $64 for 11-48 in my own province of Saskatchewan, the farmers cannot use it. The answer is, of course, that if you want soil conservation, if you want to increase and stabilize production, you have to start using this commodity. Here was an opportunity of keeping this product under public control where we could have had this main ingredient going into fertilizer, now that we have found potash in Saskatchewan and could have increased over-all production. I would point out that we have experimentation in process at the universities, and we should have a correlated plan with the Department of Agriculture so that our whole economy would work together, instead of having this hit-or-miss method that we are following. I cannot believe that the Minister of Agriculture was happy about the sale of these things. From the point of view of the agriculturist, it has been a really bad mistake.


Mr. SKEY:: May I ask the minister whether he has considered the policy which was followed in the United States for the sale of their war assets? If so, has he considered that policy for Canada? Briefly stated, it is this. They gave their ex-service men priority on any sale. They could go for the first few days, then educational institutions, then state and municipal governments and, finally, the general public. Each group had its date and the ex-service men had a priority to buy these goods.


Clarence Decatur Howe: We tried to devise a servicemen's priority but could not see any way of doing so. The servicemen's priority practically broke down the operation in the United States. They had about three or four disposal agencies before they got around to our process under War Assets Corporation, and in every case it was the servicemen's preference that tied up sales. Even the limited preference we had caused more trouble and delayed operations to a greater extent than any other feature of our programme.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: Last year the minister made the same statement, that the United States government had come around to our system. I was in New York in November, 1946, long after the house closed, and they were still using the system I have briefly outlined

Supply-Reconstruction and Supply
tonight. Evidently they did go through with it and it did provide a priority for servicemen. All the serviceman had to do was to present his discharge papers and get into the sale. .


Edward George McCullough: I should like to ask the minister how many motor launches or other craft have been sold to the school of arts and crafts of Rimouski, Quebec, what the sale price was in each case, and what were the terms of disposal What were they to be used for?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Personally I have never
heard of the school of arts and crafts in tihe province of Quebec and I cannot answer the question. The officers here have some vague recollection that a boat or two were sold to them. We can give the reply in the morning.


Edward George McCullough: One
other question. In regard to ball-bearings, when we sat on the war assets committee last year this question arose. Can the minister indicate the value of all types of ball-bearings which were surplus at the end of the war, whom they were disposed to, and the price in each case?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I presume they were parts
of automobiles. Is that what the hon. member has in mind?


Edward George McCullough: My
understanding was that a good many ballbearings were made of non-standard size. I know something about mechanics, and to me it seems ridiculous that for most of our war purposes apparently these various types of ball-bearings, which of course, are quite expensive, were made non-standard so that their disposal was of very little use in postwar construction, such as for going into automobiles and other types of construction. Maybe the minister could indicate why that was.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The ball-bearings may not
have been standard for domestic vehicles. I do not think anyone making a tank would worry very much whether he used ballbearings which were standard for some peacetime vehicles. He would use the bearings which were required to carry the load. The same would be true of other special army vehicles. I have no knowledge of the situation, but I can very well imagine that a great percentage of the ball-bearings used in war were not suitable for peacetime vehicles.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Anybody would know
that.


Mr. WHITE (Middlesex East):: Earlier in the session I brought to the attention of the

minister several thousand tons of steel which had been used in producing wartime barbed wire for farmers in the country. The whole amount of steel that went into that production was wasted. It would have been better if a good deal less of that barbed wire had been made and if we had something that would be of some use now. The whole works is wasted. How long is it the intention to continue to make wartime barbed wire? Why not go back to standard barbed wire so that the farmers will have something when they buy it?


Clarence Decatur Howe: We do not know anything
about that. If there was any standard barbed wire made during the war, I presume it was shipped overseas. What the steel companies are making today would not be within the purview of the government.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I should like to know the cost or the amount of rent paid for the lease on each piece of property required for hospital purposes by any department of government during the war, the cost of building each hospital, and the price which each building or property was sold at. I do not expect the minister to give me that information tonight, but I should like to have it tomorrow morning.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am afraid that the night shift is not working tonight. I shall be glad to get the information for my hon. friend as soon as it can be obtained.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I should like it before the minister's estimates are carried. If he cannot get it tomorrow morning, tomorrow afternoon or tomorrow night will do.


George Robert Webb: I should like to make what I believe to be a constructive suggestion to the minister. It is in connection with the advertising of war assets. I have pretty nearly every advertisement I have seen in the papers. It seems to me that the great majority of the articles offered for sale are more or less in the form of white elephants. It seems to me that if we had a greater volume of advertising in connection with articles which are really saleable and can be used by a great many people, it would make for much greater sales.
I have tried to keep track of the advertising, and yet I have not been able to find anything that is usable in my location.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is not the practice to advertise articles that are originally sold to the trade. We advertise white elephants because we want to get rid of them at a good price. A lot of standard articles we advertise. But where there is an agency of War Assets Corporation in the area, anyone buying a standard

Supply-Reconstruction and Supply
article is expected to get in touch with the agency and place his order accordingly. Standard articles are usually sold in large batches. We advertise real estate and ships and nonstandard usable articles, but not standard ones.


