Mr. Sinclair:

He is wrong as usual.

Mr. Boucher:

I may say that the name of Lake Centre is not eliminated from the map.

Mr. Diefenbaker:

No, not the name.

Mr. Speaker:

Order. The report cannot be discussed until it is before the house.

Mr. Fleming:

May I respectfully suggest that if it was agreed that the report should be tabled, in order that this debate might proceed intelligently we should have one of the ministers move that we revert to motions and have it tabled now?

Mr. Harris (Grey-Bruce):

May I speak to the point of order? There was no such agreement; the very opposite was true. It was not intended that we should debate the boundaries at this particular time.

Mr. Drew:

Mr. Speaker-

Mr. Speaker:

Order. I cannot permit a debate as to what took place in a committee of the house. I think the house appreciates my position.

Mr. Drew:

A consideration has arisen which I do not think should be overlooked. There is already a report tabled. If it is correct that it was agreed last night that the report of the committee should be tabled before this debate took place, then I think we should have an explanation from the minister as to why that has not been done. I think also, Mr. Speaker, there are obvious reasons why it should be done, if that was the understanding of the committee.

Mr. Abbott:

But it was not.

Mr. Harris (Grey-Bruce):

Again on a point of order, I hope there is no misunderstanding about anything which happened in the committee. We had one already this week and we do not want another. Last night I stated that if the work of the clerk would permit it, we would table a report of the remainder of the constituencies. Up until the time I came into the house that was not available.

Redistribution

There is no desire whatever either to delay this debate or to deny hon. members any opportunity to debate the matter. But I made it abundantly clear in the committee that it was not the intention, as far as I was concerned, and others, that we should at this stage debate boundaries. That debate will take place when the bill comes back to the house with the schedules attached to it, which can only happen when this bill receives second reading.

Mr. Fleming:

On a point of order, the minister's present statement is I think a little different from the one he made two or three minutes ago when he said that there was agreement last night; there was no agreement with respect to the debate today being confined to principle and not including the question of boundaries.

Mr. Harris (Grey-Bruce):

No, I did not say

that.

Mr. Fleming:

I wish to make it abundantly clear that there was no agreement as to confining this debate.

As to the tabling of the report, there was not any specific agreement on that. The minister is quite right in saying that was a statement. The announcement made by the minister last night as chairman of the committee before the committee rose was that there should be a report made to the house. He thought-I think I am quoting his words correctly-that that report could be tabled at eleven o'clock last night or the first thing this morning. That being the background so far as the committee is concerned, Mr. Speaker, and thinking of the desirability of our having the whole information before us so that we have one intelligent debate on this whole subject and not two, I urge, sir, that the report be tabled at the earliest possible moment. I should think it must be available by now. The house, I am sure, would gladly give consent to our reverting to motions in order that that report could now be tabled and the debate proceed in a comprehensive and intelligent manner.

Mr. Speaker:

As to what took place in committee I can only repeat that I can make no ruling. I was not in the committee. The report of the committee is not before the house. May I add, however, that even if the report were before the house it would not be in order on second reading of the bill to discuss the details. It would not be in order at this time to discuss the clauses. Schedules are considered to be clauses. The only question that is debatable now is the principle of the bill. I am sorry to haye interrupted the leader of the opposition so long. I hope we have clarified the point.

Mr. Drew:

That is the very point. The principle of this bill must of necessity be related to the manner in which it is intended to carry out redistribution, and I would suggest-

Mr. Speaker:

I think that is right.

Mr. Drew:

I would suggest that while it would certainly not be appropriate to enter into discussion of the exact boundaries of any constituency, it is appropriate to refer to the manner in which the procedure has been followed in order to present an argument as to why it is not a satisfactory procedure.

I go further, Mr. Speaker, and point out that we are asked to give second reading to a bill which refers to a schedule. Section 4 refers to the schedule; section 5 refers to the schedule; section 6 refers to the schedule; and section 7 refers to the schedule. The schedule is part of the bill. Without the schedule-unless there is unanimous consent by the house to proceed without it, as is sometimes done-I submit, Mr. Speaker, that we cannot comprehensively deal with the subject, because the schedule will determine the procedure of which we are being asked to approve.

I would think that in the circumstances, Mr. Speaker, it would be appropriate if I moved the adjournment of this debate for the purpose of giving an opportunity to the minister to present the schedule so that we can debate this subject properly.

Mr. Speaker:

I think I should probably point out that my recollection of the procedure is, if the hon. member moved the adjournment of the debate at this time and the motion did not carry, he could not continue with his argument. In view of that, the leader of the opposition might like to reconsider his suggestion. There is no motion for adjournment before the house at the present as there can not be a motion without a seconder.

Mr. Drew:

Redistribution

war of ideas, let us do what we can to maintain confidence in that system, by everything we do.

It is with that thought in mind, and with the idea that this is an amendment which would produce a result that could be carried into effect during the life of the present parliament, and that therefore there would be no delay in carrying out our duty within the life of this session of parliament, that I move, seconded by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker):

That the said bill be not now read the second time but that it be resolved that in the opinion of this house consideration should be given to the enactment of a measure to provide for the appointment of a commission to effect the redistribution of electoral ridings in accordance with the census of 1951 and pursuant to the provisions of the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1952 inclusive; such commission to be instructed to make its report to this session of parliament upon the resumption of its sitting.