George Robert Webb: Let us have a good buy once in a while so that we can get something.


Harry Oliver White: There is one other thing I should like to bring to the attention of the minister. Earlier in one of the aviation magazines there was an article about the Mosquito aircraft stored at Cumberland, where they were being protected with a certain spray or film for future use. I have now been informed that those have been disposed of. Is that correct?


Clarence Decatur Howe: We have not disposed of any Mosquito aircraft. I am told that some of the Cromlin Mosquitoes have been declared surplus and are in process of being transferred to War Assets Corporation. I am informed that only one or two have been sold.


Harry Oliver White: There was considerable consternation among the people around London as to just what was going on there. We were led to helieve that these aircraft were being preserved for future use. These men who were employed there and knew what was going on, said that the engines were removed. When a Mosquito has the engine removed, the air frame is no longer of any use, and it was thought they were being sold for a song. Until the engines were taken out, they were a going concern. It looked as though part of the move was just to get the motor out, then the aircraft could be declared surplus. And when they did not have a plane to put it in, they could declare the motor surplus.


William Henry Golding: Shall the item carry?


Harry Oliver White: No, I should like to have an answer to my question.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The hon. member will appreciate the fact that he is asking the wrong minister about that. We get the plane after it is declared surplus, after the army has decided what it will do with it. It is not the function of War Assets Corporation to say what is surplus and what is not. The army tell us what is surplus.


Harry Oliver White: I think the people got a raw deal. I will tell the minister that.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: Did the minister ever have any aircraft from Great Britain or the European theatre declared surplus to him?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Not to my knowledge. I think arrangements were made with the United Kingdom for the exchange of certain aircraft in use there and for certain other aircraft to be produced. I believe there was an arrangement for the exchange of surplus aircraft in the United Kingdom for jet planes now being produced. As far as I know, no aircraft were declared surplus to War Assets in the United Kingdom.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: I am glad to get that information. I have been bothering the minister about several things along that line, and I hope the jets arrive in Canada soon.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Can the minister say what the total cost was of operating War Assets for the last year?


Clarence Decatur Howe: While we are getting that figure, I might point out that the costs of operating War Assets Corporation include the cost of operating the Valleyfield repair depot and various costs which add to recovery costs, and which are an operating cost.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: That would be included in this?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, that would be included in this.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: They would not be included in the statement of War Assets Corporation for the year?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am afraid I shall have to get that information for the hon. member. Perhaps I can have it later this evening.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I would ask that the item stand until I get an answer to my question.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I think that is a bit unreasonable. The hon. member's question has nothing to do with departmental administration. This item has nothing to do with hospitals around the country. We shall have to get that information from the people who built the hospitals; that is, from the Department of National Defence.


George Alexander Cruickshank: If the minister's department does not have that information it is about time they found out who has it. Your department has to look after the disposal of the properties.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Then I want these figures. It seems that some of these properties have been sold at ridiculous prices, maybe too high, maybe too low. How can we check on it if we have not the information? If the minister has not the information I do not think he has any right to come before the committee with his estimates.

5714	COMMONS
Supply-Reconstruction and Supply


Clarence Decatur Howe: Well, I am before the committee.


George Alexander Cruickshank: And I ask that the item stand until you get that information.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I don't agree.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I don't care whether you agree.


Clarence Decatur Howe: If it is necessary to divide the committee on it, we shall do so. I am willing to meet any reasonable request, but when an hon. member asks me to let an item covering departmental administration stand until I can get from another department of government the cost of certain, hospitals and then find from War Assets Corporation the amounts for which they were disposed, I think the hon. gentleman is being unreasonable.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Well, you may think it is unreasonable, but when you are asking me now to approve your estimates-


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am not asking you.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Just a minute. You may have disposed1 of property costing $50,000 or $100,000; according to your own figures some property cost $200,000. It may have been sold for $5,000, and then you are asking me to approve your estimates.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am not asking you to approve anything.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Yes, you are; and you are trying, to get the people of my riding to pay $30,000 for some property, while at the same time you are selling a property that cost at least as much for only $2,500, and I do not think you have any right to have your estimates approved.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am asking that they be approved, nevertheless.


George Alexander Cruickshank: And I am asking that the item stand.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: The minister will let me have that information either this evening or tomorrow morning?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have it now. The cost of doing, business of War Assets Corporation was $45,529,102.45. That was the cost for the year 1946.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: The fiscal year?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, the fiscal year 1946-47.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: To March 31, 1947?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: That raises an interesting question, because

that amount is well on to half as much as you expect to realize during the whole current year. You said you expected to realize about $100,000,000. I observe that your staff is down by only about twenty per cent, or perhaps less, and it seems to me that the cost will not be down very much.
By the way, I want to say I have been thinking over the answer the minister gave me some little time ago, about selling all these hundreds of millions of dollars worth of goods with no record at all of the cost. He certainly did not convince me as to the reasonableness of what he was saying, and I doubt if he convinced himself. He made it perfectly clear that he did have the figures available for many of these larger items; and I think he agreed that on all kinds of standard items the figures could be easily obtained. Perhaps this is not a good time at which to do it, but I am going to say now that I think that is wrong, unless there are some points about it I do not understand. Before this war assets thing is finally wound up, I believe figures should be given which will enable us to come to some judgment. Let me say at once I hope I am not going to be unreasonable. I know that articles costing perhaps $100,000 may have to be sold in some cases for one or two or three per cent of their cost, but that is not the case with all kinds of other articles. As the minister has said, some are sold for ninety per cent of their cost and others are sold for more than their cost. I believe a great deal of information should be given, so that people of this country and we who do our best to help protect their interests may have some means of coming to a decision. At the present time we are like a lot of children, with nothing at all on which to base our judgment. The only measure of efficiency we have-and it is a very small one-is the percentage of cost in the department on the actual sales; and according to the figures we now have, they are spending something like $45,000,000 to recover an amount of about $100,000,000 which does not give a very good impression of the efficiency of the department.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That shows how misleading casual information can be.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I quite agree; that is why we want better information.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I can give a break-down of the operating cost; Receiving, classifying and warehousing surplus, $11,398,914.66. Reconditioning clothing and other surplus goods, $2,724,965.18.
My hon. friend will realize that we take scrap clothing from the army, put it through a plant,

Supply-Reconstruction and Supply
mend it, recondition it, press it and sell it as usable goods. Perhaps that 82,000,000 would have brought about a recovery of 89,000,000 or $10,000,000. Demolition and disposal of nonsalvageable surplus, which means chiefly ammunition; $2,034,965.87. That is a cost from which there was probably some recovery, because, after we take out the explosive, we sell it, and after we decontaminate the shell we sell it for junk, but that is the demolition cost. Recovery from salvageable material from ammunition and explosives, which has to do with the item I just read, $1,066,132.20. Freight and handling, $505,840.31. Lease termination and property restoration expenses, $404,238.89. Miscellaneous expenses, including agents' commissions, technical services and consulting fees, $1,774,247.57.
Then here is an item. We or War Assets took over the ship-building programme as is and where is. In other words, if a ship were three-quarters completed it was declared surplus in that condition. If it were half completed or quarter completed it was declared surplus. It was decided to complete certain ships, because the sale value completed would be very much more than the cost of completion plus the sale value in the half completed state. In that year the government spent $11,139,141.47 in completing ships. Incidentally they included three motor ships which were sold to Canadian National Steamships. Then there was an amount of $4,951,558.25 spent to complete mutual aid. Those items account for the direct operating costs, out of the total of $45,000,000 while the administrative expenses, that is the cost of doing business by the corporation, amounted to .$9,528,880.05, which, on business of $220,000,000, would be about 4-35 per cent.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Still it is your whole cost that is of interest, surely. I am not necessarily criticizing that figure, because your recovery last year was very much larger. What is bothering me is that, on the face of it, I would have thought these operations which you describe, and which seem very reasonable but which cost such a lot, would not continue to be carried on to nearly the same extent, and the thing that struck me was that if one can gauge, it by the number of your employees, taking that as a rough and ready basis, you will have something like eighty per cent of the cost with only about one-half the recovery.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Our costs today are running
about thirteen per cent of recovery. They were only 4-5 per cent at the same time last year.
83166-364J


Mr. JACKMAN:: In regard to the control of the assets under the jurisdiction of the company, if you do not place a dollar value opposite the various items, or the bulk of the items, I should like to know how they are controlled. Is it physical control?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The items are examined,
listed and priced.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: You have no dollar value?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Certainly we have. We have no original cost, but we put a dollar value on them.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: No endeavour is made to get the original cost? When War Assets Corporation receives them, they set up their value based on what they think they can realize; is that the system?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: So that you have strict accounting control?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: In a return to a question which I asked some months ago. I notice that the navy turned, over this year up to May 6, 1947, $32,000,000 worth of goods; the army turned over $12,000,000 worth, and the R.C.A.F., $32,000,000 worth. When you got those articles that would be their cost, but apparently no endeavour is made to keep a historical record. When you get actual delivery in your warehouses you set up your own value, and then you calculate on what you realize on your sales as applied to that value which you have on your books, or to the original cost?


Clarence Decatur Howe: We do not know the original cost. For instance, the army may turn over an encampment, and they would charge as part of its costs the cost of building roads, laying underground pipe, lease of buildings and so on. There are too many intangibles in a declaration of surplus of that kind to be of any value to us. It may be of interest to the navy that they paid a million and a quarter for a destroyer or a frigate, but it is of no interest to us. We are interested only in what we think we can get as recovery.


Howard Charles Green: As we all know, the Department of Reconstruction and Supply was set up for a limited period, to function during the the reconversion period. During this session there have been frequent instances where duties of the department have been transferred to other departments. On June 23 there was an article in the OttawTa Citizen to the effect that the Department of Reconstruction was being disbanded, and that it would cease opera-

Supply-Reconstruction and Supply
tions about September 1. Can the minister tell the committee whether that article is correct and, if not, just what are the intentions with regard to winding up the department? He might also tell the committee to w'hat extent he is still exercising his overriding authority over other departments. In the setting up of this department he wras given wide powers, including the. right to override other ministers in certain respects. Is that right still being exercised and, if so, to what degree? Finally, will he tell the committee how many crown companies there are under his department and give us some idea of their activities?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The Department of Reconstruction and Supply has two functions, one of which is to liquidate Canada's war commitments. That work is nearing completion. The staff of the department has dropped from about 5,000 down to 600 at the moment. The department is responsible for all government housing programmes and also for certain crown companies. There are five, perhaps six of those companies, including Polymer. Eldorado, Canadian Arsenals, Park Steamships Co. Ltd., War Assets Corporation, Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and Wartime Housing Limited.


Howard Charles Green: Just the five?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No, seven. There may be others, such as Wartime Shipbuilding, in process of being liquidated. These companies are all doing extremely well under able management.


Howard Charles Green: When is it expected to wind up the department?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is government policy which will be made known in due course. We do not go by what the Citizen says.


Howard Charles Green: What about the overriding powers?


Clarence Decatur Howe: What clause is that?


Howard Charles Green: The minister knows very well that under the act setting up his department he was given overriding powers with respect to other departments. Are those powers being exercised, or is he now minding only his own business?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The overriding powers exist only in the mind of the questioner. The Department, of Munitions and Supply, like every other department of government, attends to its own responsibilities.


Howard Charles Green: It is not the Department of Munitions and Supply; it is the Department of Reconstruction and Supply. If I had the

statute here I could read the section to the minister. If he is not exercising those powers I do not want to put any foolish ideas into his head. I had better not say anything more about the matter.


Frank Exton Lennard: In 1945 I attempted to obtain the steering wheel of the corvette Dundas for the Dundas sea cadet corps. I wrote to the Steel Company of Canada, which I understood had purchased the vessel from War Assets, but I was informed in a letter of November 22, 1945, that the corvette Dundas was not in Hamilton, that it had been sold to the Sarnia steamship company at Port Colborne. I was advised to write to Captain Scott Misener, president of that company, to secure the information I desired. I wrote to him, and on December 10, 1945, I received an answer stating that when the corvette was inspected in Hamilton harbour it was found that practically every item of movable equipment aboard, even to the extent of the wheel, the ship's bells, compasses, et cetera, had been removed. Some time ago the editor of the Dundas Star endeavoured to secure the same article on behalf of the Lions club, and he was given more or less the same information. A couple of years afterward, on April 9, 1947, the Hamilton Spectator carried a picture story, showing the hon. member for Hamilton East presenting the steering wheel of H.M.C.S. Dundas to the Prime. Minister. The information accompanying this photograph was to this effect:
The helmsman's wheel of the doughty little corvette Dundas has found a resting place in high honour even as workmen in Hamilton harbour slash away the plates of the once proud fighting ship and prepare them for feeding into scrap iron furnaces. The ship's wheel, presented to Prime Minister W. L. Mackenzie ICing, will be hung in his summer home at ICingsmere. The presentation was made by Thomas H. Ross, member of Commons for Hamilton East. The wheel was salvaged by the International Metal Company, which is scrapping a number of corvettes for the Steel Company of Canada.
One corvette Dundas was scrapped in Port Colborne in the winter of 1945-46. and I wonder if the minister can inform me if there were two corvettes bearing the name Dundas? The information I have is quite misleading, because the original Dundas was scrapped by the Sarnia Steamships Limited in 1945-46. Does the minister know whether there were two ships with that name?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I do not know.


George Alexander Cruickshank: What was the cost of the Boundary Bay airport, and what has been realized through the sale or lease?

Supply-Reconstruction and Supply


Clarence Decatur Howe: Boundary Bay airport has neither been sold nor leased; it wag turned over to the army and is in the custody of the army at the present time.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: With regard to this accounting method, which I might say from what we can see from this distance does not seem to be very satisfactory, I think some record should be made of the historical cost of the various items, even to the armed services. I should like to draw the minister's attention particularly to the fact that the Department of Veterans Affairs has turned over $147,000 worth of material this year, and the Department of Public Works, $167,000. Surely those materials are not directly attributable to the war? The people of Canada are surely entitled to know what the cost of these materials was in relation to the amount realized by War Assets Corporation. Suppose we take it for granted that war assets have been turned over to the corporation and that the original cost had been lost sight of or is not on the books of War Assets Corporation. But surely in regard to war assets from other departments of the government, civil departments, the original cost should be set up on the books of War Assets Corporation. I should like an expression of opinion as to what the policy of the corporation would be in that regard.


Clarence Decatur Howe: We are not interested in the original cost.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: We are.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The place to get that is from the person who bought it. My hon. friend mentioned $147,000. The material for public works was what had been worn out in the service of the department. That cost $167,000 when new. For instance, we sell typewriters, and some of them are sold as junk and others are usable for their spare parts.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: You have a good explanation if they were junk. What was the original cost? We are entitled to know that.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The president of War Assets told me that there are life rafts which have been declared surplus, and they have had to be pulled up from the bottom of lakes. It might be interesting to someone to know what they cost.


Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):: The minister speaks of recovery. Would that be net or gross recovery?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Gross recovery.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Where does War Assets get its monev to operate?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Its income is derived from a certain portion of its sales. Originally it was three per cent, more recently five per cent, and now it has been raised to ten per cent.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: If it gets its income from a portion of its sales, that cannot be the gross recovery which the minister mentioned. Who gets that $400,000,000?


Clarence Decatur Howe: 1 The Receiver General.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Where does that $45,000,000 come from?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is taken out before we turn the money over to the Receiver General. The first deduction is the actual operating expense, the cost of getting the article in a saleable condition. The cost of Valleyfield comes out and also the cost of warehousing. After these deductions, which are out-of-pocket expenses in creating the value, there is a deduction of an amount fixed by order in council to cover the administration costs of War Assets Corporation. That is deducted and the remainder turned over to the Receiver General as net recoverable income.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Then the Receiver General does not get the $400,000,000?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Then where does its expenses come from if the treasury gets the whole $400,000,000? What is the net amount of recovery, and what is the gross amount?


Clarence Decatur Howe: My hon. friend will find all that in the annual report of War Assets Corporation. We have not the figures here. We could give the figures for one year.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Give us the figures for one year.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The total gross for the period 1944 to March, 1947 was $353,200,032.12, and
the return to the treasury was $294,842,488.82.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: What were the gross sales?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The gross sales were $353,200,032.12.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Now what was the net amount?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The net amount was $294,842,488.82.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: For what period?


Clarence Decatur Howe: From the beginning of operations to March 31, 1947.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: From the beginning
of operations?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Up to March 31, 1947.

Supply-Reconstruction and Supply


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Canadair was taken over by Electric Boat Company. Has the department anything to do avith that company now? I understand that they are discharging Canadian technicians and engineers and taking on men from the United States.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It has nothing to do with my department.


Howard Charles Green: Is this the last year that anj

thing will be required to provide for liquidation of contracts?


Clarence Decatur Howe: This will be the last. Amounts have been provided over the years and there have been considerable balances unexpended. The time element in settling contracts has been greater than anticipated. We are asking a further amount now which will cover the final liquidation of all contracts.


Howard Charles Green: This will clean it all up?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.
570. Reconstruction projects, subject to allocation by the Treasury Board, $5,000,000.


John Ritchie MacNicol: We voted $10,000,000 under this item last year, and the information given at that time was that it would be used partially, if not all of it, in connection with western programmes. Would the minister say what amount of the $10,000,000 was spent and on what programmes?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Very little of the $10,000,000 was spent. The purpose of the vote is to take care of spotty unemployment. It was anticipated by hon. members opposite-I think I was the only optimist in the house- that there would be considerable unemployment following the war, and the purpose of the $10,000,000 vote was to permit projects to be undertaken to relieve spotty unemployment. Out of the $10,000,000, less than $500,000 was spent. This year it is thought wise to continue the vote, but it has been reduced to $5.0000.000, and it is not anticipated that any considerable amount of that will be spent. If is handled as a revolving fund. If a department draws on it to start a project not provided for in the estimates the department must put an item in the estimates and refund the money when it is voted.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Over $500,000 has been spent. What was it spent on?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Small items. The money was refunded. The $10 million was intact at the end of the year. The majority of the items for which money was spent were later voted in the estimates of the department and refunded. I can give my hon. friend what the amounts were. An allotment of $25,000
'Mr. Howe.]
was provided for an aircraft landing strip at Pentecote, P.Q.; landing facilities at Baie Comeau, P.Q.; $25,000; landing facilities at Forestville, P.Q., $25,000; Pickle lake airfield, $5,000; Red Deer river diversion project, surveys, $115,000; South Saskatchewan river project, surveys, $137,000; telephone line, Whitefish Falls to Kiilarney, $9,000; wharf extension, Manitoulin island, $23,000.; fisheries research board, research re fish oils, $12,500; Louisburg wharf, construction, $210,000; Giant Yellowknife road, Northwest Territories, $18,500; Diamond Drill exploration in bituminous deposits of northern Alberta, $50,000; Bank erosion survey, Squamish river, Vancouver, $2,000; road, Jakes Corner to Atlin, B.C., $15,000; Snare river power development, Yellowknife district, $200,000. These are the allotments. There were recoveries of $540,000. The actual expenditure of that vote' was $269,226.09.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I have some questions wiith reference to what the minister has just said. First, as I remember it, last year we were told that part of this $10 million was to be used in connection with the Red Deer river which he has just mentioned, and perhaps the Bow river. I see that $115,000 has been spent in drilling for the foundation of a dam on the Red Deer river. I hold in my hand a core of one of the drills. This drill core was taken from .the bottom of the Red Deer river. Has nothing further happened? This drill core gives pretty good evidence of a base for a dam.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Reports were filed here on both of these projects.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Nothing has gone on except this $115,000?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No real construction, no.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Has anything been done on the Bow river project?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No planning has been done. A report has been filed here within the last few days.


John Ritchie MacNicol: That is all that has been done?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


John Ritchie MacNicol: In connection with .the $5 million, has the minister any idea of a further plan for that?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is an emergency allocation.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Is any of it being used for the drilling that is now going on in the strait of Canso preparatory to building a bridge?

Supply-Reconstruction and Supply


Clarence Decatur Howe: I think the Department of Transport has a special appropriation for that.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The minister mentioned $200,000 that was spent last year out of this item. Last year the item was in connection with the Snare river project, which is a hundred miles northwest of Yellowknife, which we have either voted or will be voting, I have forgotten which.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It has been voted in mines and resources estimates.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Will part of it come out of this?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No. We have made an
initial appropriation to get the work underway, it was a sudden requirement.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Nothing for Snare river comes out of this?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The money was paid this year. The money advanced by the department has been refunded.


John Ritchie MacNicol: When the Department of Agriculture estimates were before the committee a number of hon. members, including myself, were inquiring about the programme in connection with the extension of the Bow7 river irrigation project which is very necessary. I bbserved -the other day that when the Minister of Agriculture was at Lethbr-idge addressing the inaugural meeting of the Western Canada Reclamation Association, 'to which I was invited, he announced that sums of money were to be allotted to permit -them -to go right ahead.


Clarence Decatur Howe: No, he did not say that. He announced that -the re-port had been filed in this parliament for a $20 million or $40 million programme or something of that sort. If my hon. friend will read -the repor-t which is a study of the engineers, he -will get all the information there. I know nothing about it-


John Ritchie MacNicol: Y'ou are not familiar with it?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am not.


John Ritchie MacNicol: He told the house a short time ago that part of this $5 million would be used for the Red Deer, -the Bow river and the Medicine Hat irrigation projects. Does the minister know7 if any will be used for this purpose? I am all for it.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am willing to argue the matter.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I am in agreement with these funds being voted. The minister has no information as to any programme for which the money is to be used?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No.


Harry Grenfell Archibald: At this time I should like to bring to the attention of the minister an idea that I think should come under this item. The Department of Mines and Resources is carrying on an aerial survey this year of the Groundhog coal fields at the headwaters of the Skeena. Next year the department intends to put in a ground survey crew to see what there is up in these fields. They are just 150 miles from the coast, and, as the minister knows, we are getting short of coal on the coast, I should like to see some of this money go into that survey, so that we can speed it up, which the minister can do as he has done during the war. I should like to see a concentration of effort in that field, so that we would know what we have there and can speedily develop it. I bring it to the attention of the minister possibly because it will be relevant in the immediate future.


John Ritchie MacNicol: In connection with what the hon. member for Skeena has just said, within the last two months I have tried to arrange with the folks up in that country as to whether I could get up to the Groundhog ' coal fields or not. My information is that there is no passable road. If my hon. friend would ask for the construction of a road into that area I would say that it would be money well spent.


Jean-François Pouliot: I understand that we are on item 570. The discussion has been businesslike tonight; hon. members have asked important questions, and the minister has answered them well. I want to give him a breathing spell. I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, that it is no mean job to be the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply at the present time, and the minister deserves special congratulation upon the effort that he is making in handling a most difficult job, a job that is more difficult to handle than anything else. I am surprised that I have to rise at this late hour to tell him my appreciation, which I hope is shared by many others. I do not always agree with the minister, but I am in full sympathy with him and I appreciate all the constructive criticism which comes from both sides of the house. But it seems to me that the minister is deserving of a special tribute for his efforts to improve reconstruction in this country. There are many obstacles in the way,

5720	.
Supply-Reconstruction and Supply
but I hope that he will be able to overcome them in the very near future with the support and cooperation of all.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Demobilization and reconversion-
571. Housing development, including commitments of previous years-to provide for payments of amounts owing under guarantees pursuant to item 60 of schedule A to the Appropriation Act, No. 6, 1946 (and pursuant to corresponding items in previous Appropriation Acts) to approved lending institutions in respect of loans made for the purpose of financing the conversion of existing houses into multiple family houses, such payments to be made out of unappropriated moneys in the consolidated revenue fund, $250,000.
Donald Methuen Fleming: This item is preceded 'by the general description:	"housing development, including commitments of previous years", and! then follow about half a dozen items bearing on different housing expenditures. I want to take up a remark made by the minister in the debate last Saturday morning, July 12, on his estimates, which will be found on page 5517 of Hansard, and which contains an amazing statement. The minister said:
The government takes no responsibility for solving the entire housing problem for this country. It is perfectly ridiculous to suggest that it is government responsibility. Every city has its own housing responsibility as has every province. The government is responsible for the returned men and its responsibility stops at that point.
The statement, with which I take issue, is the concluding one:	"the government is
responsible for the returned men." Yes, of course, we are all agreed on that; but the minister proceeds to say:
And its responsibility-
That is the responsibility of the government with respect to housing.
-stops at that point.
I take complete issue with that statement. In the first place, I point out that it runs counter to the legislative action taken by parliament ever since 1935. Long before there was a war; long before there was a problem of housing in connection with returned men; long before that was even thought of, parliament had taken action recognizing a federal responsibility with respect to housing conditions in Canada. That recognition was given in the clearest terms in the National Housing Act of 1944. If the position the minister now takes is a valid one, then the government of which he was a member in 1944 had no business bringing in a national housing act. On his own reasoning, they had no business bringing in that act, and I am sure that
Mr. Pouliot.]
neither he nor any other member opposite will argue in support of that position.
In the second place, the position now taken by the minister is an absolute disavowal of the promises made by this government in 1945 in the general election campaign of that year, when they sought re-election. There was not the slightest suggestion in those days about fobbing off the responsibility for housing conditions in Canada on the local or provincial authorities. The government was lavish with its promises looking toward the correcting and curing of housing conditions in Canada, which were then presenting a problem in its incipient stages, which problem has grown to great proportions since. The present Minister of Justice (Mr. Ilsley) in that campaign came to Toronto and talked freely about all the houses that would be built within the twelve months after V-E day.


James Lorimer Ilsley: And they were built.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The propaganda machine of the government was glib in talking about the 600.000 houses that would be built.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I said, that 50.000 houses would be built and they were built.


Donald Methuen Fleming: 
An hon. MEMBER:: Stick to the facts.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I was speaking about the promises the government made. The present Minister of Justice made the promise that 50.000 houses would be built in the first twelve months after Y-E day.


James Lorimer Ilsley: And it was done.


Donald Methuen Fleming: There was no talk then about the government having a limited responsibility with respect to housing conditions. The Minister of National Health and Welfare talked in glowing terms about the drive for tanks becoming the drive for houses; and there was no limitation of responsibility there, no talk about this being a local or provincial responsibility. There was glowing talk; there were glowing promises, about the construction of from 600,000 to 1,000.000 houses by the government. There was no talk then about these limitations in respect of the housing responsibility of the federal government; no talk of that responsibility being confined to the housing of veterans. It. was on these promises that the government got itself elected in 1945. If it had offered the kind of statement the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply

Supply

Reconstruction and Supply
made here last Saturday morning they would not be occupying the treasury benches here at the present time.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Xo man.talks so carelessly or inaccurately about housing as the hon. gentleman now on his feet, or so constantly.


Donald Methuen Fleming: There is another example of the way in which the Minister of Reconstruction rides roughshod over the rules of the house. He did not get up to ask a question but to make a statement which he cannot justify. He does not like to have me remind him about the promises the government made, and I say that his statement last Saturday represented a complete reversal of the promises on which this government got itself elected in 1945.


Ralph Melville Warren: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Donald Methuen Fleming: No. j'ou cannot. I am sorry. I had enough of the hon. gentleman's interruptions recently in the public accounts committee. They were so utterly senseless that I will not waste my time on similar interruptions now. Time is too precious at this juncture of the session.


Ralph Melville Warren: It is a fair question-


Donald Methuen Fleming: The government talks freely about what it claims to have accomplished, but about ninety per cent of it has been accomplished by private enterprise. The government takes full credit for it; but there is no suggestion, when my hon. friends are making these glowing claims in regard to performance, about the responsibility being divided or the credit being divided with the provincial and local governments. W7hen it comes to claiming, credit the federal government claims the full credit. If they claim the credit, they will have to take the responsibility that goes with it.
Not only that, but there is a fourth factor in the situation and it is this. This government, hanging on to power it grasped under the national emergency legislation, is the one government that has been possessed of all the powers that were necessary to enable it to cope with the housing crisis in Canada.


Ralph Melville Warren: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Can you keep the hon. gentleman quiet, Mr. Chairman? If he cannot possess his soul in patience, deal with him as he ought to be dealt with.


An hon. MEMBER:: Don't be so offensive.


Donald Methuen Fleming: To continue, Mr. Chairman-


Humphrey Mitchell: If wind could build houses you would build lots of them.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I did not hear the hon. member.


Humphrey Mitchell: If wind could build houses j'ou would build lots of them.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Anyone can make remarks of that kind, and I do not know anyone who has befuddled the question of the government's relationship to federal responsibility more than the Minister-of Labour. I well remember when his department possessed all the powers that any department of labour could possess or could ask for, he was trying to excuse the failure of this government to take action and get down to brass tacks in the Ford Windsor strike a j'ear and a half ago, bj' saying, "It is not our responsibility; it is the responsibility of the provinces." When this government had taken all powers from the provinces under the guise of national emergency, that was the excuse of the minister. We will not waste more time on the Minister of Labour.
On these four grounds, Mr. Chairman, I submit to you that what the Minister of Reconstruction is saj'ing does not fit the facts, but is a complete reversal of government promises, and the position he is now taking represents a callous turning of the government's back on the responsibility which is property that of the federal administration.
When we come to individual items I shall have more questions to ask. I want to ask some questions particularly about the item with regard to Wartime Housing Limited, but the minister has taken his departure.


Mr. McILRAITH:: No, he has not. Don't
put that on Hansard.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Out of all this welter of promises, in view of the confusion that exists in its various schemes, I say that it is time the government got down to brass tacks and told the committee exactly what the situation is. The last time we had a debate on housing I asked the minister to state what the immediate housing emergencj- shortage is in Canada to date. On July 22 of last year he made a statement in which he admitted-it was an amazing confession-that, in spite of the glowingly optimistic assertions he had made only a few months before, the emergency shortage of housing units on March 31, 1946, was
150.000,	and that even if Canada built 60,000 houses in the fiscal year ending March 31, 1947, the shortage would rise to 180,000, increasing by twenty per cent, by March 31, 1947.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Where did you get that?



Supply-Reconstruction and Supply


Donald Methuen Fleming: It is in Hansard.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Can you quote it?


Donald Methuen Fleming: The statement was made on July 22. The minister said that the immediate emergency shortage-not thinking in terms of eliminating substandard houses, but the immediate emergency shortage of houses in Canada on March 31, 1946-was 150,000 housing units, and even if Canada built 60,000 in the next ensuing fiscal year that shortage would have increased by March 31, 1947 to
180,000.	The committee is looking for information. Will the minister give a report on what that emergency shortage is today, measured in the same terms?


An hon. MEMBER:: You left out individual enterprise.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I now want to deal with one other question while I am speaking about this welter of confusion. It is not very many months ago that we had to complain about the direction of housing affairs in this government being distributed among three ministers. There was a sort of three-ring circus going on, the different ministers competing with one another. The government then made a show of concentrating responsibility in one minister. But it appears that recently, through the agency of Canadian Commercial Corporation, another government department has undertaken a housing or conversion programme involving, as the Minister of National Defence told us, hundreds of units. I think the committee would like to know if there is some attempt at coordination between that programme and the various programmes which the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply is supposed to be directing. I shall have something further to ask on the individual items.


Mr. TIMMINS:: 
An hon. MEMBER:: Carried.


Harold Aberdeen Watson Timmins: No, it is not carried. This is a more serious matter than my hon. friend apparently thinks. This is a matter that really goes to the root of the promises which have been made by this government to the veterans. I am saying to the minister that we have not had a veterans housing plan in Canada, and in my small way I am trying to do what I can to give the government a little impetus in this direction.


Ralph Melville Warren: Who built the 3,000 houses?


Harold Aberdeen Watson Timmins: I am not talking about 3,000 houses; I am talking about 200,000 houses for veterans. I say there are 200,000 veterans in Canada who have never had a decent place to live since coming back from overseas. They are living in somebody's attic; or I have seen four of them living in one

Supply-Reconstruction and Supply
room, sleeping in the kitchen at that. I am suggesting that it is about time something was done in this matter.
4.	As far as these houses are concerned, it is my opinion that they should be built by private enterprise; in other words, by private builders. It seems an odd thing that in a city like Toronto there should be only from nine to twelve builders working under the integrated housing plan when, as a matter of fact, there are some 450 builders in that city who could be doing this work if they were given the job and shown how to get on with it. The fact of the matter is that private builders are having such a difficult time, by reason of lack of materials and the competition in obtaining material, with commercial construction, that they cannot go into the integrated plan, nor can they go into any plan for the benefit of the veterans because of the obstacles placed in their wray.
5.	I am suggesting an absolute building material priority should be given to the veteran who, through his contractor, is building himself a home in one of these developments.
6.	And with respect to these houses, let us not build just 1,000 or 2.000; let us build
200,000.	Let us put them up by mass production, because I am perfectly satisfied that the veteran w'ould rather have a house meeting his minimum requirements, in which to get himself settled, leaving to the future and to his own devices such matters as the finishing of the attic or the construction of an addition. I have seen a good many first-class low-cost, houses in which the attics were left unfinished, where the cost was thereby cut down. I believe that, in the interests of the veteran, a plan should be commenced under which his minimum requirements would be looked after first, leaving these other things to follow.
7.	Now, how are we to get the private builder to build under a plan which combines all these various factors? Dollars and cents do not mean very much to him, because, as a matter of fact, the profit on a low-cost house is small, but the difficulties in the way of building are so great that he is stopped almost before he starts. If it is possible to give to the manufacturer of nails or the manufacturer of soil pipe an incentive bonus to bring about greater production, so in the same way it should be possible to give some incentive bonus to the builder, so that he may build under this plan and so that it may be made attractive for him.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Chairman, it is practically eleven o'clock and there is a message

from the senate to be read, so I wonder if we could report progress.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The minister asked me to give the committee the source of his remarks to which I referred a moment ago. I refer hon. members to Hansard for July 22, 1946, at page 3672. At that time the minister said:
As at March, 1946, our minimum immediate housing needs were estimated at 150,000 housing units.
Then he went on to talk about the family formation rate, and so on, and then had this [DOT]
to say:
From these new requirements over the next year, we can subtract some 50,000-60,000 units completed during the year ending March, 1947.
I believe that these figures and estimates, though approximate, are valid and that we can anticipate by spring, 1947, an immediate housing deficit of some 180,000 units, or a worsening of the situation by some twenty per cent.
If the minister would keep track of what, he says he would not have so many contradictions in the statements he makes.


William Henry Golding: Shall this item carry?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.
. Item stands.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Wednesday, July 16, 1947